there is also the basic problem that bureaucrats (which the FAA has many ) do not get rewarded for doing something good and taking a risk. they get fired if something goes wrong. Therefore it is far safer for his/her job for the government employee to say no and or work to push the responsibility off on someone else.
I know this personally. just try to get a modern electronic ignition approved on a seabee which has a breaker ignition off a 48 Ford pickup or similiar. the modern stuff is far more reliable and safer but it is not “legal”
we need to reward people for trying to make things better.
at one time there was a proposal in a plan by the Faa for an owner to put his old aircraft into experimental (like Sweden does) so it could be easily upgraded. As a Seabee owner I do not want to make the choice between legal and safe
by the way what ever happened to that proposal? I have been unable to ever find out what happened.
Yeah, the switch to dating grumpy old men should have happened long ago as well, but the young beauties in my area still insist I’m too ugly and worn out.
The Inpulse ADI system is approved for Beech Barons, Cessna 210’s and the Cessna 188. It’s not been widely adopted because it’s expensive and old tech, but it works. You can shave 12 or 13 octane points off an engine using this system. If the FAA had spent half the time and money on mods like this instead of a drop in replacement, the problem would be solved by now.
I’m a bit confused as to the situation with AVFuel and GAMI’s agreement and how it would work. They would need the existing refiners to make the fuel under contract correct? So the refiners would necessarily have to know what they are making. Am I wrong?
Is there some justifiable concern that the introduction of G100UL into the system would cause some players to exit the market? I always assumed GAMI would be collecting a royalty on every gallon, but letting all the existing players continue to supply the market.
When you say “existing” refiners, if you’re thinking just the ones that now make leaded avgas, the answer is no. It could be any refiner capable of doing the blending. Avfuel will essentially be the manufacturer and distributor, which they have done before and are doing with SAF, a new expanding market.
The refiner needs high-quality aviation alkylate probably shipped in by rail, then adds GAMI’s proprietary octane package to produce the finished fuel for distribution. An existing avgas refiner could do this to if they see it of interest.
As I see it, the problem isn’t lead or no lead, the problem is avgas. As Paul B. notes, the volume sold has been declining for years. Many governments are hostile to gas in general and the oil companies are disincentivized to add refinery capacity, period. The FAA now wants to approve an unleaded fuel by 2030. Meanwhile, California has already legislated a ban on gas-powered vehicles by 2035, just five years later. This is only small-fry GA’s problem, as the airlines and the global warming elite will likely continue to truck around on Jet A for much longer.
The right time to have switched to an unleaded fuel replacement for 100LL was 10 or 20 years ago. In today’s political environment, I believe James C.'s comment above is correct: a number of locations will mandate an immediate switch to an FCC-blessed no-lead fuel for various political reasons. However, it’s quite possible few of the oil companies will want to manufacture that new fuel, and no-lead could become no-fuel at all for the GA fleet. I wonder how much of the FAA’s kick-the-can down the road intransigence comes from fear of that possibility.
It’s working. Every summer tell them it’s getting hotter. I acknowledge that the solution here is upgrading from being a loser GA pilot to flying a private jet, if only for the stable supply of JET-A but I’m curious why 12 years rather than something more ominous like 13. Is it a multiple of election cycles or the length of time it takes for the public to stop questioning the basis of a lie? Kids spoon fed this bunk will now be voters? A dozen - just to make it sound like some imperialist measurement? Hmm, you sure about 12 - like exactly? Either way I still look forward to the end of the world in 2030, just like I did in Y2K. Fear aside, we have something to look forward to, something I dream about it when I’m deep in the throttle - watching California burn to the ground. Fire up those engines boys, were gonna cleanse the planet.
Assuming Paul’s inferences are correct, the infuriating thing is not the competition among divergent interests to prevail over others; that’s the American marketplace at its best, both spurring innovation and rewarding efficiency. The infuriating thing is the involvement of government, meddling in the market to hobble winners and boost losers. Congress and the courts should have a close look at FAA’s meddling in the civil aviation fuels market(s). FAA’s involvement appears to have precious little to do with its safety mandate and everything to do with manipulating markets to please monied and connected interests.
Politicians and bureaucrats don’t care about the Constitution. They really, truly don’t. If they did, about 80% of our federal government would be gone. A guy can dream, right?
Consider this: The bulk of AvWeb pilot/readers will have quit flying before there is a firm decision or a sound distribution system for a universal unleaded fuel, so it is now and for the foreseeable future, this discussion is moot point.
Why don’t we call the status quo what it is: Stupid.
Think about it–Look at the hourly cost to fly. Two biggest components: Fuel and Engine Reserve.
Why is there the big cost delta between pump gas (which has a higher tax btw) and 100LL? Most–and yes, I get not ALL–of that cost premium is to deliver a fuel with performance specifications that ARE NOT REQUIRED for most GA Aircraft today. Yes, I get there are high performance engines that require every bit of the technical specifications that 100LL provides; but everyone else is paying for a fuel that delivers performance they don’t need to complete THEIR mission with. The many are subsidizing the few when it comes to GA fuel.
There is a reason that the flight schools using LSA’s that can run on E10 are filling up their tanks at costco.
Second, there is is real opportunity to meaningfully increase the TBO (or on condition) life of engines by avoiding leaded fuel. There is a reason that ROTAX engines, which can even run on E10, require more frequent fuel change intervals when running on 100LL vs. unleaded.
Between the two factors, I can see a single easily having a ~$30/hr lower operating cost.
I find it hard to believe that a refinery could have an ingredient in their system which they do not know the ingredients of. Interesting.
So, let’s say the Phillips plant down the road is now producing Avgas, they could switch by buying GAMI’s product, and sell that to the local airport? What’s their reason for caring then, which fuel they make? Is it more competition?
I know I’m peeing into the wind, but what bugs me about this whole issue is that, as far as I know, there is no data to support the fact that lead in aircraft exhaust poses any risks to humans in the vicinity of airports. In fact, I remember reading something about the ambient lead found in the vicinity of one of the California airports was no higher than the ambient lead found away from the airport; and that there were other sources (I don’t remember what) which released more lead into the air. Sure lead is bad stuff, it’s toxic; but don’t drink it, bathe in it, snort your aircraft exhaust, or let your toddlers chew on the window sills of your hundred year old house. So, where I can I read the study about how much lead aircraft are pumping into the atmosphere? Like I said, peeing into the wind.
As a plane owner at one of those Calif. airports where sales of 100LL are banned, I’ve been using Swift’s UL94 for a year, and it is a great (if more expensive…) replacement. No problems… What PAFI and now EAGLE are struggling with is that the refiners want an easy to make lead-free replacement without having to pay royalties. And they aren’t working on it themselves… They want the government to develop and “guarantee” it and then mandate it so it can be rolled out smoothly and efficiently. Both GAMI and Swift (which also has a viable unleaded 100 octane fuel in “testing”) have based their business models on licenses, STC’s and royalties for their proprietary formulas. The FAA and Industry groups seem to dislike the royalty/proprietary formula model as well, and would prefer a competition of at least two viable options, with the winner getting a plaque but no pennies per gallon for their development. PAFI collapsed because the only non-proprietary formula left was too expensive to produce and more harmful than the lead in 100LL. And so we wait. For those whose airports are going to see protesters and see 100LL banned over the next few years, hopefully Swift’s UL94 will work in your plane…
