California aviation fuel distributors say there are too many gaps in accessibility and too many questions about GAMI G100UL's suitability for some aircraft to make it the only high octane choice at California airports. In their response to a motion by the Center for Environmental Health for the California Superior Court to enforce the terms of a 2014 settlement agreement regarding the sale of unleaded fuel (copied in full below), the fuel distributors and 17 FBOs covered by the settlement agreement say granting CEH's motion would "ground a significant portion of the general aviation fleet, including aircraft used for fighting fires, law enforcement, and other essential public services" and orphan tens of thousands of aircraft.
My feeling tells me that this will belly-flop. Several decades have passed, without significant progress on getting a lead-free fuel alternative ready for a rapidly aging and very much outdated propulsion system.
…then by definition it is not a drop in replacement
By what/whose definition? I’m not trying to be pedantic here, but it seems that a lack of a clear definition is what the court cases are about in the first place.
To me this is the biggest problem. Unless engine manufacturors bless this stuff then when something happens to your shiny new engine and a drop of G100UL has ever touched it, your warranty is void. And good luck with “but, but, muh’ STC!”
Unleaded fuel IS coming one way or another. We seem stuck in a doom loop of manufacturers fighting among themselves and a belief that if we make a big enough mess out of it that 100LL will last forever.
In other words, this is some a-hole jumping into a crowd of people having fun, making a big splash, and soaking a bunch of people just trying to enjoy being at the pool and not even swimming, just to draw attention to himself?
Clear definition how? My O-320-B2B was certified for 80/87. When that was phased out and 100LL became the standard did I have to get an STC to use it? Nope! It was, by definition, a drop in replacement.
The replacement for 100LL needs to be the same.
Non aviation people don’t have a clue what is involved in an STC. Just go down to the STC store and pick one up, I mean, y’all are rich after all…
What does an available STC have to do with the fleet of Experimentals that are hodge-podges of components scavenged from fly-marts and tossed into an aircraft? All those pieces are working fine with 100LL.
Until a substitute has been in the field and accepted as reliable, 100LL will need to remain available. That may require a decade of public use. That may require lower prices to incentivize the use of alternatives over 100LL.
“…hodge-podges of components scavenged from fly-marts and tossed into an aircraft…” may have been true sometime in the previous century but hardly describes the current state of the industry.
Full disclosure: my RV-4 built in 1985 with modern Garmin avionics and a Lycoming IO-360 takes great offense.
Still no unleaded solution for helicopters at all. Given Robinson (a California native company) has pumped out hundreds of these a year for decades, this is not a minor problem.
Visit a Pietenpol fly in or a barnstormer’s get together and you’ll find that flying scrap heaps are a thing…
I’ve scavenged parts from smashed up RVs and Glassairs that don’t offend my Fly Baby…
Fact is, there are many mixtures of components that simply can’t predict the compatibility in the Experimental field. As experimental, time will tell as you test your own set up.
The state of the industry isn’t the state of the hobby.
In the spring of 2023, Robinson fully tested G100UL Avgas. They wrote a report asserting that there were no differences in the performance of their R-44 as compared to 100LL.
Robinson wrote the report and that report has been submitted to the FAA.
Robinson did not follow through with obtaining the timely approval. That is on Robinson.
I have conferred with several rotorcraft DERs and we are fairly confident that we can accomplish a field approval on any Robinson that is supporting emergency services.
Also, piston powered rotorcraft account for about 2% of of all piston powered airplanes.
The almost universal definition of a “drop in replacement” used by PAFI from 2012 forward - - would be a fuel that all or nearly all of the airplanes could use without (other than placards) physical modification(s) to the engine(s) or airframe. (I.e, such as adjusting the timing or altering the redlines, etc.)
By regulatory definition - - a change in authorized fuel found in the “operating limitations” of the aircraft and engine - - is a “major change”. Under the regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations - - any “major change” requires an amended type certificate or a supplemental type certificate.
I personally went to the PAFI management in 2018 and asked them to start the process under the Administrative Procedures Act to amend the regulations. PAFI refused to do that. Instead, they have been continually claiming they were going to find some “alternative” way. There is none under the regulations - - according to every single attorney I have consulted on this subject.
Further - - there is no existing regulatory mechanism in 14 CFR that would allow the FAA to “waive a magic wand” and authorize a “major change” to the airplanes and engines without someone going through the STC process.
I guess it makes sense GAMI would side with CEH in this motion. Aren’t government-enforced monopolies awesome?
I would have thought that eliminating an entire class of aircraft as “not being ready for unleaded”, particularly one that is used by a substantial number of emergency, police, and public good agencies, and particularly one that is based in California, would be a good argument against ramming “must use unleaded NOW” down the throat of consumers in California.
At least GAMI’s vested interest in their own pocketbook shows itself quickly. I suppose we should be prepared for GAMI to bring suit in every state claiming they must eliminate leaded gas immediately “for the environment”.
