In conjunction with the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative, the FAA announced today it is calling on pilots, aircraft owners, mechanics, and fixed-base operators (FBOs) to document and report their experiences with “a new, high-octane unleaded aviation fuel available at various airports across our nation.” Though not named in the announcement, presumably, that refers to General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s (GAMI) G100UL fuel. The high-octane drop-in replacement candidate for the current 100 low lead (100LL) fuel is controversial, largely due to GAMI’s refusal to participate in an ASTM test program, which GAMI claims exposes the company to theft of intellectual property, among other issues it has with the testing.
There’s nothing stopping you from convincing your local FBO to sell another octane of fuel. There is an existing unleaded non-100-octane fuel that is legal and FAA-approved for use. PAFI/EAGLE (as much as I dislike them) are only looking for a 100-octane replacement for 100LL; they in no way are disallowing the use of non-100-octane fuels.
There’s nothing stopping you from convincing your local FBO to sell Swift.
There’s nothing stopping you from convincing your local FBO to sell G100UL.
Point is that the FAA has one hell of a lot of sway and their “policies” on a single octane for the last 50 years have gotten us here. That policy has all but dictated GA manufacturers and engine suppliers into non-development in the USA for half a century now.
You, as a pilot who buys fuel, also have a lot of sway. Isn’t that the whole point of a “free market” economy?
We already know that the FAA isn’t going to do anything for us unless they are forced to. Lobby you FBO for whatever fuel you want. Lobby your representatives to force the FAA make it easier for FBOs to install additional fuel tanks of unleaded fuel.
The point is, just complaining about things does nothing when you actually can help to do something about it. I personally don’t feel 94UL (without ethanol) will make much of a difference, so I have no personal incentive to do the things I mentioned above. But you seem to, so why not try to do something about it?
Well, I’ve been asking since I became an owner some 40 years ago.
The private FBO at my field decides. The same goes at strips all over the USA. I buy what they have or my plane does not move.
This is the main reason I dropped out of AOPA many years ago; I constantly complained to them as well and all I got after years of doing so was, and I’m paraphrasing, was “jets and big planes bring more money to the airports so airports have fuel for them”.
The FAA in the 80’s turned from supporting mom&pop family flying and, for some reason, wanted to be more European in their approach. Basically they barely tolerate small GA planes and, if they had their way, would ban them from most airspace.
Some people forget how troublesome the banishment of 80 octane fuel was, planes that were never designed to run on it had fouled plugs and sticky valves galore.
Sure we all know work-arounds NOW, but not a whole lot of testing got done beforehand.