Continue Discussion - visit the forum 29 replies
December 2024

JimH_in_CA

So if the CEH prevails, and G100UL is the only fuel available, do I still need the STC from GAMI ?
Maybe I’ll have to fly to Nevada to get 100LL…!!

1 reply
December 2024

Tom_Waarne

My, my. It’s deja vu all over again.

December 2024

MrMilkshake

Not sure if this is good, or, bad. My sense tells me it’s good. Sometimes people have to be pushed into the pool. As California goes, so goes the nation. I’m starting to get a little bit excited now. This action may have been what has been needed for decades.

December 2024

MWSletten

Yet another example of misuse of courts to settle an issue best left to those who understand it. I get that some wish to force this issue, but this method serves to harm, not redress. Instead of eliminating fuel availability to owner’s whose aircraft don’t fit into the “nearly all” category, CEH should be suing the FAA and ASTC.

1 reply
December 2024

Chris_D_Acosta

This is a contractual dispute largely motivated by Kizzy Charles-Guzman, the CEO of CEH. The facts of the case will be argued in a judicial forum in the weeks / months ahead. However, any final legal resolution to this contractual dispute cannot violate federal law, including the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. It is my understanding that the vast majority of airfields in California are part of NPIAS and currently receive grant assurances and therefore cannot be compelled to violate federal law.

Be advised that Swift Fuels has been actively providing unleaded avgas in California for over 9 years, and we expect to greatly expand our work to more airfields in the months ahead as we work collaboratively with engine / airframe OEM’s, ASTM International, and the major fuel suppliers – including several defendants in this case. Our unleaded fuel customers include many pilots at KRHV and E16. As I previously advised Kizzy, I believe the CEH legal tactics in this case are pointless, untimely, and highly unproductive, particularly if they interfere with my firm’s existing commercial relationships in this market.

Chris D’Acosta
CEO – Swift Fuels, LLC

1 reply
December 2024

pilotmww

If the FAA would do their job, this legal action would be overruled by federal action.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ MWSletten

bbgun06

CEH is asking the court to do two things:

  1. require the sale of G100UL, and
  2. Restrict the sale of 100LL.
    If the court decides to do the first but not the second, then both fuels can be available to whoever needs them.
1 reply
December 2024

Arthur_Foyt

I wish the environmental groups in CA would spend their energies on human waste in the streets, waste runoff from “homeless” camps, and loss of water and food production due to “renewable” fuel production. You know, the real things that are reducing the lifespan of people and messing with the environment.

December 2024

RobertGary1

Just get it over with and replace 100LL. We already have to post noticed that neighborhoods are exposed to lead etc. it’s harming the reputation of GA. Until 100LL is banned fbo’s wont carry it as they can’t carry different blends. The time to fight for 100LL is long gone. It’s a losing position there is 0% chance it will be legal in 10 years in the United States.

2 replies
December 2024 ▶ pilotmww

Ehsif727

If the FAA was really doing their job lead would already be gone from Avgas and all this court stuff wouldn’t be happening.

December 2024

Cornice

While I’ll all for moving to unleaded this is not the way to do it. Letting a small group of emotional ecoTerrorists dictate operation of dangerous machines simply to “make themselves feel better” is unacceptable. Give them safety blankets and let them hide under their beds.

December 2024 ▶ RobertGary1

Arthur_Foyt

No, neighborhoods are using “bad science” and correlations to get rid of airports that they already do not like.

Look up lead exposure on the EPA site and there is zero mention of aircraft as a hazard: Your kids get lead from paint, water pipes, lipstick, or toys and jewelry made in other countries. Zero mention of living near airports.

December 2024

Sfcrusscanter

I’m just curious to how many aircraft is owned and operated by CEH. Does any of its members fly in the general aviation arena, or do they fly commercial (jet fuel) when they travel long distances? Just asking, to see if they actually have a dog in this fight or just like to interfere with general aviation for the sake of lawsuits and possible financial advantages.

December 2024

BoydBirchler

The real reason this quest for unleaded fuel is going on is the NIMBY’s thought it would be a way to close airports. Now it seems that didn’t work out for them. In the mean time GA owners are forced to spend several dollars per gallon more for fuel, in order to satisfy an environmental edit that will have a negligible effect on the environment.

From Russ:
So far, the price of G100UL has been in the same range as 100LL and about 50 cents a gallon more expensive where both are available.

December 2024

art

G100UL is not commercially available as the plaintff argues. It has not been approved for my airplane under its TC. I cannot legally purchase and use this in my aircraft under its TC. To use it I must purchase a license to use it, making this a private club purchase, similar to the old alcohol rules in Utah. Can’t buy a drink unless you join the private club.

To purchase this, the manufacturer sells a supplement to my TC to allow me to join its club to purchase its product. This is not commercial availability, but private, restricted availability. I can use Swift Fuel without an STC and mogas because I bought an STC decades ago which allows me to buy and use any mogas meeting the specification, not restricted to a specific factory or process. Mogas and SwiftFuel are commercially available.

