Pilot Uninjured In Cirrus Jet CAPS Pull - AVweb

A Florida pilot escaped with only wet feet after his Cirrus SF50 lost power shortly after takeoff from Indianapolis Regional Airport on Friday morning. Timothy Borrup, 54, told local authorities the plane's single jet engine faltered during the initial climbout and he pulled the CAPS handle. It turned out to be a textbook application of the system and the aircraft settled upright and mostly intact into a retention pond in an industrial area near the airport. 


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/pilot-uninjured-in-cirrus-jet-caps-pull

For almost 50 years intelligent humans, some of whom worked in government, have been trying to get the lead out, with little progress.
Todd Petersen, George W. Braly of GAMI, and Lars Hjelmberg of Hjelmco Oil (sweden) collectively have close to 150 years of experience in aviation and fuels. If you want a consensus, and leave out discussion with these GIANTS, everyone will lose.
Petersen, is the auto fuel STC guru (38 years), including water methanol injection for “100 octane” engines. Braly has contributed to massive reductions in lead emissions by promoting lean of peak (up to 20% reduction in fuel use results in 20% less lead pollution) operations for over 20 years. Hjelmberg has been distributing and selling ASTM D910 unleaded avgas for 40 years now. If we wait much longer, we will have a major brain drain on our hands.

I downloaded and read the “Consensus Study Report” (CSP) and was extremely disappointed by the lack of research used to present the state of AVGAS. A typical waste of money by government. The valuable information could have been condensed to about 20 pages. I purchased a Swift fuel forever STC and wish UL94 was more readily available, however it feels like the author was paid to promote Swiftfuel. Never is Hjelmco’s fuel mentioned, nor the “marine” grade fuels like REC 90, that many of us use with autofuel STCs.
Marcellette Cloche published her masters thesis titled in part “Hot Topics in Aviation”, in 2010. www.hjelmco.com/upl/files/41143.pdf This document provides an honest and complete overview of unleaded aviation fuel at the time of publication and is still relevant today. Swift’s 94UL was not really in the game at that point, but Ms. Cloche’s document can add quite a bit of understanding to the issue.

Timeline of Lead Phase-out
1970: Congress passes the Clean Air Act. The EPA is formed and given the authority to regulate compounds that endanger human health.
1973: EPA mandates a phased-in reduction of lead content in all grades of gasoline.
1974: EPA requires availability of at least one grade of unleaded gasoline, in order to be compatible with vehicles equipped with catalytic converters.
1996: EPA bans the use of leaded fuel for on-road vehicles (leaded gasoline was down to 0.6 percent of 1996 gasoline sales).

20 years of new vehicle production had minimized the “valve recession” risk, due to better valve and seat materials. After 45 years in the industry, I have seen only one burned valve in an automobile engine built since 1980, ( a turbocharged engine without hydraulic lifters) I suspect a valve clearance issue. In the mid 70s valve issues were relatively common. Unleaded fuels dramatically increase engine life, and could reliably add 50% to aircraft piston engine TBO.

Particulate emissions are completely ignored by CSP, and a not insignificant amount of lead in fuel ends up in the engine oil. http://www.hjelmco.com/files.asp?f_id=2419
So, we are still waiting… Like Obama said, “The kids of Flint, provided that they’ve been tested for lead exposure and are getting continuous health care, are going to be fine” (This is the “science” party).

