Tom_Waarne
Looks like a bad case of CYA.
Looks like a bad case of CYA.
Sounds more like a case of spreading FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt).
I always do my own fueling, because of possible errors by employees.
BUT; this bit of nonsense is just nonsense!
The GAMI is undoubtedly a superior fuel, who would want to mix it with 100"LL"?
However, it is compatible with 100LL.
So; no hazard is present in the case of mixing. (except less life for your engine)
Misfueling seems like an inconsequential risk, since the STC covers all engines in the fleet.
Well, it is good in general to caution flyers about putting wrong type of fuel into aircraft, BUT…
What is the other fuel being dispensed at that airport?
Putting kerosene into a piston-engined airplane may be fatal. (Aviation kerosene - JetA.)
Most helicopters have turbine engines, perhaps fewer of them at a small airport where R22s and such may operate.
Mis-fuelling of similar looking aircraft might occur, I’d especially watch R44 vs R46 helicopters. Large placards needed. (I’m not up on nozzle-socket sizes.)
But if the airport in question here provided only 100LL avgas and is adding G100UL avgas is NATA’s message worthwhile? If not it should be addressing airports where there is a mix of octanes and fundamental types of fuel.
2 replies
I’m waiting for the TSB of Canada to produce substantive information from its investigation of the crash of a BAE Jetstream at Fort Smith NWT in January 2024.
The turbine-powered airplane lost height soon after liftoff and crashed hard.
TSB says there is video of the fuelling but does not say what fuel was normally in the specific above ground tank, nor if a fuel sample was obtained from the wreckage. (Jet A would be popular there in the Arctic.)
Airplane was in hanger, snow falling after taken out to prep for flight, wings checked by more than one person. (Temperature was well below freezing.)
NATA’s guidance does point to Diesel Exhaust Fluid as a serious risk that has been realized several times - mistaken for fuel icing inhibitor additive.
DEF is used in many diesel automotive engines these days.
So, I guess the question of “is G100UL a drop in replacement” now has a definitive answer.
Fear mongering. G100UL is 100% fungible with 100LL. The STC makes this clear. There is no issue mixing G100UL and 100LL.
At least for now, G100UL will only be dispensed from a dedicated county truck at Reid Hillview by a county employee, so risks are small, though it is a legal issue of fuel dispensed into plane without GAMI STC. And if that should occur and pilot does something dumb, then here come the lawyers… Will be interested to see if there is follow-up press release to announce how many STC’s sold for free at RHV this weekend, with included free 337 signoff and free gas.
Wow, talk about saber rattaling! You can mis-fuel my piston aircraft any day of the week with G100UL, the only thing I would at risk for is a STC violation….my airplane won’t care!!
Now keep Jet-A away from my plane, that would be true mis-fueling!!
In the days of 80/87 and 100/130, a mix was supposed to be a black tint. Since 100LL took over the blue color of 90/96, and the new UL fuels are purple for the 96UL if I remember correctly (I don’t know about 100UL), are the mixed fuels still a black tint?
NO problem–
*It can be mixed in any percentage with 100LL, so if a pilot wants to top off a fuel tank that already has 100LL with G100UL, there will be no problem. “The fuel in the plane will still retain its spec and integrity and there will be no degradation in performance,” Roehl said.
( George Braly and Tim Roehl -owners of General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI)
1 reply
I believe the only avgas with a compatibility issue is the 94UL ( cant be mixed with G100UL) and the new swift G100R, their version of high octane unleaded
It seems worthy of each and EVERY 100UL supplier provide every aircraft owner fueled with the ‘new fuel’ a simple chart that identifies compatability of their formulation with every! existing current fuel. It should be a requirement for marketing new fuels to update a clear, simple, easily read compatabily matrix.
It MUST NOT!!! be the responsibility of each individual pilot to determine the compatability of new fuels as they come on the market.
You all realize this fuel will make an awesome auto fuel. The higher octane should allow the modern computer equiped cars to run really far lean of peak on highway, i think increasing mpg by probably 15%
Also good for warbirds because they can go back to running higher manifold pressures.
Creating this hype over 100 UL Fuel is seriously ridiculous. This is a fuel that you can put in any airplane accidentally and there would be no accident. You could even put it in a jet powered airplane and it would work. No accident would follow, but if you misfuled by putting jet fuel in your piston powered airplane it would probably result in a catastrophic incident.
The real danger is that there will be three fuels on the field when there used to be only two. Accidentally using 100LL in place of G100UL or vice versa isn’t as much of a concern as accidentally switching Avgas and Jet A.
I am bilingual and speak both English and Spanish interchangeably. Typically I speak English with most people, but if they are not an English speaker, my brain automatically switches to Spanish. My brain (functionally) is accustomed to a world with only two languages. When I travel abroad (usually France), my brain still operates the same way. I know the French don’t speak Spanish, but It is very difficult for me to force myself not to speak Spanish when I am in France because my brain is wired to think that if someone doesn’t speak English, they speak the “other” language.
I would be concerned about the same situation arising on the field. “The pilot said not to use 100LL, he uses the other stuff”, or any other similar thought process could lead to someone inadvertently using the wrong fuel between Avgas and Jet A. I know when I taxi up to the pumps at an unfamiliar field, if I see two pumps, and one says Jet A, I will be using “the other one”.
People need to be made aware and train themselves that there are now three choices; to be very specific and clear about what they are dispensing, what is acceptable (or legal - if they don’t have the STC) for use in their aircraft, and whether that fuel is in this tank, that tank, the truck, or a different fuel farm on the other side of the field, etc.
No different than when I was taught by my instructor that I want blue, dry fuel and not clear, slippery fuel - we need to make certain that we train ourselves not to make refueling mistakes. It’s not fearmongering, its simply being smart.
1 reply
The issue of pumping jet-a instead of avgas can be avoided by the use of Hoover Nozzles and Rings. Adding the ring blocks Hoover nozzles, which are required for North American jet-a fuelers.