I knew when I saw the EAGLE initiative it would be just like all the others that had came before it just another way to pacify the public ending in nothing happening.
Now that The federal government has create a mandate to continue leaded fuel, there may be only one way out of this mess and that would be to create a second fueling option at all airports to give the consumer an unleaded choice. To do this, it may require the government to help set it up, just like they are setting up electric charging stations. I would love to have this choice for my Skyhawk because it would cut my maintenance cost by A considerable amount.
I am including an excerpt about the Rotex 912 engine Which talks about maintenance when using leaded fuel.
The 912 may be operated using leaded fuel, but this is not recommended as lead sludge tends to accumulate in the oil tank and reduction gearbox. Also, avgas is incompatible with the recommended synthetic oil which cannot hold lead in suspension; consequently, the use of leaded fuel mandates additional maintenance.
According to the Rotax 912 maintenance manual, Oil changes should be done at 100hrs and plugs changed at 200hrs when using unleaded fuel.
If you use avgas, then it is recommended that you change the oil at 50hrs and plugs at 100hrs.
Russ, you don’t really believe that all the key people in the FAA are aligned to the extent, and in the way that you seem to suggest that they are do you?
Well well well: no surprises especially with the “lawyer” engineer at GAMI!! Why not get AOPA to cobble together the solution with the Congress like we did with Basic Med?? not the perfect solution, a compromise in many ways, but a solution after all. FAA still needs leadership which is hasn’t had since Admiral Busey, so turn to today’s leaders …AOPA PRESIDENT AND his close friends in the House. my 2 cents
And I guess that’s why it’s probably the inevitable and most efficient route to a new fuel. Democracy, free speech and free enterprise be damned.
We reap what we sow. We have for so long given the FAA nearly unlimited latitude and power to regulate the GA industry that it has become bastardized–free enterprise no longer applies. A free market rewards innovation and/or collaboration; consumers patronize businesses that build a demonstrably better mouse trap. Today, it’s more profitable for players to simply appeal to the real decision-makers on high to protect them from competition.
And just to avoid a political discussion here, I’m not suggesting there should be no regulation, but that maybe the level of regulation we expect for major airlines isn’t necessarily appropriate for the GA market. IMHO, over-regulation is a big part of the reason why we have been forced to accept the stunted development of GA piston engine technology.
Is it Ground Hog Day? I am sure I have seen such comments 100 times in the past 20 years. No mention here of mogas, which continues to increase in use along with the increased used of engines designed for it, eg Rotax, ULPower, Jabiru, etc. Airports collect exactly zero in fuel taxes when pilots self-fuel.
This article ought to be the reference document for anyone to get up to speed on what has happened. While it has some editorial opinion, it did a great job of summarizing this long term mess into something digestible.
I wish I could fuel my airplane with the GAMI fuel. Why doesn’t GAMI get its own trucks? Looks like theres a business opportunity to transport. Do we know how many airports are willing to install an UL pump when the transport issue is solved?
Perhaps the best solution is to re-power with liquid cooled engines that are not so prone to detonation.
Lastly, Sunoco Race Fuels offers UL 100 and (260 GT Plus) 104 octane. 104 could be a drop in fleet fuel. The Sunoco fuels have been around for a very long time. Only issue I see here is the cost. Racing fuel is expensive $13.10/gallon but if a high volume deal was established to fuel GA I’m sure this issue would be resolved.
“The EPA already has the authority and ability to mandate the elimination of lead in avgas.”
Obviously 100LL meets (or is below) the current EPA levels of environmental impact. That’s probably why anti-aviation lawsuits have switched to noise or safety or CO2 or land use.
If the EPA changes rules to specifically target 100LL, that is out of their purview and would be punitive, disruptive and ultimately illegal.
The FAA could subsidize the installation of MOGAS tanks for less than what it would cost to fund a AVGAS contest. Expand the EAA or Petersen STC AML. That cuts your lead emission in half which can buy time for some company that sees a lucrative market in a dying GA industry.
Replacing one boutique fuel with another boutique fuel won’t attract anyone long term. Repurposing an existing high volume fuel ( with as little modification as possible) is the answer.
MOGAS is not a drop in replacement but those that can safely use it certainly should. My Cherokee 140 with 7.5:1 compression couldn’t tell the difference. My 8.5:1 IO-360 probably would unless I can find 93 octane, which is not as widely available as 87-91 octanes.
