I’m not certain if this is a news story, or if Russ just enjoys throwing rocks at a hornets nest to see all of the commenters get riled up. At this point no news is simply, well, no news.
As an engineer developing new products for market, I understand that a typical, successful development project always includes the following:
- Unrealistic demands of what the new product must be able to do.
- A never ending system of hurry up and wait.
- Unrealistic demands that after everyone sat on their hands burning up the clock, you must now save everyone else’s bacon and get the ball across the finish line in record time.
- Individuals who have no understanding of the science, industry, or use case are the ones setting the project priorities.
- Self interested individuals continually ignore realities and proclaim “just go with my favorite answer now” because the unresolved concerns fall outside of their very limited set of priorities.
- The list goes on ad nauseam - and that is when things go well.
A project that the government gave ten years to resolve is only four years along. From my perspective, I am impressed with the progress that has been made in that amount of time. The fact that Russ is proclaiming all to be lost and we need a complete reboot with the FAA jack boot on the neck of fuel manufacturers to obtain it is just adding himself to the list as another obstacle to getting anything done.
I give kudos to at least one organization being honest enough to say that a “drop-in” replacement is not possible. To accept that statement we have to understand what a “drop-in” replacement entails. It is easy to say “I fly behind a Jabiru engine and I don’t need the same octane as some of the big block engines, so let’s just go with XXX”, but that is not a drop-in replacement for the industry. Whatever replacement we ultimately come to will be a system of compromises. Some of us will come out of this perfectly pleased, and some of us will be left out in the cold.
Consider:
GAMI’s fuel is not approved for rotary wing. You cannot get rid of 100LL and leave all of the rotary wing aircraft grounded. News helicopters, med-evac, offshore platform, the list goes on and on.
GAMI’s fuel is approved by the FAA via STC - this approval only means that if I fly a certificated fixed wing aircraft, I am allowed to use it and not get busted by the FAA. It is not an industry approval, and it by no means is a blanket mandate, indemnification, or adoption. It is not approved by the engine manufacturers, it is not approved by the airframe manufacturers, it is not approved by the insurance companies, and it is not approved by the fuel distributors/sellers. The FAA has no authority to mandate via STC that Lycoming engines must run on GAMI fuel, that distributors must sell it, and insurance companies must indemnify it. The STC only gives permission to the pilot to buy it.
We have one fuel that proclaims itself the elixir of all aviation engines, but refuses to allow the industry to examine it. We have another manufacturer that says we are working on the best solution we can, but there is no silver bullet and our solution will not be a drop-in replacement for 100LL. We have a third that is working on it but is keeping their efforts close to the vest.
I doubt that GAMI’s fuel is as perfect as they claim. There are too many red flags. In the end, there will be compromises.
We may need to move to multiple fuels to provide a simple well performing fuel to those who do not need such high octane, and a “compromise” version of 100LL that the EPA can live with in smaller quantities for the larger engines, rotary wing engines, and any others that absolutely require the higher octane.
We may need to choose a boutique fuel that gets us most of the way there, but only after modifications to the engines that require higher octane.
Likely, we will need to kick the can down the road and extend the 10 years. The amount of lead contributed to the environment by aviation fuel is infinitesimally small when compared to the world’s annual consumption of lead - so small that is not measurable in the environment.
There is no perfect solution, and typically it is not the first suitor to knock on your door. We have 10 years to fully develop every option and then make a well informed decision about the compromises that we will need to make as an industry.
For those who want to see GAMI be central to that solution, my recommendation is that GAMI take advantage of the next few years to continue to perfect their product and completely satisfy the testing requirements of every industry group out there. They should resolve the limitation that excluded rotary wing. They should be testing their fuel with Lycoming, with Continental, with Jabiru, with Rotax, with ASTM, with Cessna, and with Piper. They should include representatives of insurers and distributors in those efforts. Sitting on their secret formula and saying “we don’t trust anyone” is doing themselves no favors while their competitors work diligently for a solution that the industry can openly embrace.