From Russ:
Are you sure your mogas STC covers Swift?

1 reply
December 2024

Robert_Ore

“ The court will also be asked to require the four major fuel distributors serving California airports to carry G100UL.”

While we’re at it, can we also require the distributors to carry Moon Pies and RC Cola?

1 reply
December 2024

StephenLeonard

It is long past time for the country to stop being bullied by California and simply stop doing business there. Yes, they are 15% of the population, but the other 85% of us shouldn’t put up with this insanity. If car makers stopped selling cars there, if every pilot who could do so flew to Nevada or Arizona for fuel, we could impose “crippling sanctions” on this rogue state. They could chose between continuing to deteriorate or throwing the lunatics out of their government and rejoining the rest of the country. Enough!

December 2024 ▶ Robert_Ore

rpstrong

Only if used in low octane engines.

December 2024

scott.dyer

Because of a fair bit of mis-information being asserted around the CEH motion, a few key points must be borne in mind as the arguments of GAMI’s competitors and others are considered. 1) Neither the State nor the Federal government is seeking to ban 100LL in California. This is an action by a party to litigation that was resolved in 2014 on certain contractual terms embodied in a Consent Decree that was approved by the court. Specifically, a number of Avgas distributors who were parties to that case agreed to settle the litigation with a promise that they would sell Avgas with lower concentrations of lead than are in 100LL (0.56g/liter) if and when such fuels become commercially available. These distributors who settled the earlier case were not required to make this deal, they did it because it seemed to be in their interests to resolve the litigation.

As it turns out, G100UL, FAA-approved for all aircraft piston engines 2 years ago, has zero lead content. According to CEH in what I read as pretty clear logic, G100UL is now commercially available in California as it is approved for all piston airplane engines by the FAA, the manufacturer states that it can make enough to supply the demand and it is otherwise being offered for sale at prices and on terms sufficient to meet the needs of aircraft operators . And G100UL is fungible with 100LL in all quantities. UL94 can’t meet the “commercially available” definition in the Consent Decree because it isn’t fungible with 100LL in all proportions and, most specifically, UL94 can’t be used by the piston aircraft engines that burn the lion’s share of 100LL.

This is simply a motion by CEH to enforce that court-approved promise, a private entity asking the court to require other private entities who thought the settlement from 2014 was in their best interests to do what they promised.

  1. The arguments against finding that G100UL is commercially available (which is a defined term with specific meaning in the Consent Decree) are weak. Nothing in the Consent Decree relieves the settling Distributors from making a lower-lead content fuel that is otherwise commercially available because either the State or Federal Government has enacted legislation allowing for the continued sale of 100LL for some future period of time. Those laws in fact do allow for the continued sale of 100LL in that period, even if unleaded “commercially available” avgas is also sold. As the CEH motion succinctly states, “The fact that sellers and distributors who did not sign the Consent Judgment and expressly agree to sell Avgas with the lowest lead concentration approved and available for use have additional time to begin distributing and selling unleaded Avgas does not undo Settling Defendants’ obligations under the Consent Judgment. Settling Defendants negotiated a Consent Judgment that was entered by this Court that requires them to sell unleaded Avgas as soon as it is approved and available.” The fact that G100UL doesn’t have an ATSM approval is likewise of no merit, as ATSM industry consensus is merely one way to gain approval for use of an aviation fuel (and have that fuel be “commercially available”). The FAA has determined through other means that G100UL is approved as an aviation fuel for piston airplane engines, and that is enough to meet this prong of the commercial availability standard.

Consider carefully the arguments being made, and the parade of horribles being asserted. The distributors of aviation fuels who signed and agreed to be bound by the 2014 Consent Decree will be judged according to the promises they made in that document, and nothing more.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ Chris_D_Acosta

scarlson

This, to me, is the interesting part of this debate, California vs US. I hope it plays out in a way that provides for competition and fuel at a reasonable price. It is a dead end road to advocate for the inclusion of lead in any product, and its advocacy might embolden the increasing criticism of GA/local airports. It turns out that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart probably died of lead poisoning, which was used as a sweetener in the wine he consumed.

December 2024 ▶ JimH_in_CA

rblevy

Yes, you do. The court can do something that makes G100UL the only choice in California, but it cannot overrule the Federal law that makes the FAA supreme in aircraft certification regulation.

December 2024 ▶ bbgun06

rblevy

Both fuels available? If they MUST sell unleaded, but are only “allowed” to sell 100LL in addition, and they only have one fuel avgas storage tank/pump, who’s going to give the FBO’s the money to build the second fuel farm?

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ RobertGary1

rblevy

Amen, Brother Robert. I’m bloody tired of picking lead balls out of my spark plugs and seeing it on the faces of my pistons during borescope examinations.