I personally believe the best interim solution is regulation promoting road use sale of a single ethanol free “premium” “marine” grade of fuel modeled on Hjelmco’s 91/96 or Swift UL94. These would have an automotive anti-knock index of around 98 and likely could use isobutanol as an oxygenate for smog areas.
Isobutanol does not absorb water, negatively affect RVP, so should be safe as an aircraft fuel additive. As the current push is for autos to move to higher ethanol content, all lesser grades could be splash blended with oxygenates. These fuels should be able to be pushed through existing oil pipeline infrastructures.
A federal mandate to preempt 99% of the LOCAL red tape associated with adding a fueling infrastructure (at federally supported airports) for unleaded fuel would put costs closer to $50K. https://www.ufuel.com/aviation.phtml

Lead is bad for engines and people; get rid of it!
People forget that when lead was introduced, it caused all sorts of engine problems, particularly with valves.
Now, some still somehow believe that lead is good for engines and valves.
In my personal experience, engines operated on unleaded Mogas (premium Shell) have at least 50 percent more cylinder life, do not have valve guide or valve problems, and never foul plugs.
Oil is cleaner. and oil passages do not sludge up.
Starting is easier in all weather, and some of those engines operate on fuel that may be a year old; still fine.
No Vapour lock issues, with or without fuel pumps. No problems with seals or leakages.
Octane is a separate issue, but is not a problem chemically. Octane does not require lead; that is just one way to achieve it.
What is the hold up? No one will say, except GAMI and SWIFT have fuels that work.
IF Lycoming and Continental were not scared of liability, and IF they would produce retrofittable “FADEC” ignitions and fuel injections for high compression engines, perhaps the problem would be solved, along with reduced fuel consumption.
Ford could help, or Toyota, or any engine manufacturer producing current engines with very high compression running on regular gas, let along premium. They build them by the millions; no problem.
Air cooled engines are more difficult than liquid cooled, but even there, the compression ratios are relatively low compared to modern engines.
It seems there is no will to solve the problem, and perhaps that the FAA doesn’t even understand the problem.

The fact that Swift Fuels, General Aviation Modifications, Inc., and Phillips have chosen to continue development outside of the FAA’s PAFI program suggests the program itself may be part of the problem. And as Paul pointedly states “… in the grand tradition of loving the problem…” isn’t that what the FAA demonstrates time and again?

Rather than spending more money on writing reports about washing your hands after fueling, I would like to see a grant program to encourage airports to sell lower octane avgas such as Swift. In addition to the fact that 68% of the fleet CAN run Swift, it’s actually better for the engines and creates lower mx costs for owners of a good chunk of the fleet. Just ask anyone with a low compression Continental or Rotax. It’s time to start reducing our lead use with what we have on hand rather than continuing to wait for technology we have not developed yet.

It’s a volume problem for the airport fuel providers. Yes, about 70% of the fleet can use low octane fuel, but those are the little airplanes (4-seaters and 2-seaters) that don’t burn a lot of gas. It’s the 30% of the fleet that CAN’T burn low octane (big singles and cabin class twins) that represent the true marketplace because that 30% of the fleet burns (and buys) more than 70% of the fuel. The market will move to serve those customers. It won’t move to serve those of us buying very little fuel. Even if we think it’s so much money we spend. It isn’t. Not for the airports.

There’s a subset of fungible, called miscible. THAT’S the unavoidable key issue with ALL of these alternative fuels

Meanwhile, simply outlawing unleaded fuel would be a form of confiscation - it would comprise a “taking for public use.” What would comprise the constitutionally-required “just compensation?” New engines and fuel systems for all affected legacy aircraft?

KGBR (Great Barrington, MA) decided to put in a split tank that contains both AvGas and Swift 94, because the locals were up in arms about them replacing their old fuel tank (required by the state every 20 years, irrespective of condition). One of the arguments brought up at the town meetings was that the airport still sells LEADED gasoline (cue pearl clutching). So now the airport can say, “Actually, we are the first airport in the state to sell an unleaded aviation fuel.” It’s been as much for local PR as anything else.
https://www.berkshireeagle.com/archives/new-fuel-tank-is-in-the-ground-at-walter-j-koladza-airport-but-special-permit/article_16b11dab-5e01-5428-b163-639cbadb7701.html

Paul. Please reread your column and notice the big picture you talk about. Government BS never ends. People getting paid to do research with never reaching any useful conclusions because their hands are tied behind their backs or they just don’t care about their work.
But please don’t blame the previous administration because the one before them had 8 years. I didn’t hear a darn thing from that bunch of morons either. Not to support the previous crowd, but at least someone saw the light and determined we need LESS restrictions to be somewhat more productive.
Hopefully more hands are untied and we move forward on many fronts without costing us an arm and a leg.

