Technicians were doing a rare reboot of the NOTAM system when the decision was made to issue a ground stop early Wednesday. The system got glitchy on Tuesday afternoon and the agency found a single corrupted file in both the main and backup system according to sources interviewed by CNN. After nudging the system along through Tuesday night, the decision was made to do a reboot in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the network reported. It took longer than anticipated to come back and at 7:30 a.m. the decision was made to halt all departures. It didn't last long but the effect was far-reaching.
As mentioned on a previous thread—we sell 100LL AND aviation auto fuel. The auto fuel is produced at an aviation refinery—it has a minimum of 94 octane—it is only produced for summer month Reid vapor pressure—every load has a “birth certificate “ to attest to the above, and it is only trucked by trucks dedicated exclusively to aviation fuel. We have never had a fuel issue in decades.
We will continue to sell 100 LL UNTIL there is enough demand and at a competitive price. I expect that to eventually happen/-years down the road. At that time, we will likely re evaluate, and barring operational issues, make the switch at that time.
In the meantime—I predict that many pilots will move to aviation auto if there is a big price difference. Users will move to the margins—go with aviation auto for those who can use it—or, barring any users difficulties—unleaded 100 octane.
For most of the country—supplying 100 unleaded won’t be a viable choice if the price is 60–90 cents higher than 100 LL.
“When 100LL is outlawed, only outlaws will use 100LL.”
That obvious truth aside, as long as these various unleaded products are fungible, it may not matter how many of them are available in any given geographic area.
Proponents of less-than-100-octane alternatives are of the “I’m aboard; you can pull up the ladder!” persuasion. Their population of aircraft is larger, but the vast bulk of aviation gasoline that is sold goes into the tanks of aircraft that REQUIRE 100-octane fuel.
So in my simple mind, if we’re going to see a two- (non-jet) fuel ecosphere, it will be:
A panoply of products that provide 100-octane performance.
A panoply of products that provide sub-100-octane performance.
How many airports will bother to offer one of EACH? If the cost differential is small (say, 50 cents or so), probably none.
Wellcome to the Kingdom of Sweden where Hjelmco pioneered unleaded AVGAS with 80 UL in the year of 1981 and Hjelmco AVGAS 91/96 UL in the year of 1991. We have for our network of 110 airfields/ports produced both the UL sorts and the 100 LL and marketed both of them now for 40 years.
The market appreciates having the UL AVGAS because it is about 40 USA cent cheaper than 100 LL/US gallon and engines tend to (by 40 years of statistics) operate to about 3000 hours (TBO + 50 %) before the needed overhaul.
The Hjelmco AVGAS 100 UL was developed in year 2006 and tested with the Swiss Civil Aviation Authority and the German DLR (equivalent to the US NASA). It is also supported by 400 pages of technical documentation originating from Cessna. This fuel now carries 2 US patents plus patents in Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and Europe (granted Aug 04 2021).
The problem: it was not invented in the US?
Wellcome to our webb page hjelmco.com where there are numerous information in English to obtain.
Paul is well aware of Hjelmco.
I’m sure not technically savvy here, but how much of the GA fleet operate with an O-360 or smaller, including Rotax engines. I’ve been using auto fuel for the last 20 years in my A65s, realizing they will run on about anything, and have had excellent results with it. Always clean plugs, no stuck valves, etc. I know a bunch of folks say auto fuel is no good, but what’s the track record of it harming anyone’s engines? I haven’t heard of any personal experiences. I say auto fuel for one of the choices.
What’s the track record? We’ve sold or used aviation auto fuel for 16 years at this FBO, and 12 years at another. With use/sales at about 15,000 gallons a year, that’s 420,000 gallons without a problem. This doesn’t include what fuel pilots bring in from the local gas station in cans.
The only issue–since we get all of our fuel straight from the refiner, who MAKES it to aviation specifications, I’d like to get rid of the “odifier” added to auto gas. Use the same odor as 100 octane. The only objection to aviation auto fuel is the odor or car gas.
Does anyone know why ASTM (the standards group that handles standards for the petroleum industry) didn’t take this on years ago? They have a pretty good track record of creating functional standards for the rest of the hydrocarbon-consuming universe.
It seems like it would have made a lot more sense to start with a standard that everyone has to meet and that the stakeholders (engine manufacturers, refiners, distributors, FBOs, FAA and other CAAs) accept, THEN have the various fuel refiners or innovators like Swift and GAMI create formulations that meet the standard.
My C182 with an O470 has a mogas STC which I would have gotten if non ethanol mogas was available in California. Also always fueled it on 80 Octane avgas (which by the way contained less lead than 100LL) when it was still refined.
There’s one other objection besides smell. Aging. Autofuel, even without ethanol, doesn’t age as well as avgas does and the hotter it is, the worse it is. Probably not an issue for a year or so, but longer than that and you can begin to see gum formation. Avgas can sit for years and remain chemically stable.