It needs to be remembered that autofuel STC’s are available for some higher powered engines not normally associated with its use. The Baron and 210 are both approved for 91AKI minimum. Yes they require mods (ADI) but approved nonetheless. If the FAA would not have played favorites when they were doling out the cash, the problem would have been solved 25 years ago.
You can shave up to 13 octane points off an engine by using water/methanol injection. So it’s clear that one would not need 93, and that even Swifts 94 would be overkill if ADI is used. AOPA said a few weeks back that they would test any fuel in their Baron that showed promise. Well the Baron has been approved for 91AKI since 1988. I’m still waiting for a call from AOPA.
Several reasons we can’t use fuels that contain Ethanol.
Most fuel system lines & seals are not compatible.
The shelf life of Ethanol is very short compared to aviation specific fuels (a few months).
Ethanol fuels are far more likely to suffer from vapor lock. A few experimental aircraft use it but have designed their fuel system to be compatible, including fuel pressure about double that of most aircraft injected systems.
Ethanol binds easily with water. Folks that use MOGAS (non-Ethanol) must test every tank they purchase. You can search for the test, which is very easy to perform.
With no ASTM certification every distribution channel could be subject to scrutiny, and potential liability, for any engine/fuel system related accident in any aircraft using the fuel. What FBO’s lawyer would accept that?
Consider this from your FBO’s perspective … did the entire distribution channel completely clean out all trucks, lines, etc., before filling and shipping with G100UL? Or is there the potential of contamination or mixing of this fuel with any of the other fuels, or with 100LL? And what about the FBO’s own tanks? Or even in the aircraft’s own tanks! If the fuel has been potentially contaminated by mixing with other fuels, or if they can’t completely prove in court that it wasn’t, here comes the lawsuits - pointed at the FBO, not GAMI.
Considering that FBO’s now enjoy liability coverage via the fuel distribution chain (i.e., those silly truckers), that’s kind of a big thing.
And why won’t GAMI pursue an ASTM certification? Why won’t they let independent labs test their fuel in the same way as all of the others, who are going through ASTM certification?
I’d sure like the author of this piece to turn his hard eye’d journalistic investigation skills onto helping all of us to understand the real world complexities of the path GAMI is choosing. It’s easy to write “It’s not clear exactly why the fuel distributors are blocking sale of G100UL” … perhaps you need to do a little work to better explain that!
I am confused why there has to be only one “winner” in the process. Could there be multiple fuels that meet the program rules, with FBOs choosing which brand to sell? …no different than in auto industry where many formulas are sold. Don’t know the answer, just asking why not.
Without standardization (i.e., an ASTM spec), the fuels cannot be tested and shown to work after mixing. Without standardization (ASTM), the FBOs selling the fuel won’t have liability coverage from their fuel distributors.
Look, we’ve all had the luxury of not having to worry - pull up to the pump and 100LL is 100LL wherever you are. That’s because it’s an ASTM standardized product. So again, why won’t GAMI pursue an ASTM spec?
Hear, hear! The attitude of, “we don’t trust ASTM” when the rest of the distribution system does seems like kind of a self-own on the part of GAMI.
GAMI seems to consistently be making moves to ensure they retain a government-mandated monopoly on the resulting fuel. Whether you’ve read Atlas Shrugged out of envy or fear, it should be perfectly clear that monopolies are really bad for consumers.
One thing I think needs to be said often in these types of forums is that when interacting with the community and they give you the “lead is poisoning us” please make sure to emphasize with them that the FAA is the one holding this up and they need to be reaching out to their US representatives to put the necessary pressure on the FAA. It does no good for them to complain to pilots, airports or state reps.
In many if not most cases of the community screaming about lead poisoning the children, the flora, and the fauna the truth is that they largely don’t care. The lead, the noise, etc. are simple convenient battering rams used to stir up public support of closure of so many airports.
Avgas has a high profit margin; perhaps the real reason behind the unbelievable foot-dragging is the potential shift of profit from the present suppliers to new suppliers.
I would really prefer unleaded fuel; better for my engine; better for me!
The only way I see to a solution will eventually be in the courts. Whether a state such as California or Washington follow through with their ban of 100LL, or one of the fuel companies sueing, or the EPA following through with a national ban. I don’t see anything happening until the industry is forced to by court order, or the plant the makes the lead additive stops production.