I think part of the problem is trying to find a “drop-in solution”. It seems pretty clear at this point that such a fuel does not exist, and that the engines requiring high-octane fuel will need to have some modifications done to support an unleaded fuel. And it seems to me that if most of these aircraft owners choose to spend $10-20k instead of $1500 to equip for ADS-B, surely they can afford whatever it would cost to modify their engines for unleaded fuels?
It seems like the goal of a drop-in solution is a case of “perfect is the enemy of good”.

Those “mods” likely would cost $100k per engine. What’s the value proposition? “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” indeed. Given the miniscule amount of lead that we’re talking about, it seems more like an exercise in virtue signaling, than in planet-saving.

Cynical prediction: the ultimate solution will require expensive, invasive changes to most piston aircraft. Not long after the “Unleaded Fuel Mandate” goes into effect, practical and affordable battery (or fuel cell, or ultra capacitor) electrical storage relegates internal combustion engines to the same museum of historical novelties as steam engines.

Car engines routinely have compression ratios (CR) of 10:1 or higher and run fine on mogas. In significant part, it’s because of far-better engine management systems (EMS) which are totally lacking on traditional aircraft engines. But fundamentally, it’s possible only because their small cylinder volume automatically makes pre-ignition much less of a concern. Upgrading from 1928 ignition systems to EMS is technically quite easy and relatively inexpensive, but FAA certification is a byzantine and expensive proposition. Reducing CR with shorter connecting rods is also relatively easy. Turbo engines already have mechanically-lower CR and could be “fixed” by limiting boost. Reducing the effective CR reduces power of course. Expensive true.

Other regulations presently make adoption of 94UL difficult. A new standard self-fuel installation is very expensive and fuel volume isn’t enough to easily make up costs. (The few in my area charge more for 94UL than 100LL as a consequence.) Numerous and varying local and state restrictions generally forbid having small private fueling options. And, as is the case with me, even with a lead-free loving Rotax, I am required to burn 100LL because that’s what the USA certification certificate requires and the manufacturer has nothing to gain now by changing it, nor is there enough money to be made by going through an STC process, for a tiny number of such aircraft types.

Overall, a pretty bleak picture.

Hmm… Create a FUEL to run in engines borne in the 1930’s, or create a new engine designed to operate on what’s available (Jet A)? Today’s muscle cars run to power levels never dreamt of in the 1960s. Automotive fuel is largely “contaminated” with Ethanol, which adsorbs water (death to pilots when frozen). So we can’t leverage that source unless we use non-oxygenated fuels.

This really is not rocket science for those with engine design skills and the will to do it. We just need to have faith, and support those with God given talents for such an exercise. It can certainly be accomplished.

Godspeed Aviators

What data do you have that supports that supposition?

The problem is too many rules already. Agencies being frozen because they couldn’t get rid of rules just reminds me of that thing with monkeys unable to get their hands out of a jar because they won’t release the fruit inside. Pretty sure my dog could work out that level of problem.

The moonshot was solvable because there wasn’t a mile of preexisting red tape that a majority of normal people found somehow sacred. There merely was a lot of miles physically deadly to humans, and math to be overcome. (Hidden Figures is an awesome movie)

If lead in aircraft is such a huge deal, just show me the money. I suspect it’s like everything else in the world where it’s only a problem when someone else can be made to provide the time, effort, and money to fix it. In the meantime, we all pay for bureaucrats not to solve anything.

