Originally published at: FAA Q&A Lays Down the Law on Banning 100LL - AVweb
Wording leaves little doubt as to complying with terms of the Reauthorization Act of 2024.
Arenât grant assurances the way they kept Mayor Daley from destroying Meigs Field and the meatheads in Santa Monica from shortening the runway, et al ??
Grant assurances are as good as the guarantee that Neville Chamberlain got in 1938.
Meigs wasnât protected because it didnât have any grants, i.e., no grant assurances.
Hell yeah. I love lead. It tastes so good. And itâs so good for you.
So here we are with the FAA and AOPA promoting and forcing the dangerous 100LL fuel on the aviation community. There should have been efforts by at least the AOPA to promote fuels like UL91 or UL94 which can be used by over 60% of all planes without an STC and almost all the rest can be modified to use it with an intake air intercooler or water injection. By continuing to promote 100LL they continue to promote the dangers that come with its continued use such as exhaust valve damage caused by lead deposits, spark, plug fouling, due to lead deposits and higher TBOâs caused by lead accumulation in the oil sump. Nobody can even use modern synthetic oils because of the lead in the fuel contaminating the oil which results in oil changes twice as often as should be needed. Currently the AOPA is putting more money into attorneys to keep 100 LL on the market and practically none into promoting alternatives to enhance the safety of Aviation. There may never be a suitable UL100 available, but there are other solutions that can be pursued now.
Before too many people pile onto Ehsif727âs comment above, Iâd like to set the record straight and remove any ambiguity about AOPAâs position on 100LL:
- AOPA is actively working with the industry (GAMI, Swift, Lyondel, PAFI, EAGLE, FAA, âŚ) to identify an unleaded alternative to 100LL (watch any of my recent Town Hall videos for all the things AOPA is doing to help accelerate this)
- AOPA believes 100LL must go away for many reasons, including the known health effects of lead (even though 100LL has extremely low levels of lead), the certainty of Tetra Ethyl Led (TEL) going away in the not too distant future (Innospec has said they will ultimately exit the business and theyâre the only provider in the world [yes, there are some nefarious providers in China, but not ones weâd want to use for our fuel], and itâs been proven that engines that run on unleaded fuel (e.g., Rotax) run better overall (no fouled plugs, lower wear metals, 100 hours between oil changes)
- UL94 from Swift is an outstanding fuel, and AOPA burns it in our RV12s. Weâve surveyed users of UL94 across the country with unanimous positive feedback; one outlier incident several years ago at UND is explainable and has not reoccurred); however UL94 will not work in the largest of engines, so we still need a solution that will, which is where GAMI, Swift 100R, and Lyondel come in
- AOPAâs posture on 100LL is that it must remain in place throughout this transition period, or we otherwise put pilots and aircraft at needless risk for materials compatibility issues, or other unforeseen problems that the fuel producers are working to identify and address. Weâve seen examples of this occurring in California and we donât want it to spread without the fuel producers being given time to provide guidance on mitigation measures for identified issues. When KRHV unilaterally removed 100LL before there was an alternative for all aircraft, it absolutely violated the Grant Assurance language and it put those local pilots in a position to either roll the dice and see what happens, or fly out to another airport to get fuel. Pilots should have the option to start using the new fuels as the become available and as theyâre shown to work without concern.
In summary, AOPA is 100% committed to helping us get to an unleaded alternative to 100LL and will push hard with the FAA and Congress to help get us there as quickly as we possibly can! While we do this, we also want to ensure that pilots arenât taking on unknown risks in the process. I personally fly a SeaRey with a Rotax engine and I work very hard not to burn 100LL in it because everything works so much better on 94UL or equivalent automotive fuel. We just need a similar option for higher horsepower engines as quickly as we can get there. Weâre very close with the 3 candidate fuels and I think we should all lean in to help at least one, or all three, be successful in the market. The future of piston powered aircraft depends on this.
Darren
President and CEO, AOPA
3 Likes
AOPA might be betting on a horse that will never cross the finish line. Every engine can be converted to run on UL94 but for some reason AOPA keeps promoting the lie that it is not possible. When 115 octane fuel was not available anymore they modified those engines to use the 100 LL with an STCâs.
I still remember going to airshows 25 years ago when the AOPA would say itâs just a couple of years off and we will have UL100 trust us.
It never happened and Iâm not trusting you now to get across the finish line cause your track record is terrible.
AOPA is like Thanos and Elizabeth Holmes they just keep telling everybody there is a product and with just a little more time it will happen.
Ehsif, I wonder what your position might be if the FAA told you that you had to modify your engine in order to use some new fuel they had developed. Telling me that I have to do so sounds a little like Marie Antoinette telling the French peasants to âeat cakeâ. When I bought my plane (before George Braley or the FAA got serious about unleaded fuels), I accepted the fact that the only fuel available for it was 100LL. I didnât like the leaded fuel, but I wanted the performance because it matched the cross-country missions I had in mind. But telling me that I have to spend thousands of dollars installing some water injection system in order to run on 94 UL, or accept a significant derating of performance, is ridiculous - especially since GAMI HAS developed a fuel that runs fine in my engine. According to friends with similar planes who have run G100UL, it runs fine and has produced zero problems with either the engine or the fuel system. As usual, the FAA has stuck itself right in the middle of this whole mess. They were the ones that approved G100UL for ALL spark ignited aircraft engines, but now they are standing squarely in the way of GAMI being able to market that fuel to the public. The right way to move forward is to enable all airports to offer both fuels and let the public decide. So, tell the distributors in California that refuse to transport G100UL that they cannot refuse to do so, or they risk losing their license to carry either one. But stating that G100UL is not approved is saying their own decision to approve it through the STC process was not valid. The FAA has mishandled the whole unleaded fuels initiative from the get-go, and now they are just making things worse, instead of trying to fix it.