Well, of the three options, Swift’s only downside seems to be fact that ASTM members are slow to vote… And seems highly likely that after GAMI STC Controversy, the FAA folks in DC are waiting for ASTM spec to sign off on Swift STC… And with both, the NATA folks and refiners can fall in behind Swift’s own refinery and get fuel to market in a hurry, as the infrastructure is set up in many places with UL94… So I am only two thirds discouraged… The pictures of the GAMI Baron wing dribbles didn’t do much to raise the confidence of the downstream players… Did excite the trial lawyers!
When TEL was removed from auto gas, MTBE was initially used and in CA it seemed to work ok in my older cars. But, it leaked in one area and contaminated the local wells. It was removed about the same time as the ethanol mandate.
So, with most avgas tanks now above ground with spill pans, why can’t avgas use MTBE to get to 100 octane ?
It’s a shame we don’t have liquid-cooled engines in the fleet. If so, this fuel issue would be irrelevant as we’d all be burning 89 octane mogas. (eth-free of course)
My 7.3:1 compression Continental was certified to use 80/87 octane, and I have the mogas STC. But, it states No Ethanol’. So, in CA we can’t use auto gas with the 10% ethanol.
And, most FBOs are under exclusive contract for 100LL, So, they can’t add another fuel like 94UL.
I appreciate the level of discourse. However, I disagree about the monopoly. If GAMI will not conform to ASTM (and in fact won’t participate or share proprietary details), and the market adopts G100UL because it’s the only choice (thanks to various environmental lawsuits eliminating the 100LL alternative), it’s all but impossible for any other company to compete. How does a competitor ensure THEY are compatible with secret-ASTM-variant-invented-by-GAMI such that distribution, mixing, and liability issues are solved?
GAMI could claim no one else is compatible (force). Or they could license compatibility (monopolistic rent seeking).
Unless an open standard exists for ensuring compatibility, and everyone conforms to it, we will have a proprietary lock-in monopoly. (See Microsoft and Apple).
Come on, Editorial Staff, do you really expect the FAA - the Keystone Cops of aviation - to somehow straighten out this fuel mess? Let’s not forget that they are responsible for PAFI, EAGLE and the current state of affairs. For them to somehow manage to actually “straighten out” the process is asking for a miracle within a miracle. Fat Chance. Oh, and let’s not make the EPA the villain in all of this. After all, they have given the FAA more than two decades of warning that the finding of endangerment was coming. In the meantime, the FAA did nothing of substance to address the issue until it now becomes a crisis. You are right about one thing - the FAA needs to clean house with the EAGLE hierarchy and dump anyone who has a conflict of interest from the team.
Lyondell/Bassel says that a 100UL drop-in replacement is impossible without modifying the engines that actually use about 80% of the Avgas we consume. But both GAMI and Swift maintain that they have just such a fuel. Why not let them prove it? Have the FAA provide a limited liability shield for all truckers and distributors who are reluctant to sell G100UL for any issue arising out of the distribution of the product. GAMI says that their fuel is totally mixable with 100LL in any concentration from 1 to 99 percent without any adverse effects, so no additional tanks or plumbing systems are needed. Just switch to the new fuel and go. If airplanes or engines have problems, that bypasses the truckers and FBOs and goes straight to GAMI. GAMI seems confident that won’t happen, and the FAA seems to agree, thus their blanket STCs for all airframes and engines. Anyone familiar with the introduction of a new product knows that there will be issues that crop up, no matter how much advance testing is done. Just ask AOPA, Swift and UND how that works. But until we get on with it, it’s all just speculation. Personally, I am just thankful that the FAA wasn’t around to “help” when they were developing aviation fuels back in the 1930’s.
Thanks, Keith - I have not read the GAMI documents. I would point out, however, that lack of ASTM certification is the single reason GAMI is stuck with (from what I’ve read) one million gallons of fuel that they can’t distribute.
Perhaps instead of fighting ASTM certification, GAMI would allow outside testing, share the fuel system materials list that they’ve tested and confirmed to be safe (and allow others to repeat the experiment), and tell us all what level of contamination (i.e., mixing with other fuels, especially 100LL) have been tested and confirmed to be safe.
I’d just like to see openness, clarity, and outside testing - instead of one companies self involved perspective.
