Most public airports are built and maintained in part by federal grant money as part of the interstate air commerce infrastructure. This means that if the airport provides a service such as fuel, it needs to provide that for every potential aircraft that can use the facility. In other words, the grant money depends on providing both JET-A and 100LL. If they don’t do this then the FAA can force the airport to refund grant money and impose a fine.
This assumes, of course, that the FSDO has the spine to go after the airport for doing this, which most don’t seem to have lately.
Just curious - I’ve heard rumors of G100UL staining paint unless spills are immediately and completely removed and cleaned. Has anyone experienced that?
I hope all of us stick to facts and not rumors. Unless someone has a hidden agenda.
1 reply
I don’t think it’s a rumor. I believe that there was a recommendation (from either GAMI themselves or from AOPA) that spills should be cleaned up before the paint can stain. But it’s only a cosmetic issue, not a functional or safety issue.
1 reply
Normally I do not care for California over regulation but in this instance I am with them.
There are a couple ongoing investigations into Santa Clara County’s actions (across numerous allegations of non compliance). The investigation does not lie with the local FSDO per say, but the FAA’s airport compliance department. Essentially, FAA funds are being withheld for their non-compliance, but they are only accepting funds for E16 and not RHV. So it hurts them there. The FAA unfortunately keeps punting decision dates on the 100LL fuel ban. Part 16 docket: Regulations.gov
There were no proven findings that linked avgas use to the minute amount of lead found at the RH airport. The finding came from some old paint.
If the unleaded fuel can stain paint so badly, what will it do to fuel bladders, tanks, fuel lines, pumps, carbs and injectors?
After RH gets going again, the next environmental challenge will be noise pollution and the negative impact to learning among youngsters.
What gets me…at the same time environmentalists are pushing clean fuel so kids can be healthy, they legalize pot and gender blockers.
“First, G100UL tends to stain paint, hangar floors, and anything else it touches. Pilots and aircraft owners can take precautions by applying protective coatings, but G100UL doesn’t wipe away or evaporate like avgas. Inadvertent and relatively small fuel spills must be cleaned immediately and thoroughly to avoid staining. The top of the fuel caps on the Baron’s left wing have yellowed during its year of exposure to G100UL, while the fuel caps on the right wing show no noticeable change.”
California is run by a cabal of a half dozen liberal elites, supported by the bureaucracy, environmental groups, unions, NGOs and most importantly, real estate interests run by private investment.
What happened at RH is not about fuel, it’s about real estate and governmental control.
I’ve had blue stains on my wheel pants from a sump valve dripping 100LL
Let’s be clear. The county didn’t remove 100LL out of “fears” over lead. They used lead as a justification to try to cripple an airport that they seek to close and redevelop into something more profitable.
I was at the event on Saturday. Got my 337s signed off and filled the tanks. I went flying yesterday, and of course the plane flies just like it flies on 100LL.
Regarding the staining, they gave out a little pamphlet detailing how to clean up spills so as to prevent staining. I do think this is an issue that is going to need additional work to minimize. The pamphlet mentions ceramic coatings. I’m not sure how complete the protection is from that, but I’m hopeful that something along those lines will be shown to be effective.