flyingfireman

The issue for GAMI is that right now G100UL is a solution in search of a problem. Leaded Avgas is legal, available, and has no promulgated date where it will no longer be legal to manufacture and supply.

I am going to make myself really unpopular here and say the problem is actually the EPA. Paralysis by analysis will continue until there is a firm drop dead date for 100LL. When (if ?) that happens the regulatory log jam will get fixed because action will not be optional any longer.

3 replies

KlausM

By 2030 most all commercial aircraft will be Jet-A and the private owners of certified aircraft will be paying the price. Either they change their engines to a lower horsepower and use lesser octane or join the crowd and go turbine power.

The wises thing for the private piston aircraft owner is to build or buy a Homebuilt aircraft. The FAA will never certify modern day fully electronic controlled engines that can burn autofuel. The majority of the certified aircraft are near the 50 year old mark. Time to let the antiques move on. By time the EAGLE and PAFI committees approve this drop-in 100UL fuel it will be $15 to $20 per gallon.

jbmcnamee

Paul, thank you for pointing out the fallacy that ASTM somehow guarantees a “proper” avgas while GAMI’s STC is witchcraft, not worthy of the flying public’s trust. As you point out, D910 does not mean all producers create an identical fuel, just one that meets a consistent specification. None of the major refiners will tell you exactly what ingredients are in their fuel, just that it meets the D910 spec. How is this any different than GAMI’s proprietary additive package that has been well tested to meet the various FAA fuel requirements? Several years ago, when PAFI 1.0 was in full swing, I had the opportunity to sit at a dinner table next to George Braley. I asked him why GAMI did not enter the PAFI competition. He said that, based on how the FAA structured the process, it was virtually guaranteed to fail in producing a useful result and he felt that going it alone gave him more freedom to test and make changes to arrive at a useful end product. With PAFI, the formulation you came in with could not be changed, which defeats the purpose of a science-based process. I agree with you that the not-invented-here syndrome has played a part in the FAA’s continual obstruction of GAMI’s process, and EAGLE is just another roadblock set up in the hopes that some magic unleaded avgas will appear from the usual suspects and save the day. Maybe it will, but if (when) the EPA delivers a finding of endangerment, it is possible that the one producer of TEL then calls it quits. In that case we, and the FAA, will be in a real pickle without GAMI’s UL100. As for EAA’s concern about homebuilders not having access to an STC, I suspect GAMI would be willing to sell them the engine STC, providing they are using a Lycoming or Continental engine. After all, both manufacturers have said that G100UL will work in any of their spark ignition engines now, or previously, in production. If the builders are using another engine, they are probably using mogas anyway.

1 reply

pilotmww

I agree. I also think it will take an act of Congress to change the liability issue just like the changes made in the 90’s which got Cessna back into the piston airplane production business.

yukonav8r

Very little has been written regarding Swift Fuel which is also STC’d.

2 replies

scott.dyer

I’m hoping GAMI will get its G100UL in the field in California this summer and start the process of its public retail rollout. That will put more pressure on the industry to get it available more broadly, not just were LL sales are banned.

gmbfly98

Take out the EPA and any environmental or health concerns over 100LL, and what are the pros and cons of that fuel? Pro: It’s here now, runs in all existing engines, and is slightly lighter per gallon than unleaded equivalents. Cons: TEL is manufactured by a single provider, the lead causes fouling of spark plugs and contaminates oil (requiring more frequent oil changes).

So there are actually plenty of problems with 100LL that have nothing to do with the environment or human health.

gmbfly98

Probably because the fuel they have STCed now is 94 octane, not 100. I know they’re working to get a 100-octane fuel STCed, but it hasn’t made it through the process yet.

jonsisk

Another irony in this EAGLE/ASTM mess is that GAMI’s G100UL is to my knowledge the only aviation gasoline that has an FAA-approved specification and QC program, thanks to the STC process. As Paul B points out, the cries of lack of transparency, ring hollow here. No 100LL avgas has an FAA-approved spec, only consensus legacy ASTM. I can assure you, that were 100LL being developed today, competitor companies would not be able to agree on an ASTM specification for it for their own economic interests.

Also, thank you Paul for pointing out that among the engine and airframe companies, only Cirrus has accepted the invitation of GAMI to actually come to Ada for a full technical briefing and demonstration of the fuel, the testing process, and a full performance disclosure in their engine test cell. For what they describe as an existential issue, you would think due diligence would demand to at least a first hand investigation (and some OK BBQ).

With a proven solution at hand, this is feeling more idealogical, political, and ego driven than rational or scientific. Reminds me of many other bureaucratic dysfunctions. Meanwhile, as the alphabets argue and posture and procrastinate, GA aircraft owners and pilots continue in UL avgas purgatory.

Personally, as a E/A-B builder/manufacturer, the limitations section of my POH for my RV-14 with Lycoming 390 engine specifies any minimum 100-octane avgas as an approved fuel for my aircraft. No STC required.

jsalak.acv.programs

As an EAA member, I too was surprised by Jack Pelton’s comment on an STC’ed fuel for experimental aircraft. While technically correct, STCs do not apply to non-certificated aircraft, the business plan for Swift and GAMI require buying the STC to in order to purchase their fuel at the delivery point. Perhaps a better process for GAMI/SWIFT use for E/AB aircraft is to require a one-time purchase of a “use-license” to buy their fuel. Cost would be based on the same engine HP rating system use for aircraft requiring an STC and would get your tail number in their purchase authorization system. My Honda powered E/AB does not like 100LL and it is almost impossible to find MOGAS or any UL fuel at airports in the southeast. Fortunately, non-ethanol 93UL is widely in costal Florida even though you have to haul to the airport.

