California A and P Michael Luvara says he's been told by the owner of a Cirrus SR22 that its composite structure has been damaged by exposure to GAMI's G100UL unleaded fuel to the point where it will have to be ferried to an authorized repair center to be fixed. But GAMI founder George Braly says he's personally inspected the same airplane and the damage is cosmetic only. Further, he said, the fuel has been extensively tested in collaboration with Cirrus and does not damage the structure. Braly's full statement appears below.
If the testing is not performed in a standardized was such as ASTM D 471 which is a validated method for the determination of the effects of fluids ( oil greas fuel solvents ) to non metallic materials then I suspect the results.
My background 1989 to 2021 a materials and process engineer in aerospace . I have developed and flight qualifrd many materials for various aircraft ground vehicles and missiles which are in the U.S. government inventory.
I say this NOT to be a know it all but there are sound well proven methods to determine in an objective way what degradation is and what it is not.
In the case of a a glass fiber reinforced polymer the important properties are young modulus and ultimate strength. A less expensive ( for the case of in situ issues) would be Shore hardness which to be valid must be performed in the proper configuration. An indicator of a possible problem would be a degradation of the surface which would make itself know as a stickiness which allows transfer of the matrix polymer to another surface. Staining is not considered a failure.
I would be surprise a local A and P has the financial backing access to materials and testing equipment or test houses to have performed any such objective quantitative evaluation.
AVgas was always cheap (just like regular gas) and that would never ever change. Then, some silly laws changed, but that wasnât a good reason for action.
Lets remember that this saga has gone on for 40+ years.
My assumption is, that most of todays working stiff society has no idea that 100LL contains lead. Most people really think this problem was solved in the 70âs and 80âs.
If a larger portion of the populace knew, we would perceive what is happening to our industry today, as a vacation- stroll in the park. Lead lawsuits galore!
Some feeling tells me (and its really just a feeling) that some of the players in the alternative fuel universe have a hidden part in their business plan that guarantees success.
ROI/ ROD by FORCE
Eventually, the manufacture and sale of 100LL will be illegal. For a while, a grey/ black market will exist - using up stashed reserves - but eventually these ships will sink.
Thats when owners can decide to listen to the music or start cutting holes into their airplanes for a potential future lawn ornament conversion.
I live in a country where laws prohibit the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles with a gasoline or diesel engine after a certain date in the not so distant future. Everyone gets a free panic button.
Current political wind in the U.S. promises some laxative to this cramped up situation - however things never last all that super- long in politics and some environmentalists will have some axes to grind when they return to their seats.
I appreciate Michael Luvaraâs testing and reporting. I also appreciate the aircraft owners in California that are doing the beta testing on G100UL for the rest of us and I certainly identify with them. I have also experienced the concern, frustration, and potential safety and financial impact that results from being an unintentional beta tester for an aviation products company. I that regard, I say fool me once shame of you, fool me twice shame on me.
I think it is naive to think that GAMI has in any way characterized the full potential for negative impact to the aircraft using their fuel. Particularly in the realm of experimental aircraft where methods and processes related to construction and operation can vary so much. Iâm not saying GAMI hasnât worked hard to try to do this, but simply that the task is enormous and a small company like theirsâ simply doesnât have the resources to do it. For those of you that say it was done in the automotive industry so it can be done in the General Aviation industry, I say sure, it only takes decades of research and billions of dollars.
Impossible to know what or who to beleive! Accordingly, although I look forward to lead-free aviation fuel - I wonât touch it until Iâm extremely confident in whatever choice comes my way. But I expect it will be awhile before it reaches the midwest.
This is just yet another reason that a standardized testing method MUST be used, and ASTM is a world recognized organization that provides testing methods, standards, and certifications.
If Braly isnât willing to have the testing done and seem ASTM certification, then NO ONE should even CONSIDER using that fuel! Braly is being foolish in his approach!
I believe the FAA should pull the certification and allowance of STCâs until GAMI submits to the testing.
ASTM testing is not a panacea. As numerous publications have pointed out, the ASTM avgas testing procedure doesnât provide for what many seem to assume it provides, and the documented procedure that GAMI has in place of the ASTM testing is actually more extensive and relevant.
I would be surprised if any 100LL replacement wonât have some issues crop up in some minority of aircraft, since itâs not possible to test the fuel in every combination that is out there. The question will be, how big of a minority is it, and what will it cost to work around the issue (if a work-around is possible).
And for those who say there should be more than a single one-size-fits-all fuel solution, stop complaining and do something about it! Go talk to your airport administration and/or FBOs to get them to purchase and install additional tankage. Or put up the money and investment to do it on your own. Or talk to your local representatives to get them to fund additional tanks (in whole or in part).
So Luveraâs information on damage to Cirrus SR22 composite structure is second-hand, and dependant on ownerâs use of terminology, whereas Braley actually looked at the airplane?
IOW Braley did the âserious investigationâ Luvera says is needed?
GAMI has listed areas of the ASTM standard that are not appropriate (not needed) and gaps in its coverage of what is needed. People should read GAMIâs web site.
You should read GAMIâs listing of gaps in and un-needed aspects of ASTMâs standard.
And check what Swift fuel company said.
You should pressure members of the ASTM committee to review seriously, and update their standard, instead of misleadingly claiming that Braley isnât willing.
I also point out that in my experience standards committees are not necessarily competent or honest:
one established manufacturer tried to block an innovative but not really radical improvement
another committee spend hours debating something, I had to point out that what they were trying to agree on a value of something that would not provide a proper end result, they hadnât thought of other user interfaces that would meet their value but not provide good usability in many situations (but was better in another).
I was a professional accident investigator decades ago and an aviation enthusiast since then. Iâm pretty sure not much will be done until something really expensive or worse occurs.
We are a single digit number of years away from 100LL being gone. We already have the wolves at the gate trying to sue fboâs for lead exposure and several airports where 100LL sale is banned by law. Lets figure this out
Your local A&P wonât have such access nor would they be expected to be able to interpret the raw data from the tests. It will take a polar material such as a ketone or ester to destroy paint or epoxy composite. This doesnât describe fuel. And if simple splash exposure is damaging materials that hard and dense, then it will completely destroy softer materials soaking in it such as fuel hose or pump diaphragms. Your aircraft wonât be flying because of torn pump diaphragms and collapsed or ruptured fuel hoses. I call BS on this.