I could reach for metaphors involving dogs catching cars or irresistible forces encountering immovable objects, but I’ll just go with a simple fact: After nearly 13 years of trying, GAMI finally has a fleetwide STC for its 100-octane unleaded aviation fuel, G100UL. Mark the historic date as Sept. 1, 2022.
Excellent write-up.
I propose a “Bertie” award, for outstanding contributions to General Aviation.
The first awardee?
Why, Paul Bertorelli, of course.
Thanks, Paul, for all that you do for G.A.
You are a giant among the rest of us.
We could have had cheaper/cleaner 94 UL some 40 years ago (but having more than 1 AvGas pump is also a distant memory). I find it hard to celebrate the same lazy “one size fits all” mentality for GA. I’ll remember the date as adding another $50 for a top off. Great writing almost suckered me into thinking that I should be greatful for what I don’t want, don’t need, and happy that most of the small GA fleet was once again ignored.
The one and only reason that 100LL hasn’t already been banned is that up until now there was no alternative.
As for California, the state has banned new internal combustion cars as of 2035 even though the state neither generates enough electricity nor has anywhere near enough charging stations to support such a move and hand waves away such objections. 17 other states are likely to do the same.
You can expect a ban on 100LL in the very near future and there will not be a 13 year period to switch as from the point of view of the state all the industry has to do is stop making 100LL, start making something else, and use the existing distribution infrastructure.
You’re far too kind, Yars. But let’s not go overboard.
Along with what you’re saying Jim. I wonder how 100LL would do if put through the same test as these other fuels are and would it pass the tests? Or even be considered?
When they switched our fuel from 100/130 way back when, our commercial fleet had all kinds of issues leading to serious consequences. We had to take on a different operating procedure to prevent sticking valves, rings and sludge build up. 100LL took out AvMobile’s fully synthetic aircraft engine oil. Wouldn’t it be nice to use a modern fully synthetic oil? Eliminating 100LL from the industry can’t happen soon enough.
I attended George Braly’s forum at Airventure. At first, he wasn’t there because – apparently – he was testifying via video (?) on the subject. Tim started the forum and George appeared about 15 minutes later via golfcart. Attendees could ‘feel’ both the frustration and enmity coming from both of them. George was optimistic that final resolution would be forthcoming by the end of August and … it did. SUPERB! I even collected one of his G100UL badges and added it to my 40 years’ worth of Airventure memorabilia. 
Looking at a pic of George 13 years ago and seeing him now says much.
"Then there’s California at large … " Now there’s another major hurdle to surmount … the logistics tail, as you’ve described. If those fanatics out there dictate electric vehicles only to almost immediately ask people not to run their air conditioners or charge their eV’s, I shudder to think of how that’ll all shake out?
You don’t have to walk the plank to get a Bertie …
First of all: Lirio Liu for administrator!
If the majors want to field a fuel, they should have GAMI test and certify it as an STC project.
California should drop the excise tax for unleaded aviation fuel. In fact everyone should stop taxed UL avgas for at least 2 years.
Good post.
I can’t tell of anyone else carrying the banner and megaphone so consistently. Helping to educate and bring something to bear deserves praise. We’ll done.
“There is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes. Paul Poberezny told me years ago how the FAA made the EAA’s Mogas STC testing very tough. Some claimed the agency was tougher on the FAA and Peterson Aviation than on Avgas suppliers. The consequence has been a 40-year track record of a safe and low-cost alternative to leaded avgas. It and other boutique fuels will probably be around for those who can afford them, but the vast majority of pilots in the future are going to be using Mogas and Jet-A Diesel as the price of other fuels climb. Those who self-fuel from the over 16,000 sellers of Mogas listed at pure-gas.org can probably also get a refund of the highway taxes on that fuel to lower costs further. All the details on Mogas are at https://www.autofuelstc.com/
I see now how George Braly’s long experience as a litigator was instrumental in buttressing the engineering part of GAMI’s effort.
That a somewhat unfortunate choice of photo for this story, isn’t it?
Paul:
Another great article. Another point–
Are we just going to have G100UL nationwide, or do I have to get STCs for 94UL and G100UL. What will the Eagle initiative produce? When we went to 100LL in the 1970s, it was to a universal fuel. Is that where we are heading now? I don’t care to have a separate STC for different airports.
Best
Vince
So another market that might make sense for the big refiners to jump into licensing G100UL would be the off highway market. Total sales is over 7 Billion gallons / year with boats and powersports equipment making up about 3 billion gallons of that. Avgas is only about 150 million gallons but it might make sense to formulate, market and sell one type of fuel. The perceived value of “aviation gasoline” might help the profit margin as well. Expanding the potential market by 20x could be a good thing for everybody. I would sure love to run G100UL in my paramotor, side by sides and my race car!
Data is old (2014) but the numbers make the example valid- https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl17012.pdf
Like many I was surprised and somewhat dismayed when the FAA EAGLE program was announced. I came to see that, as Baker, Bunce and Pelton all said, a primary goal of EAGLE was to establish a firm deadline that was far enough into the future to provide a transition period to a new fuel. I don’t think that was the only motivation for EAGLE, but perhaps EAGLE at least serves this purpose (and can save a whole lot of taxpayer money by scaling back on other goals, although as you write some unknown may arise that requires we have a backup).
Question: AVfuel is cited as not only distributing but also supplying (i.e., manufacturing) the fuel. There’s nothing about actually producing fuel on the AVfuel website. Is it more correct to say that AVfuel has agreed (with GAMI) to negotiate with fuels manufacturers to produce G100UL?
Like you, Paul, my biggest concern is the ability to move from an entrepreneurial design/certification mentality to a full-scale business production/distribution capability–and if it can happen quickly enough to avoid more widespread fuel availability issues in California and elsewhere.
Thanks as always, for your insights, Paul.
If George Braly and Tim Roehl don’t get the Collier Trophy, it’ll be a disgrace.
Paul is accurate with this; and this is the model the NRC uses - which has caused the death of clean nuclear power in the US: “But EAGLE has too many players, has overcomplicated the task and assigned testing to the FAA. In my view, this is exactly backward. The industry won’t admit it, but this is the functional equivalent of Boeing or Airbus submitting airplane designs to the FAA for testing, approval and selection.”