FAA Sides With AOPA et al on Santa Clara 100LL Ban Complaint

The  FAA has released a 36-page decision on a complaint filed by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), joined by local pilots and aviation businesses, against the County of Santa Clara, California. The decision finds that the county’s 2022 prohibition of 100LL aviation fuel violated its federal airport grant obligations. The county agreed to those obligations when it accepted approximately $6.8 million in funding between 1983 and 2011.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-rules-against-county-level-ban-on-100ll

About time the FAA upheld its conditions for funding!

2 Likes

I agree. About time the FAA upheld its conditions for funding!

3 Likes

The question is, will Santa Clara actually face any consequences if they don’t follow this ruling?

Santa Clara will probably just close the airport down. Thank you, AOPA.

Some Federal judge will step in and block this. You watch.

They can’t for the same reason the FAA ruled on the 100LL ban.

2 Likes

Godd news that should have started with “Thanks to the new Trump administration…” It is hard to feel much sympathy for this airport however. Over a decade ago, I helped a group of pilots there trying to establish Mogas sales. We estimated that well over 70% of all piston aircraft based there would operate legally, safely, and for less money on Mogas. We identified a low-cost fuel system that would have paid for itself in a short time. The airport authority was anything but helpful however. Add to this the difficulty getting a supply of ethanol-free fuel anywhere in California, a very backwards state. We did find a supplier just across the state line, but ultimately the airport itself opposed this, probably under pressure from Avgas suppliers who fear competition. See pure-gas.org for a map of mogas suppliers - California is an E0 Desert thanks to its bonehead energy policies.

1 Like

There is no safe use of 100LL. It may not be that much of a hazard to the general public but it is certainly a hazard to anyone fueling a plane and it is also a hazard to safely flying a plane as it causes lead fouling of the ignition and the oil.

My understanding that the “consequences” are the inability to get any new airport grants. Since Santa Clara County has already not taken a new grant since 2012?? and have said that they will not take any more grants, there is no “consequence”.

Wow! That was fast!

Not the “Godd news”, but the speed with which “the new Trump Administration” stepped in, waved a magic wand, and POOF! all the years of hard-slogging work by so many pilot groups and lawyers disappears in a sulfurous cloud of Trump-attribution.

It’s amazing to think that the very same crowd that can’t be bothered to read the Signal Users’ Guide, could muster the brain-power to take credit for a federal judge’s ruling.that was in the works for over two years before they were issued their badges. Oh wait, the new Trump administration isn’t taking the credit. You are doing it on their behalf.

What’s amazing is that there was anyone left in the FAA to send out a press release, after your Cheeto-in-Chief took a Musk-Ax to that agency.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.