Good vid, Don’t like the idea of blackbox reporting back to its Cirrus base and think that idea will be dropped fast with a big off switch front and center for private owners. It might work for flight training schools and the like but for an owner shelling out a million dollars on an airplane just to have it tell you your a lousy pilot…it ain’t going to happen.
Agreed - Phil
OH NO! Don’t anyone tell Icon about this system …
What a beautiful airplane … despite the fact that it’s a “Rat!”
There ought to be an ‘on’ or ‘off’ switch for IQ. I’d bet that if the data is in the cloud, it could be callable by the FAA. I doubt if it can by anonymous … how else would they know Larry Anglisano ain’t flying so good these days … by “N” number. And if you file a plan … the PIC would be ID’ed.
Poor Cliff wasn’t well briefed by the Cirrus MarCom people. Instead of saying “The airplane will rat you out”, he should’ve said “When its time for re-currency training, you and your CSIP/Pilot Mentor will review your flying performance together and identify areas to work on”.
Oh well, by Oshkosh the messaging will be more ‘on point’.
1 reply
It is not.
Sure it could. However, I think it would more likely be of interest to the NTSB in the event of an accident. I find it interesting that people are more open to private companies being big brother more so than their own government. It makes sense that Cirrus would release this now as they are the top seller with very little competition in their category. I would be surprised if there is a method to pull the plug . Like it or not this is the direction big data is taking us and there may not be a case to ask the FAA to mandate it be an option for privacy protection. It would be difficult to make a case that would over rule the potential safety advantages. It will turn off several would be buyers like it did for Icon but Cirrus already has a customer base and this bold move doesn’t appear they are concerned about it.
I appreciate the honesty. Call it what it is instead of insulting our intelligence. That may make it just a tad less bitter.
I think if you can choose to turn it off, that should make most folks happy. At the airlines, we have this sort of reporting to the company when we fly out of parameters (pilot, AC, or weather induced), so I guess we are numb to it. I will say, as a tool to help you and your CFI recognize any weaknesses in GA flying is a safety plus. Pilot egos can be very sensitive (oh yes Captain, there must have been a gusty quartering tailwind) and folks may not admit they have an issue, but the simple fact is unused skills deteriorate over time, and aging doesn’t help. Safety plus in my book, just give folks the option to turn off.
Has anyone at FAA or among the alphabet groups identified any specific deficiencies in the STC package submitted by GAMI? If not, why is FAA withholding approval of GAMI’s STC and why are the alphabets supporting FAA in further delaying that approval through the EAGLE process? These are obvious questions; can none of the assembled experts address them? If not, it would appear GAMI’s STC should be approved without further delay.
1 reply
Why do we never hear that this is an issue in Europe? Maybe because they are well on the way to a Mogas / Diesel solution? What happens when Austria’s Rotax brings its larger Mogas-burning engines into production? I have the sense that the Alphabets are “leading from behind”, to quote a former president who was no friend of GA.
It is telling that George Braly was not allowed to comment. It also seems a bit odd that the article was not written by Paul Bertorelli, who has followed this debacle for years. So, the FAA gets extended funding to “study” the proposed solution. It is my hope that the various “alphabets” have elicited some consideration for GA in return for their continued support of the FAA’s intransigence. Of course, it is possible that diesel-electric hybrid or fully electric power-plants will be available by 2030.
2 replies
Clarify:
There is an FAA approved Flight Manual Supplement.
So IF you can find supply and you license use of STC from GAMI you can fly using G100LL on those airplanes and engines.
There is a long AML of engines, including Twin Wasp roundies used on aircraft like DC-6B, on GAMI’s web site, stamped as digitally approved by FAA though the browser tab says ‘draft’.
AvFuel lists G100UL on its web site, with an FAQ, search function awkward to find where you could purchase it.
So what is the legal holdup to widespread use?
2 replies
I noticed that their goal is not to streamline processes or reduce prices.
I would expect that from a 100 member government/industry collaboration.
Unfortunately AvFuel is not very bright about helping people find G100UL.
They could work for FAA. :-o)
Not the first time I’ve seen a company unable to sell a new product, that’s why businesses fail.
The FAA and over 100 member alphabet groups team up against GAMI’s G100UL. Wow…, if G100UL is so bad at least one of these elite experts should be able to inform the public of why❓
If G100UL is not working in the high horsepower turbocharged engines let the operators of these engines decide. 100LL will still be around until 2030, right❓
1 reply
Does anyone really believe that a 100 person committee will be able to agree on anything? Pure nonsense!
Each individual should be free to decide for themself.
GAMI has done extensive testing on detonation, especially compared to 100LL.
GAMI’s long AML for engines includes the R-2800 engine used on many military airplanes and the DC-6B airliner. (It came in many power levels and design vintages.)
I understand that some people derate the engine to use lower octane fuel (with 100/130 hard to find and 130/145 perhaps near impossible).
Wikipedia quotes Lycoming as saying that special oil is needed with unleaded avgas, via an additive or some brands of oil, to properly lubricate the valve train.
Wikipedia notes other potential UL avgas offerings including Swift’s, but is mostly out of date on them. It refers to a new ASTM specification for unleaded Avgas (ASTM D7719).
Swift abandoned the STC path and went with the PAFI program, though its website is confusing. It has STC licenses on sale for $100 pr airfram-engine combination. But web stie is confusing between UL94 and 100UL.
You got that backwards. Swift was in the original PAFI and bailed on it in favor of what appears to be an STC application. They haven’t stated that plainly. Their UL94 is a ASTM D7719 spec fuel. The spec covers high aromatic fuels broadly. You still need STCs to use it, or blanket approval from the engine manufacturer.
They tied me up in a PortaPotty and gagged me. Wouldn’t allow me in the meeting. (:
Just kidding. I was able to attend AirVenture this year.
sb wasn’t able to attend
The hurdle is that fuel distributors don’t want to sell a third fuel. Without the blanket STC, only a few customers will use it. Most airports only have facilities to dispense Jet A and Avgas. Adding temporary support for a third fuel is considered too expensive. If the entire piston fleet can switch at once, then 100LL can be easily replaced.
1 reply
None of the reporting that I’ve read on the subject has detailed any issues with GAMI’s G100UL.
Distribution is not FAA’s problem; only safety is within FAA’s wheelhouse. FAA should immediately approve GAMI’s STC package or specify the safety reason for continuing to withhold approval. The market will determine distribution.
The problem I see with the STC route is gaining the on airport infrastructure to support the sale of a new fuel. FBOs will not invest in the infrastructure until there is a crystal clear path and even then they may resist spending the money (ie. wait on a path to apply for a government grant that currently doesn’t exist). Because of this I think an STC for an alternative fuel is a bridge to no-where.
I wish I had been at AirVenture to attend this forum. I am hoping there was a video recording capturing it. Does anyone have a link to view it after the fact?
1 reply
To clarify; the “questions, not comments” rule was for everyone, not singling out Braly. That stipulation was what he cited when I asked him later on why he did not take the microphone during the Q&A.
And FYI, I was sure to have Paul review the copy before it was posted, for exactly the reason you mentioned - “Paul Bertorelli, who has followed this debacle for years.”
There are videos of this out there. Referenced on some popular aviation forums.
Still not hearing WHY E0 mogas, whatever octane, cannot work. It only took auto industry a couple years to get rid of lead. It’s taken, so far, over 40 YEARS, and the FAA still has nothing but hype and hyperbole.