The Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions organization has released its third and final examination of what it sees as the key elements of the industry and government quest for an alternative to 100LL. This one looks at the role ASTM International, a private sector consensus standards organization, plays in that pursuit. Two of three candidate fuels for replacing 100UL, from Lyondell/Basell and Swift Fuels, are attempting to secure an ASTM fuel specification while General Aviation Modifications Incorporated has decided not to deal with ASTM. GAMI's G100UL has been granted an FAA STC with an approved model list that includes all spark ignition piston engines in certified aircraft and all certified aircraft except helicopters. It is being sold at two California airports. The full EAGLE examination of ASTM involvement appears unedited below.
Why ASTM? Because the industry that makes money on these products wants to protect its territory from all newcomers. The purpose of this organization is to ensure no one encroaches on their business monopoly.
Right now time is their enemy. GAMI is ready to go, in fact is going. They, the entire group, are years out before they can deliver any product. So FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Cast aspersions on the competition until you can finally overwhelm them with big money marketing and underhanded, back room, techniques to put them out of business.
Hopefully G100UL will reach a marketing level where it can survive. Competition is good, remember?
Yeah! Iâm sure the homebrewed secret gas Iâve made will be fine, Iâm tired of people talking about it and the HUGE compatibility, reliability, and availability issues. We should just DO something without thinking about it from now on! Sure many will die, and billions in destroyed engines, fuel tanks, hoses, etc will be lost. But weâre all about action now!
I actually read the article and saw zero âaspersionsâ cast on GAMI. I have nothing but respect for what George has done bringing G100UL to market, but the argument for a ASTM standard remains a valid one.
I wonder why EAGLEâs own website still shows a âPathway to Approve Use of Fuelâ still shows an âIndependent Specificationâ as acceptable if an STC is sought.
In my opinion, the jury is still out on G100UL and itâs alleged compatibility issues (I would like to hear from the FAA), but it doesnât help to change the rules when weâre so far along in this process. At least EAGLE should make it clear that the rules have changed and alter the diagram in the link above.
Asking for a friend⌠What happens if a high-performance engine, modified or tuned for unleaded avgas like G100UL or UL94, suddenly has to run on 100LL again? Could this lead to detonation issues, increased lead deposits, or unexpected maintenance problems? With unleaded avgas burning cleaner and some engines being adjusted with advanced timing or mixture settings, I wonder if reverting to 100LL could pose safety risks or damage critical engine components. If so, how should pilots, mechanics, and aircraft owners prepare for this possibility?
GAMI explains why theyâre not using ASTM on their website. They have already published the specifications for G100UL. ASTM would not add anything of value.