We are really in this situation because of lack of demand for new light aircraft and their engines. That’s a result of a combination of many things, but much of it is a seeming conspiracy to take the fun and utility out of light aircraft for over half a century. Additionally, innovation gets squashed because flying is so dangerous it justifies many pounds of regulation yet it’s the only industry where manufacturers have a right to build offending products ad infinitum.

We can do one thing for certain and stop building planes that require 100LL.

The NAS study was directed by Congress to ignore all of the current Unleaded fuels under development. That is in part why it wallows around in half-baked options… Both the GAMI and Swift UL100 fuels are “Drop-in” replacements with viable formulas able to be produced in existing refineries with existing processes and additives. They are languishing in part because they are designed around a proprietary license model, and haven’t been developed by the producers… The Shell product had issues with dissolving paint, and the Phillips product (“About 5 years away…”) uses Manganese salts and scavengers that also have health risks… GAMI and Swift fuels have been delayed by indecision over testing methodology and criteria for actually granting approval for these fuels… The few refiners brewing 100LL aren’t going to change over until either ordered to by the federal government or forced to by cutoff of Tetraethyl lead supply from Innospec. Most medium to small airports can’t afford to add new tanks, so adoption of UL94 requires arm-twisting to get one of existing tanks/refueling operators to switch… And it requires distribution infrastructure (transport/storage/deliveries) to mitigate the cost premium away from the Indiana refinery now producing it…

Just spit balling here, could we somehow stop the liability chain from hitting an auto maker whose engine gets modified for aviation use? Hasn’t the weight to power issue been changed a lot recently? Is it still a non starter to modify a high performance auto engine?

Choose?

A lot of high performance aircraft are used for business travel. Much less than 20 years ago, but don’t get me started. When they updated the owners did not have a $1500 option. Your argument is based on a misrepresentation of history. My options, until nearly the deadline, were to upgrade minimally for maybe $6k? That option would have upped my value almost zero. OTOH, I could spend much more, but gain most of that in value.
I wasn’t flying for business anymore, but if I were, I’d have had to get my plane in the shop to avoid a predicted rush near the deadline.

Now for the rest of your solution, where is it? What does it cost me and how much performance do I lose? Where’s YOUR data?

I suspect no one will know the answer to how easy it is to modify a plane until a fuel is decided on. And, no bureaucrat wants to be the guy who decided on a fuel and then there was a bad outcome.

It’s already been mentioned that the amount of lead is miniscule–but that will never stop the True Believers that ALL lead must be removed–as Yars quotes–“The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

How about THIS–Reverse the procedure–instead of modifying existing engines to achieve “lead-free Nirvana”, let the big-government activists fund a program that will WORK!

If they REALLY believe that lead is that big a problem, let them fund a program to get rid of engines that require it. The Obama administration spent a fortune for “Cash for Clunkers”–buying back a whole generation of perfectly-running cars to advance their agenda. Much as I detest government involvement in ANYTHING, Having a government program to give a pro-rata buyback based on engine hours remaining would settle the issue once and for all–and it wouldn’t take 50 years of “research” by the government to do it.

With a market this large, Continental, Lycoming, and perhaps some auto engineers would likely have conforming prototypes available in short order–(at least, short, compared to the never-ending “studies.”) Aircraft owners could get be assured that their aircraft wouldn’t be legislated out of existence–the “get out the lead” advocates could stop their hand-wringing. Engine manufacturers would be busy. The FAA could finally move into the 21st century in certifying technology adopted by non-aviation manufacturers in the LAST century. Airplane owners would have some assurance that their airplanes aren’t going to be outlawed.

The only people this would REALLY affect negatively are those that own aircraft powered by radial engines, or Warbirds–a small but important segment. Perhaps a niche could be carved out for them to have a boutique fuel.

For the country, we could settle this once and for all–and quit spending money on interminable studies. If I could be assured that my 100 octane powered aircraft could be re-powered with a conforming and modern engine, AND that I’d get a pro-rated buyout of the remaining hours, I’d be all over that!