Things change in aviation like transponders became a requirement and then ADSB and we made those modifications. I didnât know when I bought the airplane that I would have to be doing these expensive things and adding extra weight to my airplane, but I did it because things change and you have to adapt.
I think you already know that if you added water injection even while using a low octane fuel your power would actually increase.
It seems that all the people with these high-powered airplanes wants to push their new expensive fuel to be the only fuel available even though 2/3 of the piston aircraft fleet doesnât need it and will incur no benefit when using it. I feel it is unfair to that group for you to insist that the only pathway to an unleaded fuel is 100 octane..
Weâve heard the stats on minority of GA fleet that must burn 100LL is the majority consumer of avgas. Does AOPA know the percentage of its membership that own acft that must burn 100LL?
AOPA advocacy would be helpful in pushing for multiple grade availability at FBOsâŚstates that donât support alcohol free gas availability could be reminded of the immediate tradeoff resulting in less lead emissions.
Economics also matters to the majority âlow end GAâ fleet that doesnât require 100LL. I understand the need not to throw the 100LL users âunder the busâ, but would prefer to not find myself âunder the busâ if 100LL replacement requires airframes changes (as implied in a recent AOPA article) and higher cost fuel; especially when there is a cheaper lower octane solution with many fleet hours on it already.
Doesnât help when FBOs resist the cost of duplicate infrastructure (multiple grade fuel), but have the funds to install eVTOL chargers as part of a PR campaignâŚand then apparently jack up the price of 100LL to pay for the charger.
It does not matter what FAA, AOPA, PAFI, or anyone else considers an âapprovedâ or âcompliantâ fuel unless the engine manufacturers accept the product and revise relevant documentation to reflect such acceptance.
Exactly. Flying any of the soup might be approved and fine with anyone. What matters is that engine manufacturers approve the fuel and provide warranty. All else will cause massive constipation.
Not that engine manufacturers didnât know about the âneckbreaking speedâ of TEL disappearing from fuels, or where blindsided by rapid regulatory developments, which (by the way) occured nearly 40 years ago. Highly negligent, to let everything come down to the wire before acting.
Neither the constant bickering and arguing about the need for TEL or its microscopic presence in a niche market fuel will help alleviate the issue.
If it werenât so sad, Iâd be chuckling. The thing that gets me is everyone is so concerned about multiple fuels. Funny, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and I got my private, just about every airport had both 100 and 80âoctane pumps. Now werâre concerned they we might need âduplicateâ distribution systems?
The smart operators kept those extra pumps. Over the years theyâve been used for mogas (well until the avgas distributors insisted they stop or they wouldnât deliver 100LL. )One local field still has theirs, and sells 94UL from it.
As one poster noted above, weâre throwing money at eVTOL charging stations. Well, we may just have to throw some money at extra tanks and pumps, and adopt a two fuel solution.
Ironically, the STC process can be a hindrance as well as part of the solution. In my case, I have an AA-5 with the STCâd high compression pistons. The STC clearly requires 100LL. It was done before 94UL was even a thought. The same piston configuration is okâd for other airframes to use 94UL. But, the STC holder will never change the STC. So Iâm stuck with 100LL, though Iâd gladly use 94UL if I could. This is why a drop
In replacement will be needed
What you are not explaining is that engines can be modified require retarding of timing which reduces horsepower. OK for airshow warbirds which are over powered. Not good for us 100 octane civil aircraft who would have to reduce our gross weight and thus payload to meet performance requirements like IFR departure climbs. Nor are you mentioning that while the majority of aircraft can burn 94UL the majority of flight time (70% in fact) is performed by aircraft requiring 100LL. In other words, the 100 octane aircraft are the ones âcarrying the mailâ.
The solution has been staring us in the face for a half century and it is called mogas. The worldâs largest producer of aircraft engines, Rotax, designs all its motors to run best on ethanol-free, lead-free gasoline, aka mogas. What cars for the past 30+ years needed anything other than gasoline or diesel?
Problay many aircraft owners pump in the 100LL when they would rather pump in a 100 octane unleaded aviation certified fuel.Maybe the fuel supplier could install a separate canister for lead,and a fuel nozzle with a gizmo that could be set to dispense 100 no lead,or 100LL Avgas
Thank you for this detailed and thoughtful response. This is a breath of fresh air from AOPA.
Mogas without ethanol is at best, 90 octane. Rotax has not been able to get beyond 150 hp. Youâre not going to run a 6 place single on 150 hp. Even Rotax knows the limitations of its technology. Otherwise they would be building 300 hp aviation engines.
Why isnât AOPA or any of the other organizations, including the environmentalalists, leading a charge as part of âaggressively pursuing alternativesâ to get an exception for aircraft from the mandates that require ethanol to be included in mogas?
I live in CA and my home airport has multiple tanks and pumps where RIGHT NOW airport management would happily dispense both 100LL and ethanol free mogas if they could get the ethanol free mogas.
My understanding is distributors mix in the ethanol when filling the delivery trucks and could supply fuel without ethanol if not mandated to include it.
The old saw about not letting perfection be the nemesis of progress certainly applies here. By all means you should be working to get a 100 no-lead fuel designed and approved so nobody is left behind, but that shouldnât prevent you from also educating and working to remove barriers that are preventing mogas from being pumped by those airports that could offer both.
1 Like