GAMI and the FAA have both stated that G100UL is safe to mix with 100LL in any proportion. The fuel distributors need to do nothing to clean out their systems. Simply fill up with G100UL and by the second or third load, the amount of lead in the tank/truck will be negligible.
The FBO’s / distributor’s lawyers can simply point to the FAA STC and say, “we’re not liable for anything that happens with this fuel, it’s FAA approved.” What’s wrong with that?
Given that aviation, globally, contributes a mere 2% to the CO2 issue, I can’t help thinking that we should really be expending all this time, energy and money on dealing comprehensively with the ‘low hanging fruit’ of CO2 generation, especially road transport (40%). Convincing all the luddites to ‘go electric’ would be a much better use of resources. On top of which, you still have the frankly ridiculous issue of wasting fully 50-70% of whatever fuel you choose, burning it in a hopelessly inefficient ICE.
Besides that, by the time the sustainable aviation fuel nut has been cracked (if it ever is) electric propulsion for short and medium range aircraft - or a transition to very high speed rail (ie ~400mph, you know, the sort of thing that China already has thousands of miles of… and electric-powered, of course) - will be the norm and long-haul aviation won’t exist or will have moved to inner space.
Not sure if the “luddites” here in Houston (who, like me, lost city electricity for 6+ days in last month’s hurricane) would agree with your sentiments to go 100% electric transportation.
As far as China, take a guess at how they are generating all those gobs of electricity for high speed “electric” trains.
OBVIOUSLY we see that small 100LL burning GA planes are not a priority with anyone in government over the last 40 years or so. That could be a good thing considering that any new ruling would be disruptive.
“The big problem is that the 20% of engines orphaned include the big bore Continental 550 and Lycoming 540 series engines that actually use more than half of the avgas burned in the U.S.”
Re the above quote from LyondellBasell…these engines may use more than half of the “avgas”, but that’s not the same as airplane engines that are using more than half of the gasoline burned in the U.S. There is an increasing number of us using Non-ethanol unleaded gasoline having ASTM approvals in our Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax engines. Customers of Lycoming and Continental should be voicing their need for physical changes to the engines that are not compatible with 94 octane or less. Cirrus owners should be voicing their need for Continental’s JetA engine to be installed in AVIC’s Cirrus airplanes. Also, in my opinion, we all need to be listening more to Todd Petersen, who has been coming up with solutions for many years.
GAMI has provided the materials it tested and the “contamination” (your word) of mixing G100UL with 100LL to the FAA in written responses to the FAA’s subject matter expert interrogatories. All of that data should be a matter of public record available on request from the FAA. As for outside testing, GAMI invited FAA representatives to witness any and all testing they conducted at their Ada, OK, headquarters. They also invited representatives from Lycoming, Continental, Cirrus and Textron to attend and witness any testing they conducted that might affect their respective products. None of the four companies chose to participate in or witness any of the testing.
you aren’t even right about Apple and Microsoft, they are competition, with each other and with other software vendors. tip: read up on Linux/Unix for example, widely used in computing systems especially behind the scenes such as in servers, and by software developers. (Microsoft itself is an example of innovation - won IBM’s PC o/s business despite an established competitor. George Braley pioneered, his reward is arrows in his back.
“Perhaps instead of fighting ASTM certification, GAMI would allow outside testing…”
From what I had heard, GAMI initially did try to get their fuel ASTM certified but apparently one of the ASTM members tried to effectively steal their fuel formula, so they backed out. I don’t know if this is true or just a false rumor, but it wouldn’t be the first time an “industry-consensus standards body” tried to do something like that. Industry consensus standards look great on paper, but they often end up just being protectionist cartels opposed to any outsiders that come in with actual competitive products.
That’s all well and good when one is up for an engine replacement, but for thsoe who may be half-way or less to that point, all it would mean is requiring an early engine replacement or an expensive overhaul. And it’s not like LyCon haven’t tried introducing advanced engines, but after certification costs they end up being overly expensive and no one buys them.
“So, after a blissfully uneventful week in fuel news here is where we’re at.” One should never end a sentence with a preposition.
The article is full of acronyms that are fully explained except for ASTM.
The trucking companies are blocking this for good reasons: a. Liability, b. There’s a nationwide shortage of haz-mat certified CDL drivers, and adding a different fuel will worsen it, c. Have the affects of the new fuel been fully tested on the components found on the 10 of thousands of fuel trucks nationwide?
