At Monday’s AirVenture EAGLE forum on unleaded fuel, FAA head of certification Lirio Liu expressed optimism that the finish line could come sooner than the group’s published target date of 2030 but would not promise a detailed timeline. Liu, a longtime top-level FAA executive who has experience with multiple facets of the agency’s oversight, recently replaced Earl Lawrence in the position, and this is her first visit to AirVenture in her new capacity.
Good vid, Don’t like the idea of blackbox reporting back to its Cirrus base and think that idea will be dropped fast with a big off switch front and center for private owners. It might work for flight training schools and the like but for an owner shelling out a million dollars on an airplane just to have it tell you your a lousy pilot…it ain’t going to happen.
Seems like the info should only be stored on your phone/tablet and not sent to Cirrus. I wonder if this information can be subject to subpoena by the FAA.
There ought to be an ‘on’ or ‘off’ switch for IQ. I’d bet that if the data is in the cloud, it could be callable by the FAA. I doubt if it can by anonymous … how else would they know Larry Anglisano ain’t flying so good these days … by “N” number. And if you file a plan … the PIC would be ID’ed.
Poor Cliff wasn’t well briefed by the Cirrus MarCom people. Instead of saying “The airplane will rat you out”, he should’ve said “When its time for re-currency training, you and your CSIP/Pilot Mentor will review your flying performance together and identify areas to work on”.
Oh well, by Oshkosh the messaging will be more ‘on point’.
Sure it could. However, I think it would more likely be of interest to the NTSB in the event of an accident. I find it interesting that people are more open to private companies being big brother more so than their own government. It makes sense that Cirrus would release this now as they are the top seller with very little competition in their category. I would be surprised if there is a method to pull the plug . Like it or not this is the direction big data is taking us and there may not be a case to ask the FAA to mandate it be an option for privacy protection. It would be difficult to make a case that would over rule the potential safety advantages. It will turn off several would be buyers like it did for Icon but Cirrus already has a customer base and this bold move doesn’t appear they are concerned about it.
I think if you can choose to turn it off, that should make most folks happy. At the airlines, we have this sort of reporting to the company when we fly out of parameters (pilot, AC, or weather induced), so I guess we are numb to it. I will say, as a tool to help you and your CFI recognize any weaknesses in GA flying is a safety plus. Pilot egos can be very sensitive (oh yes Captain, there must have been a gusty quartering tailwind) and folks may not admit they have an issue, but the simple fact is unused skills deteriorate over time, and aging doesn’t help. Safety plus in my book, just give folks the option to turn off.
Has anyone at FAA or among the alphabet groups identified any specific deficiencies in the STC package submitted by GAMI? If not, why is FAA withholding approval of GAMI’s STC and why are the alphabets supporting FAA in further delaying that approval through the EAGLE process? These are obvious questions; can none of the assembled experts address them? If not, it would appear GAMI’s STC should be approved without further delay.
Why do we never hear that this is an issue in Europe? Maybe because they are well on the way to a Mogas / Diesel solution? What happens when Austria’s Rotax brings its larger Mogas-burning engines into production? I have the sense that the Alphabets are “leading from behind”, to quote a former president who was no friend of GA.
It is telling that George Braly was not allowed to comment. It also seems a bit odd that the article was not written by Paul Bertorelli, who has followed this debacle for years. So, the FAA gets extended funding to “study” the proposed solution. It is my hope that the various “alphabets” have elicited some consideration for GA in return for their continued support of the FAA’s intransigence. Of course, it is possible that diesel-electric hybrid or fully electric power-plants will be available by 2030.
is GAMI’s (George Braley et al) STC with initial short Approved Model List still valid? (Several Cessna 172 models, probably oriented to a flight training school.)
is GAMI’s (George Braley et al) other STC with initial short Approved Model List still valid? (Several O-320 and 360 engines)
i think YES as they are listed on FAA’s web site.
There is an FAA approved Flight Manual Supplement.
So IF you can find supply and you license use of STC from GAMI you can fly using G100LL on those airplanes and engines.
There is a long AML of engines, including Twin Wasp roundies used on aircraft like DC-6B, on GAMI’s web site, stamped as digitally approved by FAA though the browser tab says ‘draft’.
AvFuel lists G100UL on its web site, with an FAQ, search function awkward to find where you could purchase it.
The FAA and over 100 member alphabet groups team up against GAMI’s G100UL. Wow…, if G100UL is so bad at least one of these elite experts should be able to inform the public of why❓
If G100UL is not working in the high horsepower turbocharged engines let the operators of these engines decide. 100LL will still be around until 2030, right❓