The new president of AOPA wants everyone using new unleaded fuels to report their experiences through a new survey page on the group's Web site. Darren Pleasance, who took over from Mark Baker on Jan. 1, said in a statement the association believes in a "burn and learn" philosophy to rapidly gain insight to any issues that may arise from a change in fuel. "We owe it to the entire industry to quickly assess issues as they arise and respond accordingly as we learn," Pleasance said.
The AOPA has sat on their arse for 40+ years, not pushing high octane unleaded MoGas to public airstrips and NOT helping adding unleaded fuel tanks. Honestly they do not deserve getting data after their almost 1/2 a century of NOT promoting alternative cheaper unleaded solutions for pilots and aircraft owners.
AOPA is the main reason this unleaded fuel situation has gotten so out of hand. Now even airports are being shut down siding leaded fuel. AOPA should have known that would happen, but instead kept pushing lead in fuel as if there was no problem with it… They kept siding Safety as their reason for backing it, but in fact, leaded fuel is dangerous to an engine and should’ve been discontinued just based on the safety concerns it poses to aircraft engines. Recently Rotax has pointed out just how bad the use of lead in fuel is for any engine. Car engines last so much longer now because of the elimination of lead in the fuel.
40+ years into this farce, we are hopefully a bit beyond the feedback - collection phase.
Users: Gimme AVgas!
Manufacturers: No Interest.
Fuel Providers: Lets force them!
Regulator: We’ll look into it. Maybe.
Advocacy: We’ll get some feedback.
Joe Public: Stop using leaded fuels!
Can’t make this stuff up, folks.
I seriously wonder how we managed to get into 2025.
At our FBO, we’ve been selling high octane auto fuel since it was first approved.
We’ve burned thousands of gallons of the stuff—in high and low wing trainers—and in pipeline patrol airplanes—in short, it is used in any airplane that is approved for it. There have been NO engine problems—many of the engines go far beyond TBO.
GAMI — with its engine expertise and familiarity with government certification—put its OWN MONEY into getting it certified—and the FAA agreed. Now, the naysayers in the ASTM crowd are trying to throw cold water on it, because it doesn’t have THEIR approval.
The “SKY IS FALLING” (“Chicken Littles”) demand NO LEAD in aviation fuels—and the lead has been cut back (the “LL” in 100LL stands for LOW LEAD). Despite being used for decades, I haven’t seen any peer-reviewed studies that indicate medical problems near airports—where 100LL would be concentrated. Perhaps an even BETTER STUDY might be made of airport personnel—the people exposed not only to emissions of a gas—but to the liquid product itself! If the product was as deadly as “THE SKY IS FALLING! (Chicken Littles) claim/-there should be medical problems.
ASTM claims that the GAMI STC doesn’t meet their standard (never mind that the FAA—the people that wrote and ENFORCE standards) has already issued the STC!
Let the people that actually “Have a Dog in the Hunt” decide which fuel they want!
The survey shows the tone-deafness of the AOPA. I am a member, and I plan to continue. They only ask about 100 octane unleaded. What about the 1000s of us running unleaded Mogas or UL91 or UL94 without issue? As others have said, this problem has been ongoing for decades, and it seems like the AOPA has done nothing but stonewall. We’ll all be running unleaded soon, one way or another, or not flying.
Have any TRULY independent studies been done on how much lead contamination is contributed by general aviation? I’d like to see a study that’s not paid for by a fuel supplier, an environmentalist group, or angry airport neighbors.
I have an STC engine upgrade to a lyc O-360 since its a STC in my particular application I can’t get an additional STC on the engine to run fuel that requires an STC. Its like stacking STC’s on top of one another.
Its always the unintended consequences.
As I understand it the various replacement fuels are drop in for 100LL but you cant mix the different fuels as they are decidedly incompatible with one another. In a pinch I would put Mogas in my plane but not the others……
Have ran 91 Ul/no alcohol mogas for thousands of hours in O-320s, O-300s etc with absolutely no problems and cleaner plugs. Seems like thats the answer, and lots cheaper too, for the lower powered engines but no airports are pursuing it I suppose due to the need for dual tanks and pumps etc. It is easy to find now in most areas like here in Texas at Quik Trips.
Hopefully all the players in the 100 field can proceed with the common good of GA in mind and we can have widespread avail of UL soon.
I fly a PA28-151, which according to the manual requires 80 octane red, avgas, which I have never seen anywhere. My airplane has a STC for auto gas, which I flew with for many years, but now airports either want to charge a flowage fee or have various rules that make mogas unworkable, so I fly with 100LL and add TCP to mitigate the lead. TCP is a problem because no FBOs stock it, or have even heard of it, so I have to carry a can of TCP, which says on the label that you shouldn’t carry it in airplanes. So, I have a NEED for unleaded avgas. I’d happily buy an STC for whichever unleaded avgas shakes out as the winner, or all of them, just so I could use whatever they’re selling, but no one is selling any unleaded avgas.
I understand the problem for the FBOs. They want to stock only ONE type of fuel. It’s not like stores selling auto gas where they have separate pumps for every conceivable kind of fuel, high, medium, low octane, with and without ethanol, and diesel, and maybe DEF. But at the FBO it’s different, only two tanks, one with 100LL and one with jet fuel, the only one they really care about. I think they’ll end up eliminating avgas altogether. Not enough volume. Fly with jet fuel or just sprinkle yourself with fairy dust, which they don’t sell either.
I believe they asked about 100 octane only because it’s widely recognized that the other lower-octane fuels (Mogas,94UL, …) have all been introduced quite successfully for the lower horsepower engines. No issues there. The issues are for the higher horsepower engines where those other fuels won’t work, and for which there’s been a real challenge in coming up with a fuel that has the right anti-detonation properties, while also being compatible with all the materials it touches (o-rings, tank sealant, hoses, diaphragms, paint, …) Hopefully GAMI fuel will prove to do all of this, but there are concerns being raised among early adopters so getting the market feedback quickly is important, and also determining how pervasive this feedback is (outlyer, or major issue). My sense is that’s what AOPA is trying to understand so they can help separate facts from anecdote and get to a good unleaded, high octane option for the industry…
I was one of th e first to purchase the STC but the G100UL hasn’t yet been available in the northeast. Unfortunately with the new administration I don’t see any push to get it out there as they seem hell bent on removing any environmental regulations they can and pushing the “drill baby drill” mentality. It’s unfortunate that our generation will be remembered as the ones who wrecked our beautiful planet.