The EPA does NOT have final legal authority on requiring this change to no lead fuel. Under the recent SCOTUS ruling in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case, the Chevron Doctrine has been killed. Therefore, it is up to Congress to decide the fate of leaded AV-Gas.
ASTM is not a testing house. They produce consensus standards. Consensus, by definition, is an imperfect solution arrived at by compromise in which no one loves the outcome, but everyone can grudgingly accept. This is the benchmark these days for how aviation standards are created.
When a company produces something to the ASTM standard, they self-certify they are compliant by conducting the consensus tests. The FAA does not oversee that process. ASTM does not oversee that process. The manufacturer does.
When a company decides the ASTM standard is imperfect, illogical, not applicable, or limiting, or the industry can’t even reach a consensus as is the case here, then any manufacturer is free to come up with a proprietary solution and follow the much harder path of obtaining an FAA approval. FAA runs them through the wringer, demanding battery upon battery of robust testing to examine every corner case and ensure the manufacturer’s product meets its proprietary specification under all foreseeable conditions, and that the product built to the specification has no unsafe characteristics. FAA reviews and approves all the test plans, oversees and witnesses the testing, reviews and approves the test reports. When they are satisfied, they give the manufacturer a design approval (STC).
Separately, the FAA then oversees the production quality process to ensure every drop of fuel made to the FAA approved specification conforms to the FAA approved requirements, and has the paperwork to prove it. Furthermore, if at any point the FAA decides the product has some unsafe characteristic or has not been produced to its FAA approved specifications, then they have the power of Airworthiness Directives to demand change, stop its use, halt its production, pull it from the market, you name it.
In other words, the FAA STC and production approval process is far more demanding and far more robust than something produced under a consensus standard with no one overseeing the quality but the manufacturer.
I’ll take “FAA approved” over “ASTM compliant” any day, all day.
As pilots and aircraft owners we should embrace this approach. The only people that want the ASTM way are the refiners and big oil because they don’t want to lose the lucrative GA fuel business they have a virtual monopoly over, and they don’t want the burden and ongoing obligation that comes from producing something under the watchful eye of the FAA.
This is idiotic. First off the EPA is full of it and can’t be trusted. Their “study” was bogus and full of holes. No replacement for 100LL is necessary.
Secondly, the FAA shouldn’t be in charge of a hot dog stand. Bringing “more government” into the mix is NEVER a good option.
Too bad that GAFI does not have the funds to start their own trucking company. They could pull a Rockefeller when the railroads were demanding rates that he did not agree with to haul oil. He threatened to start his own railroad and that got the problem resolved quickly.
In reply to 3.(c): How will replacing one haz-mat cargo with another worsen the driver shortage?
In reply to 4.: The SCOTUS decision affects future rule-making, but does not cancel existing rules or case law. My understanding is that such rules remain in effect until being formally (and successfully) challenged in court.
If the new fuel is not compatible with the current fleet of tankers, then the carriers will need to acquire additional new trucks, which means more drivers.
I’m not certain if this is a news story, or if Russ just enjoys throwing rocks at a hornets nest to see all of the commenters get riled up. At this point no news is simply, well, no news.
As an engineer developing new products for market, I understand that a typical, successful development project always includes the following:
Unrealistic demands of what the new product must be able to do.
A never ending system of hurry up and wait.
Unrealistic demands that after everyone sat on their hands burning up the clock, you must now save everyone else’s bacon and get the ball across the finish line in record time.
Individuals who have no understanding of the science, industry, or use case are the ones setting the project priorities.
Self interested individuals continually ignore realities and proclaim “just go with my favorite answer now” because the unresolved concerns fall outside of their very limited set of priorities.
The list goes on ad nauseam - and that is when things go well.
A project that the government gave ten years to resolve is only four years along. From my perspective, I am impressed with the progress that has been made in that amount of time. The fact that Russ is proclaiming all to be lost and we need a complete reboot with the FAA jack boot on the neck of fuel manufacturers to obtain it is just adding himself to the list as another obstacle to getting anything done.
I give kudos to at least one organization being honest enough to say that a “drop-in” replacement is not possible. To accept that statement we have to understand what a “drop-in” replacement entails. It is easy to say “I fly behind a Jabiru engine and I don’t need the same octane as some of the big block engines, so let’s just go with XXX”, but that is not a drop-in replacement for the industry. Whatever replacement we ultimately come to will be a system of compromises. Some of us will come out of this perfectly pleased, and some of us will be left out in the cold.
