FAA Continues To Stall On G100UL - AVweb

Exactly, Yars.

Where did the 105 octane Swift100R fuel disappear to? The FAA has had it for about 7 years. It is still listed on Swift’s website as a replacement for all GA engines. GAMI worked with Swift for 4 years (2014 - 2018). Were there too many patents placed on the Swift fuel to allow GAMI to move forward with their G100UL or is there something else in play here?

Maxine Waters doth protest. Unicorn farts contribute to global warm…er ah, climate change. So, no can do.

Chevron is one of the owners of Innospec which makes all the TEL for AvGas. What incentive have they had to develop an unleaded fuel?

It isn’t nonsense. It’s the difference between what the FAA can/could do, and what they spend their work day actually DOING.

Amen!

Paul,
Perhaps we should think differently, and work within our industry with market forces, instead of expecting a media-damaged bureaucratic government agency to miraculously respond with efficiency. I feel that working with our GAMA OEM’s and the oil companies could be a lot more productive. Let me give you an example of what I consider a complacent attitude on the part of an OEM regarding 100LL:
As I write this, on the east coast at 0830, there are already 44 SR22’s, 29 SR20’s, and 22 S22T’s airborne, and the west coast pilots are not even out of bed. These are not short training flights, these are mostly real trips. Almost all these AVIC International Cirrus’s are powered by AVIC international Continental engines that require 100LL.

At the same time, on the Continental website, these words can be found: "Continental Aerospace Technologies™ Jet-A engines are world-class benchmarks in General Aviation, with more than 7,500 are produced and shipped and more than 2,000 engines in operation today, reporting upwards of 9 million hours. They are favored by flight schools and specified by major OEMs including Tecnam®, Cessna®, Diamond® , Mooney® , Glasair® , Piper® , and Robin® . These Jet-A fueled engines operate on universally-available aviation fuel kerosene (Jet Fuel, Jet-A and other certified aviation Jet fuels). Each is certified to the requirements of FAA, EASA and a further 78 countries." 

   Notice any manufacturer missing from this list??  Cirrus. WTHeck?

Moving down the line, the 210’s and 206’s can likely be retrofitted with the same package as the Cirrus. The current version of the Textron Panthera is already compatible with unleaded lower-octane fuels. Twin Cessna’s are a little different, but the largest operator, hours-wise, is Cape Air, and they already have fleet replacement plans with Tecnam/Textron products that are compatible with unleaded fuels. Todd Petersen/Impulse has a great STC’d solution for much of the Baron fleet. Every rotax-powered aircraft (and there are now a LOT of them) has a distaste for lead already.
In the end, if the supply of TEL is gone tomorrow, we are not in bad shape. We just need to get the OEM’s to have the smart products, and oil companies to supply the unleaded Avgas (already approved) in large quantities and with low prices.

Most light twins on the FAA’s registry don’t fly. Safety, Insurance, training, and the cost of fuel are the reasons for that. The ones that do fly, can be modified. We just need to roll up our shirt sleeves and do the work. Many of the ones flying have had higher compression engines STC’d with no approved OEI performance data changes in their AFM. This can be undone, and turbocharging can be removed. This has been show as an option on certain AeroStars and Navajo’s. And I’m no environmentalist. I’m an A&P with 40+ years experience and an ATP with lots of twin time. I’m just tired of the dirt that accumulates in our combustion chambers, and I know how clean the ones are on my cars.

Amen.

The cost for those modifications will only be worth it for those owners that insist that their aircraft type is the only one that they are willing to travel in. Hopefully you see my point.

Are you sure you have all costs in, including liability insurance?

Are you differentiating between self-serve and full-serve aviation refuelling?

Uh? Illogical, uncalled for!

I saw only a couple of comments that touch on the problem of how to deliver 100UL to pilots who want to buy it. FBOs sell the fuel consumed by GA aircraft. I talked to my FBO’s airport managers and they are waiting for a single fuel that they can sell to all piston aircraft. They can’t afford to install a separate tank or buy a separate truck for 100UL when there are still many aircraft that require 100LL. Enough pilots need to buy the 100UL to cover their costs and produce some profit. GAMI is the farthest along on 100UL for the largest number of engines in the GA piston fleet so I say, support GAMI. It would help greatly if the FAA would drop the requirement for an STC on the make/model engine/airframe requirement. I worked in the federal government for 23 years and had an opportunity to learn how bureaucracies work. They are paralyzed by many factors: funding, incompetency at high levels, constant management changes, differing agendas at various management levels, unclear or conflicting mission requirements, a maze of legislation that defies interpretation, massive problems revising or creating new regulations, changing priorities from external entities such as the President, Congress, GA manufacturers and fuel manufacturers. It’s a wonder to me that they get anything done. Given all those obstacles, relying on the FAA to solve the unleaded fuel problem is doomed. It will take coherent pressure from the President and Congress and cooperation from GA manufacturers and fuel manufacturers. Writing to your representatives and senators is a good start to applying that pressure. Right now there is public sympathy that favors paying more for fuel to get rid of the lead since everyone agrees that lead is bad for the environment and people. If enough senators and representatives feel that public sympathy is high enough to keep them in office by supporting a push for approval of GAMI’s 100UL for piston engines and airframes, then that might produce some action from the FAA. The news media can be a help or hindrance here. Stories about bureaucratic paralysis that prevents the removal of a dangerous environmental hazard that makes people (including children) sick could help make things happen.

., “I am not sure where this sort of nonsense comes from”

Here’s one place we can start an FAA purpose discussion:

The FAA’s job is spelled out by congress in the “Pilot’s Bill of Rights”. It doesn’t say much about making regulation to advance aviation. The FAA can obviously create regulation. They just don’t, all their budget goes to legal.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-11475/pdf/COMPS-11475.pdf

and they already have fleet replacement plans with Tecnam/Textron products that are compatible with unleaded fuels.

The Tecnam’s Lycoming IE2 engines require 100-octane. It doesn’t have to be leaded, but it has to be 100.

Which brings to mind another issue: Several of you have decried the dangers of having one company with a supposed monopoly over the production of unleaded avgas. In reality, we already have that problem with the sole-source supplier of the TEL for 100LL. Besides, Braley has published a specification that outlined the components for G100UL. There are no unnamed “magic” ingredients that only he controls. Anyone can produce a fuel that meets GAMI’s specification. The bigger challenge is developing a distribution network for the fuel they manufacture. The beauty of G100UL is that refiners can use the same tanks and transports they now use for 100LL, since both fuels are totally mixible and any lead contamination will be minuscule and fade over time. Local FBOs can use their current storage tanks to hold the new fuel, thus negating the need for new equipment.

@Andrew M. “It’s a wonder to me that they get anything done.” In case you haven’t noticed, right now they aren’t getting anything done. The FAA is a classic case of an agency stuck in the middle of a problem with competing interests on both sides. In that case, the standard bureaucratic response is to appoint a committee to “study” the problem (i.e. Do nothing). They did it before with PAFI, and now they are doing it again with EAGLE.

I’ve seen committees that were effective and those that weren’t. The ones that were effective did a good job of studying the issues from all angles and recommended a clear, feasible course of action to the decision maker. Sometimes there was more than one decision maker, which tended to delay or doom the decision. Other times the decision maker had a different agenda and ignored the committee’s recommendations. Sometimes the stars would align, the committee would do a good job and the decision maker would execute the recommendation. Maybe that will be the case here.