January 28
It boils down to who is better equipped to assess the safety of G100UL - GAMI and the FAA or EAGLE. As far as I know, PAFI and EAGLE haven’t tested G100UL, nor has Lycoming or Continental. GAMI didn’t have G100UL go through the ASTM testing process because they were worried about giving away patent information and it would have taken too long. However, they did a ton of testing it themselves and the FAA monitored it. AOPA and Savvy Analysis have also tested it extensively independent of GAMI. There is no law that requires ASTM testing. Hopefully, the court will recognize the amount of testing that has been done on G100UL and dismiss the slings and arrows of those who sit on the sidelines. I hope to start burning it in my Lycoming O-360 when it becomes available in my area.
1 reply
January 28
I could be misremembering, but I thought both Lycoming and Continental were offered to test the fuel at GAMI’s facility (well-known to be state-of-the-art), but declined to do so. I know PAFI/EAGLE hasn’t tested it because G100UL isn’t a participating fuel (mainly because, as I recall, PAFI/EAGLE would have made GAMI redo all of the tests they already did for the STC authorization).
January 28
On the one hand, I want to see more FBOs selling G100UL, particularly the ones in the northeast where I fly so I can start using it. But on the other, I think there is a case to be made by FBOs that while G100UL is “commercially available”, only aircraft with the STC can actually legally use it, so it’s not universally usable. Plus, helicopter STC approval still isn’t available, so not all aircraft can yet purchase the STC.
January 28
As we all know these “environmental groups” are just fronts for land developers. They will eventually win these court cases and force these airports to sell G100UL. What will happen next is that the only people who will buy the GAMI STCs and use the fuel will be aircraft based at the field. Transient traffic at those airports will fall off a cliff because the transient traffic won’t bother to get the STC when they can go to another airport that sells 100LL.
If that isn’t enough to put a small GA airport into the red, losing federal grant money will. Even if the FAA doesn’t cut the grants entirely because the airports are no longer selling 100LL, the grants are based on the number of takeoffs and landings at the airport, which will decrease with the loss of transient traffic. Eventually these airports will be forced to close and the “environmental groups”/land developers will move on to other airports to “save the environment”/make more money.
And while these groups are systematically shutting down small airports all across the country, we’ll see George Braly’s smug face at every Sun 'n Fun and Airventure proudly proclaiming that his “drop in” fuel is ready for sale. And the AOPA and EAA will pat him on the back the entire time for all the good work that he’s doing.
January 28
Would the engines notice if the lead in 100LL was reduced to 0.55 percent??? That should achieve what the developers, ops, I mean ceh was demanding.
January 28
While GAMI may have extensively tested the fuel, it certainly has not been tested widely in the market. In fact, about two weeks ago reports of G100UL damaging paint on airplanes are KRHV were all over this site and others. Additionally, I don’t think many high compression engines have been tested with this fuel. Just because it is available does not yet mean it is 100% ready for wide deployment. A good approach would be to slowly deploy it and see what happens. I would prefer to allow others to be guinea pigs and try out the new fuel before I rush to put it in my airplane. If that was all that was available on my airport, then my free choice would be to fly somewhere else until more is known. The idea that for patent reasons they didn’t want to allow testing anywhere else makes no sense. I only need a microscopic sample to put it into a mass spectrometer to see what exactly is in the fuel. There are no REAL secrets. There are lots of things that appear to work perfectly in the laboratory, but once released to the masses things start to show up. Think about how many perfect products get recalled or how many ADs are out there for well tested products. Why is this any different? It is unlikely airplanes are going to immediately fall out of the sky, but imagine if you need to overhaul your engine. It might cost you $50K and with the backlog your plane could be down for 6+ months. It seems prudent to roll this out more systematically before applying a forcing function.
January 29
Does George Braly have enough liability insurance to replace engines that become damaged through the use of his fuel? Or does he just hang out the Gone Fishin’ sign and leave owners holding the bag?
1 reply
January 29
One could ask that question for all sorts of STCs. But we all know that as soon as someone has any sort of engine issue–even carb icing–they will attempt to blame the fuel even if it isn’t remotely causal.
The real question is, will anyone who has engine issues post-G100UL have the engine analyzer and oil analysis data to back up their claim that the only change was the fuel and nothing else. Otherwise, it’s just speculation.
1 reply
January 29
▶ gmbfly98
Did courts demand that when Chevron was forced to pay for Factory Remans many years ago?