Consider:
GAMI’s fuel is not approved for rotary wing. You cannot get rid of 100LL and leave all of the rotary wing aircraft grounded. News helicopters, med-evac, offshore platform, the list goes on and on.
GAMI’s fuel is approved by the FAA via STC - this approval only means that if I fly a certificated fixed wing aircraft, I am allowed to use it and not get busted by the FAA. It is not an industry approval, and it by no means is a blanket mandate, indemnification, or adoption. It is not approved by the engine manufacturers, it is not approved by the airframe manufacturers, it is not approved by the insurance companies, and it is not approved by the fuel distributors/sellers. The FAA has no authority to mandate via STC that Lycoming engines must run on GAMI fuel, that distributors must sell it, and insurance companies must indemnify it. The STC only gives permission to the pilot to buy it.
We have one fuel that proclaims itself the elixir of all aviation engines, but refuses to allow the industry to examine it. We have another manufacturer that says we are working on the best solution we can, but there is no silver bullet and our solution will not be a drop-in replacement for 100LL. We have a third that is working on it but is keeping their efforts close to the vest.
I doubt that GAMI’s fuel is as perfect as they claim. There are too many red flags. In the end, there will be compromises.
We may need to move to multiple fuels to provide a simple well performing fuel to those who do not need such high octane, and a “compromise” version of 100LL that the EPA can live with in smaller quantities for the larger engines, rotary wing engines, and any others that absolutely require the higher octane.
We may need to choose a boutique fuel that gets us most of the way there, but only after modifications to the engines that require higher octane.
Likely, we will need to kick the can down the road and extend the 10 years. The amount of lead contributed to the environment by aviation fuel is infinitesimally small when compared to the world’s annual consumption of lead - so small that is not measurable in the environment.
There is no perfect solution, and typically it is not the first suitor to knock on your door. We have 10 years to fully develop every option and then make a well informed decision about the compromises that we will need to make as an industry.
For those who want to see GAMI be central to that solution, my recommendation is that GAMI take advantage of the next few years to continue to perfect their product and completely satisfy the testing requirements of every industry group out there. They should resolve the limitation that excluded rotary wing. They should be testing their fuel with Lycoming, with Continental, with Jabiru, with Rotax, with ASTM, with Cessna, and with Piper. They should include representatives of insurers and distributors in those efforts. Sitting on their secret formula and saying “we don’t trust anyone” is doing themselves no favors while their competitors work diligently for a solution that the industry can openly embrace.
I doubt the scrutiny you anticipate the FAA will put into GAMI’s fuel went into the design and production of a worldwide fleet of aircraft from our flagship manufacturer that represents to the world that FAA oversight is the icon of quality.
Swift’s Unleaded 100R fuel does not meet or match the ASTM Standard for 100LL or their own UL94… They have done all of the necessary testing and submitted results for a new ASTM spec that will cover and define their formulation of 100R unleaded fuel. Swift has a refinery, and distribution setup for a number of airports, including rail transport logistics and transloader in LA area and San Francisco Bay Area to ship rail cars and then deliver truckloads to tanks at (currently) 6 Bay Area Airports. The number of fuels any airport can handle is a function of how many tanks they have, which are hideously expensive to add today. Swift plans to transition for UL94 to 100R as soon as the ASTM spec and FAA STC are signed off, for their existing customers. They will add customers as fast as they can from there, while discussing licensing to major Avgas refiners (like Chevron in western US) to begin brewing 100R and distributing in much larger quantities.
I would suggest that inviting someone to “witness” testing is far different than testing in collaboration. I know that in my field, “observing” a test is nearly meaningless. It only allows the people performing the test to attach my name to it and imply that I am party to the results and support them. If you truly want the endorsement of the engine manufacturers, then you need to involve them fully in the process. You need to share with them the formulation of the fuel, fund the testing, allow the engine manufacturer to design and perform the tests, and stand behind the criteria that the engine manufacturer deams critical. Inviting someone who has credibility in the industry to “witness” a test they have no part in designing or performing is a scam, and they were right in refusing to participate.
After the stuff the Swift team pulled at Osh this year, I don’t trust them until an independent fuel expert says the fuel is OK. It seems Swift has friends in high places and I am afraid they will hide the bad data; especially after the UND 94UL disaster.
In God we trust, everyone else bring data.