As to fixing the problem, I expect it will take an Act of Congress to force the FAA off the EAGLE/PAFI path. They could start with simply declaring G100UL as an approved replacement fuel for any application requiring D910 rated fuel and waiving any fuel-based liability associated with using it. Or they could use the EAGLE funding line in the FY24-FY30 FAA budget to buy the G100UL technical data from GAMI and publish it as the ASTM specification. The only way you can fix the bureaucrats is to take away their money and authority.

2 replies

Terry_Carraway

Tell that to those based at KRHV. And possibly soon to call CA airports.

1 reply

ken1

And last week the FAA said this:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-to-approve-use-of-91ul-fuel-in-two-thirds-of-piston-fleet/?MailingID=�MPAIGNID%

I thought that the FAA’s position had always been that we were only going to have ONE fuel that was 100 octane for the few engines that need it?

carllhopkins

I agree with "jsalak.acv.programs@gmail.com ". The FAA should negotiate with GAMI and buy all the rights to G100UL. Publish the specs and tell the refiners to start making it. Get rid of the STC process but make sure to pay GAMI what they deserve… which is a lot! Do that and we could be rid of 100LL by 2025; not by maybe 2030.

1 reply

n784ga

Swift’s UL94 is an ASTM fuel. The problem is that the FAA has yet to make a blanket approval of the new ASTM spec across airframes and engines, except for Grade 80 aircraft. Again, the feds FAIL.

n784ga

I was blown away by Pelton’s position. I already quit AOPA after being a member since 84, over their refusal to correct their 100LL page that incorrectly stated that you need an STC to use Swift UL94. You don’t, if you have a grade 80 engine.

n784ga

I second your motion. But I still would like a UL 94 path, where the feds build the infrastructure, as they owe the entire country for dragging their feet on this. UL91 has been live in Europe for a very long time.

icebrain

I’m puzzled by the statements about homebuilts and STCs. Homebuilts do not have type certificates to supplement. Want to burn GAMI fuel (or gas from Costco for that matter)? Put yourself (back) into Phase I, do your testing, write your placards and documentation accordingly.

1 reply

LetMeFly17

The problem is that GAMI said they will only sell to people that buy and STC. Can you buy an STC if you don’t have a TC?

yakman2020

And washington airports. 100LL is banned in the state starting next january.
I believe oregon is following suit.

Raf

All this almost makes me jump on the eAircraft bandwagon.

1 reply

art

While G100UL is the only fuel that provides a solution to the leaded fuel issue, the present STC process is acceptable. But there will, eventually, be competition. Right now, Swift UL fuels work in my 230 HP 80 octane engine and G100UL will. So does alcohol free mogas (leaded or unleaded) (Petersen STC) and has given me over 3700 hours of trouble free operation and long exceeded overhaul intervals. The cons: I have to find ETOH free fuel, and I have to cart it to my base airport who discontinued it years ago for unexplained reasons. I paid to use mogas. Now, if I travel to California I might have to buy a GAMI stc. Swift runs in my 80 octane engine under the ASTM spec. but if I needed their higher octane, then a second STC. and when FuFuFAA Fuel company gets the next STC on their fuel, now my third, fourth, … , STCs at $230-460 or more a pop, just to buy 50 gallons of gas? Or my fuel planning becomes a nightmare, and a programming nightmare for Airnav.com and fleet managers and flying clubs.

As a longtime STC mogas user, which allows any alcohol free mogas which meets octane specs and also covers Swift Fuels 91UL, but not GAMI’s, I can see it for a broad class of fuels, but GAMI has taken it in a new and alarming direction. Imagine if you had to buy STC equivalents to buy automotive fuel from Exxon-Mobil, Marathon, BP, Getty, and Shell to fuel your car where you needed to, and a separate collection for your SUV and your pickup?

The STC is untenable for equipment users and anti-competitive for fuel producers. Monopolists always have a rational for maintaining a monopoly and the end users always have to pay if the monopolists’ product is mandated.

Fuel is a commodity. Attempting to make it into a part or component is an unreasonable approach. That is why the EAGLE/PAFI/etc is continuing and should continue, but in a more open source form, with much more transparency and reasonable flexibility, and independent from the current government grant style review processes where preconceived prejudices may rule.

We do need a requirement for any potential standard to be publicly available through NIST so that we can all review standards relied upon by the government without having to pay a private agent large sums to view the standard, but to enter the STC process into the mix is guaranteed to create an expensive mess and render the whole process untenable. If GAMI were to take the approach of licensing its intellectual properties, we would, through the sales process chain, pay GAMI for its work probably on an per gallon used cost, but the fuel would remain competitively priced or other entrants would enter the market.

John_Worsley

Art Wesley (below) has the right idea, that I have expressed previously about having to buy STCs for different fuels, but I think you have the right idea about an act of Congress to mandate G100UL across the board without an STC. Anyone else would be free to develop a competitor if they can meet the same standards. Despite the AOPA and EAA bragging about their role in getting BasicMed through the FAA, I saw no significant progress until it was mandated by Congress. Unleaded fuel has been going on a lot longer with very little more progress. Where is Senator Inhoffe when we need him?

jbmcnamee

Sounds good. Maybe you could do like the Tesla owner who got tired of range anxiety and began carrying a portable gasoline generator in his car to recharge the batteries if he ever got stuck away from a charging station. ?

jbmcnamee

Paul B., excuse my ignorance, but just who is it that establishes the ASTM fuel specification? The FAA? The oil companies? ASTM is an independent entity that is not a part of the FAA or any other government agency, but I don’t know the mechanics of getting a specification approved. It would seem to me that drawing up a new spec that has the same performance requirements of D-910 for unleaded fuels should be a no-brainer since it does not specify the chemical formula except to prohibit certain materials that would be deleterious to an airplane’s fuel system.