December 2024 ▶ rblevy

Arthur_Foyt

We DID HAVE multi-grade fuel available at airports till 100LL. 100LL was responsible for REMOVING those existing other pumps and other tanks because it was sold as a “single” solution. Blame those who pushed 100LL for your maintenance issues and lack of more fueling tanks today.

And here we are today once again pushing a “single solution” mantra. Just stop it. That’s what put us in this bind today, Don’t do the same darn thing.

December 2024 ▶ scott.dyer

dbier

Will CEH be willing to be held liable for any damage and injuries related to forcing California airports to make this move? If not then they need to back off or will deserve the resulting future liability.

December 2024

mjkobb

So, you can use Swift Fuel without an STC… because you bought an STC?

I’d be interested to know if Swift has stated that UL94 meets the spec for mogas. I couldn’t find that anywhere on their website, but their FAQ is difficult to search.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ mjkobb

art

The mogas STC is not necessary. Swift has done better, stating they meet 80, 80/87, and 91 Octane avgas specs, something which I was unaware until I researched the answer to your question. Swift states that their fuel meets the original type certificate requirements of 80 octane airplanes.

See https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/stc/ready-to-fly

Swift has a box on an earlier page which asks “Can my airplane run…” Click on that, and enter your mfr/model. The page will return the airframe/engine combination in my case C182M with O470R TCDS 3A13 and returns the page above.

According to Swift I do not need an STC because my engine is an 80 Octane engine. Swift says this on their website:

" * UL94 Unleaded Avgas complies with the requirements for Grade 80 unleaded avgas (as originally specified in ASTM D910). Grade 80 was last approved as an unleaded grade of avgas in 1995, per D910-95A."

and

" * UL94 Unleaded Avgas meets or exceeds the FAA’s type-certificated fuel requirements of both this engine and airframe. The TCDS fuel requirement for both engine and airframe states one of the following: Grade UL91, Grade 80, Grade 80/87, or a minimum octane requirement of 80 or lower."

So, Swift has stated that their fuel meets the Spec for 80 Octane D910.

Because 80 (the red juice) was approved and meets an ASTM spec and was nearly lead free, I used it for many years until it went away.

Because of the mess 100LL made of the bottom plugs and the engine, after about 70 hours or so running 100LL, I bought the Peterson STC for mogas and began running unleaded (or even leaded) mogas. The engine has run nearly exclusively on lead free mogas through two major overhauls without a whimper (4400 hours, first major at 2720 due to cam wear, the second due now and it continues to be a strong engine without compression, borescope or wear metal issues). I’m planning on continuing to run it until a need arises to pull a cylinder or something else suggests we need to open it up.

Swift Fuel does not require a mogas STC for use of its 94UL variant so even the mogas STC is not needed for their fuel in 80 Octane engines.

I suspect that both Lycoming and Continental stopped making 80 Octane engines in their O470 and O300/320/360 engines when 80 went away or there’d be a lot more 80 Octane powered aircraft today capable of using mogas or Swiftfuel. The only wish I have as I fly a fair amount in the middle altitudes, is a turbocharged engine that can use the unleaded fuels.

I note that Swift is offering a one shot “lifetime STC” for their fuels and any future fuels they use. I’m of two minds on this feature because I don’t think I need it for now, but I wonder if I will need it for their future offerings. Right now, I burn both mogas and Swift when there is a choice. 100LL if I have to. I think I talked to a SwiftFuel guy at OSH a few years back who told me that their 94 is simply 100 base stock without added lead, but my memory is hazy on this.

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ art

mjkobb

So, the fuel meets the required characteristics of the fuels that were originally approved for the engine. But since it is not one of those approved fuels, you still need an STC to actually use the fuel in your plane. This is exactly the situation with G100UL, is it not?

Swift’s FAQ is, as previously noted, hard to read since you have to click to open the individual sections and so on, but they do say that they “insist” on using a form 337 for their “STC approved fuel”.

1 reply
December 2024

SiliconValleyPilot

As Art noted, an STC is not required for all aircraft to utilize UL94. If it says ‘Ready to Fly’ on a specific aircraft, then you are ok without an STC. I will admit that the website is sort of confusing to understand, but if the query comes back with a specific link to purchase, then an STC is needed. They also have the forever STC there to allow people to be early adopters for 100R (or any other Swift fuels) if the fuel if FAA certification via the PAFI process is not yet achieved.

The situation with GAMI is that they chose not to go through the PAFI process and chose the STC route. There is a plethora of info here explaining fuel certification: https://www.faa.gov/unleaded

From the FAA site:

"FAA has two pathways available to obtain FAA authorization for the use of a new unleaded fuel.

An interesting thread on a Mooney forum has several users reporting paint stripping with G100UL usage, which has been a materials compatibility concern of many. Reportedly, several previous PAFI fuel candidates that have been withdrawn acted as paint removers.