A California court will consider whether to compel 17 FBOs and four fuel distributors to sell GAMI G100UL unleaded fuel on Wednesday and an enormous effort has been mounted to block that. As we've reported, the Center for Environmental Health is going to court to enforce a consent agreement signed by the FBOs and distributors in 2014 to switch to the first commercially available high octane unleaded fuel. The STC-approved G100UL has been available at two California fuel sellers since November and the contract refiner says it can supply all of the state with it. More than 800 pages of documents have been filed in opposition to the court action and a decision is expected Wednesday.
This is a fiasco. Both interesting and surprising that all these issues are being brought to light by an individual A&P. Chemistry is hard, and material compatibility is as well.
We’ve been working on this problem for 50 years, and it’s amazing we’re still strugging.
Or if they’re even significant. Shade tree mechanics are ill equipped to do this testing. Instead of guessing what the goo is, run FTIR and find out with certainty. You’ll know the source then. The mechanic consistently mispronounces Buna so he’s a rookie for sure. And nitrile is a modern material. Chloroprene was the traditional fuel resistant elastomer. And you may not want to shove fluoropolymer into every application. Some of them will rely on some swell to do their job; the cork gasket is a good example.
Some of them will rely on some swell to do their job; the cork gasket is a good example.
This has always been my understanding as well–the cork is SUPPOSED to swell as it absorbs liquid. In fact, some cork gaskets come with a warning to expect leaks until the cork absorbs enough liquid to swell and make a seal.
I think Mike is doing us all a favor. At least someone is doing some independent testing on GAMI fuels. The tests aren’t rocket science, just common sense side by side comparisons of G100LL to 100LL. You don’t need a PhD in chemical engineering for that.
But where is his data from planes not using the fuel? What percentage “have problems”? As a former owner of a legacy aircraft, and knowing many owners, there are a lot of engine issues popping up, regardless of fuel.
Cherry picking data that supports your premise isn’t “evidence” at all.
A&P Luvara is a signature member of a local coalition of pilots in Santa Clara County, CA, who have been fighting the removal of 100LL from their airport. Before any of his alleged “findings” occurred, he signed court documents in a separate legal action, stating that 100LL could not be replaced by G100UL.
His findings lack true scientific process and we should be asking ourselves why he is the only person rteporting problems.
The mechanic making the videos seems pretty knowledgable to me and the evidence/concerns he presents is compelling. I’m anxious to move to a no-lead option but will not use G100UL until evidence exists that these issues are not related to the fuel. Hate to say it but the rest of the country will benefit if CA is forced (as usual) to be the guinea pigs. But I would refuse to be one.
I’m anxious to move to a no-lead option but will not use G100UL until evidence exists that the reported issues (in the videos and elsewhere) are not related to the fuel. I hate to say it but the rest of the country will benefit if CA is forced (as usual) to be the guinea pigs. But I would refuse to be one.
Truth be told, I was mostly on board with G100UL once it was approved for every spark ignition engine. However, I was a little skeptical to put it in my plane when I heard about the use of aromatics in the fuel, as those have been a large issue in all types of engines, vehicles, and industries over the past decades. I guess that skepticism was right.
Most of the GA fleet isn’t maintained perfectly, that’s a fact of life. This fuel seems to make known issues worse and looks to cause issues itself. Just about every airplane will probably leak fuel sometime in its life and shouldn’t need a new paint job because of fuel every few months (weeks? days?). Paint seems to be the least of our worries though after seeing all this real world experience. This is the real world testing people wanted to see and it’s not looking good. It’s a shame but I believe it would be very foolish and dangerous for the industry to move forward with this fuel.
This smells like money to me - the loss of it by all those ganging together to stall until they can make money at it. How much investment is shared between all these companies? Hard to believe there is none. And then there is the back scratching exchange.
All those FBOs made an agreement - stick to it. Then those of us out here - can wait for the results!
GAMI has gone through the process and earned the STC, so they should be able to keep it. The manufacturers have individually issued guidance not to use the fuel due to field service difficulties. The real problem is that the issues experieneced by users in the field, under field conditions, are not at all surprising given the physical composition of these unleaded fuels. We discovered similar issues with all the fuels we tested under PAFI when contracted by the FAA to conduct the research. There were various degrees of materials incompatability with everything we tested AND there were also interactions between the new fuels and existing materials in situ that had been emersed in 100LL for 30+ years. The reality is that these are NOT drop in fuels and shouldn’t be forced into the market by the courts as a drop in replacement. It’s embarassing for the industry, but as long as this has been going on, it’s still too soon for that.
Ironic how Mr. Luvara is asking for transparency and for GAMI to respond to his many questions, but he will not open comments for his videos. I’m sure there would be more than a few questions and comments for Mr. Luvara if he would be open to them. As it is, he seems pretty comfortable pontificating from his hangar.
I’m mainly concerned about issues that popped up after using the fuel. Sure, there could be some coincidences - but fuel selector valves sticking, tanks suddenly leaking and paint degredation from spillage - certainly seems suspicious. I’ll let those pilots who are downplaying his findings put it in their planes for 6-12 months before I’ll touch it (and I’m all for getting the lead deposits out of my engine)!