So, apparently, can the new unleaded 100-octane fuels.
You’ve got it backwards, actually. The primary spec was 100 octane. When 100LL came into being, the ASTM spec (D910) was written based on what was known to work, which was a certain amount of lead additive, vapor pressure, net heat content and other qualities. D910 described that and it became more a purchasing agent’s spec sheet rather than a recipe.
Interesting that Swift has lined up so many new California airports–I was under the impression they were actively trying NOT to sell it to airports here before. At the snails pace UL avgas has been coming to market it will finally become ubiquitous about the same time IC engines become illegal due to climate change.
STEM be damed, there is no support in communities nor the government for small private piston singles. Heck, even a lot of airports shun smaller planes (so much so that even the sleeping AOPA woke a bit to look at the ramp practices)
Basically we will get what we get and are supposed to respond with thanks.
Biggest engines with an auto fuel STC? Some that come immediately to mind:
O-540 on Cherokee 235 and AeroSpatiale Rallye
0-470s on Skylanes and 180s
P&W R-985 of Ag Cat and BT-13
P&W R-1340 (600 hp.) on Ag Cat and T-6
R-1830 on DC-3 (skydiver aircraft)
For those with 160 hp engines, Petersen does have an STC for them–high-test auto fuel (we do that anyway). For Cherokee Warriors, it requires replacing the RH fuel line with a larger line, and a second vacuum pump for standby.
To protect against age, we only accept deliveries with “summer blend” fuel. The refinery usually switches over to “winter blend” (changed Reid Vapor Pressure) at the end of October each year. To insure that there is no old fuel, or winter blend fuel, we bring the inventory up to 7000 gallons–enough to take us through the winter (yes, the winter in Minnesota is LONG, but not a YEAR LONG!–laugh). We have a floating suction system in the tank to protect against water condensation, as well as a “dead stop” water filter that shuts down the pumps in the event of water contamination.
In short, we have done everything we can to protect against fuel problems (“birth certificate” for the fuel, dedicated delivery trucks, summer blend only for RVP, floating suction, aviation filtration, no old fuel, water filters). We do it not only to protect our customers, but OURSELVES. Years ago, we had a lawyer flying a T-6 in to get fuel on the way back from Oshkosh–when he got home, he sent a letter saying “I had some engine problems, I may have gotten some bad fuel.” I told him "You picked the wrong guy to tell THAT fairy tale to!
Moral of the story–we don’t take a chance on fuel from the local gas station. Who knows WHAT it has been mixed with during storage or in the pipeline, or on delivery. Despite all of the extra work, it’s still over a dollar a gallon cheaper than 100LL.
Now–if they would only change the State laws and do something to eliminate the need to blend in the autogas SMELL at the refinery! (laugh)
As part of the team that has brought Swift UL94 to San Jose CA (and other local airports signing on…) there is no chance that 2 unleaded 100 Octane fuels will remain in the marketplace. Either Swift or GAMI’s formula will be blessed fleetwide by the FAA and will be licensed by the few refiners interested in brewing Avgas to replace the outlawed 100LL. The FAA, EPA and Biden Administration will ban Tetraethyl lead and its importation from Innospec in the UK as soon as the ink dries on FAA approval of UL100. It appears that Phillips, Shell and others are more interested in “green jet fuel” than Avgas, and are not really pursuing the development & testing needed to get final approvals. And if both GAMI and Swift get FAA approvals at or about the same time, the lower-cost formula is going to carry the day, assuming the license terms for the proprietary formula are reasonable.
Swift was never opposed to sale of UL94 in California. It takes years of groundwork to educate pilots and build demand and streamline the STC process to make it happen. And then it took a major effort to establish a distribution model of large enough quantities to overcome transportation cost issues and reliable supply stream. Pilots at Reid Hillview Airport in San Jose led that effort knowing since 2019 that our county politicians were going to use “lead poisoning” as an excuse to close the airport. If you have airport opponents in your neighborhood, rest assured they will be studying Reid Hillview and planning to try and use the lead argument as an excuse to redevelop the airport into a housing tract or shopping center.
Mogas has issues with storage periods, ethanol and octane ratings, in addition to distribution/delivery issues at airports with limited fuel storage tanks. In California, ALL Mogas must contain Ethanol, and maximum Octane rating for Mogas is 91, so it is a non-starter for most airports and aircraft here. It can be used in some aircraft designed for 80 or 91 Octane fuel years ago, if an Ethanol-free source can be arranged.
Fully agree–"
We will continue to sell 100 LL UNTIL there is enough demand and at a competitive price. I expect that to eventually happen/-years down the road. At that time, we will likely re evaluate, and barring operational issues, make the switch at that time."