Governor signs ban on 100LL into law

ateamer said:
We’re currently on a road trip in California. All the way here from Florida, gas wasn’t too bad. But here in CA it’s well over four bucks a gallon - about $1.30 more than at home. The gas stations out in the desert reslly gouge people - $6.69 for 87 in, I think it was Ludlow. And it’s not like it’s up some remote canyon; the gas station is a hundred yards off of I-40 and tankers go by every day.

I am so glad I left this state.
Click to expand...
Me, too.
 
Dana said:
Of course, "interstate commerce" has been stretched all out of shape, often including anything that conceivably might be used in interstate commerce.
Click to expand...
No kidding. I got this firsthand from an ATF agent as to how they had jurisdiction to charge a convicted felon for possessing a firearm. The suspect was in California, and the shotgun, a Remington, was made in New York. They got records showing that at some point in the gun’s history, the gun crossed state lines and money was exchanged for it. That made it an interstate commerce case.

Never mind how the federal prosecutor lost the trial due to lousy case prep and ego.
 
mryan75 said:
Okay, let’s have “far worse” than getting lead out of the environment.
Click to expand...
I'm all in favor of getting lead out of the environment, but scapegoating GA isn't the answer. Most AV gas is burned at altitude so there is no concentration from it on the ground, unlike auto fuel.

There was a cooked-up study at KRHV that resulted in San Jose banning 100LL. Most of the fleet there was able to use Swift Fuels 94UL, but pilots with high compression engines had to go elsewhere to get their 100LL. Then they would tanker it to KRHV. Makes a lot of sense.
 
StraightnLevel said:
It reminds me of the Southern beer stores that sit right next to the border of a dry county. Highest volume business in the area.....
Click to expand...
My county used to be dry for liquor stores. There was one just across the line to the north and one just across the line to the south.

Funny thing was, they were owned by two of the five county commissioners. So every time the issue came up, they only needed to get one other vote to keep it that way.
 
Dana said:
The feds cover the flight of aircraft, but states and municipalities can set rules on aircraft when they're not in flight, like where they can land, how they're stored, and... what kind of fuel may be sold.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.

A ban on the only fuel that is legal for GA piston aircraft is a de facto ban on GA air travel. No bueno.
 
NoBShere said:
Sweet, can you take some more with you? Tell your friends we're full and its a horrible place. LOL.
Click to expand...
One of the few benefits of the pandemic was that it reduced traffic congestion for a while.
 
Crashnburn said:
I'm all in favor of getting lead out of the environment, but scapegoating GA isn't the answer. Most AV gas is burned at altitude so there is no concentration from it on the ground, unlike auto fuel.

There was a cooked-up study at KRHV that resulted in San Jose banning 100LL. Most of the fleet there was able to use Swift Fuels 94UL, but pilots with high compression engines had to go elsewhere to get their 100LL. Then they would tanker it to KRHV. Makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
That was done by Santa Clara County, not San Jose.
 
Palmpilot said:
I agree with you, but what does amount to a de facto ban is the fact that it is not being sold at many airports.
Click to expand...
Given that FBOs will either be selling G100UL (or equivalent) or going out of business, it seems likely that the availability issue will have evaporated by 2031.
 
The FAA could issue fleet-wide approval to G100UL or 100R (or both) just like they did for 100LL when 100/130 went away. Right now an FBO can't just order up G100UL/100R because only STC holders can purchase it. That means you need an extra truck and/or tank for the non-STC holders. If STC is not required they can just switch.
 
xenadu said:
Right now an FBO can't just order up G100UL/100R because only STC holders can purchase it.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Anyone would be able to purchase it. They just can't legally put it into an aircraft with a type certificate without first obtaining an STC. Purchasers can legally put it into all the lawnmowers, airboats, racecars, and experimental aircraft they like.

And FBOs are neither required nor empowered to be the STC police.

I suspect that if G100UL ever makes its way to fuel farms, many gallons of it will be sold and pumped into planes that don't have the STC.


xenadu said:
The FAA could issue fleet-wide approval to G100UL or 100R (or both) just like they did for 100LL when 100/130 went away.
Click to expand...

Back in 2021, Textron issued SEB-28-04 authorizing the use of UL91/UL94 for many Beech and Cessna airplanes, eliminating the need to buy Swift's STC for those fuels. I don't see why they couldn't do the same thing for GAMI gas if they wanted to. OTOH, I don't see why they would want to.
 
Maybe I’ll move to California and buy a certified aircraft. That way I can live the dream and pay a private company for a piece of paper that allows me to avoid breaking a federal law and use a fuel the state government mandates. Yay liberty!
 
Salty said:
Maybe I’ll move to California and buy a certified aircraft. That way I can live the dream and pay a private company for a piece of paper that allows me to avoid breaking a federal law and use a fuel the state government mandates. Yay liberty!
Click to expand...

I missed seeing you at the last militia meeting. Don't forget - 3rd Saturday of the month.
;)
 
If the anti-lead folks were serious about getting rid of 100LL, they would lobby Congress to appropriate funds to buy a blanket STC for the entire piston fleet.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I the anti-lead folks were serious about getting rid of 100LL, they would lobby Congress to appropriate funds to buy a blanket STC for the entire piston fleet.
Click to expand...

No, if they were serious, they'd forget about Congress, raise the money to buy the IP and STC authority from GAMI, and make the STC and production licenses available for free.
 
Half Fast said:
No, if they were serious, they'd forget about Congress, raise the money to buy the IP and STC authority from GAMI, and make the STC and production licenses available for free.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's certainly not fair for taxpayers to pay for it. If the anti-lead folks want to pay, that's fine by me.
 
Half Fast said:
Back in 2021, Textron issued SEB-28-04 authorizing the use of UL91/UL94 for many Beech and Cessna airplanes, eliminating the need to buy Swift's STC for those fuels. I don't see why they couldn't do the same thing for GAMI gas if they wanted to. OTOH, I don't see why they would want to.
Click to expand...
Why did Textron want to do it for UL94 and not for G100? And if they wanted to do it for UL94, would they want to do it for 100R?
 
xenadu said:
The FAA could issue fleet-wide approval to G100UL or 100R (or both) just like they did for 100LL when 100/130 went away. Right now an FBO can't just order up G100UL/100R because only STC holders can purchase it. That means you need an extra truck and/or tank for the non-STC holders. If STC is not required they can just switch.
Click to expand...
FAA did not issue a fleet wide approval for 100LL. It met the TCDS of aircraft by meeting ASTM D910 specification for Aviation Gasoline.

The problem with UL is, D910 REQUIRES lead in the fuel.

There is NO mechanism in the FAA authorization or regs for a fleet wide approval.
 
Pinecone said:
FAA did not issue a fleet wide approval for 100LL. It met the TCDS of aircraft by meeting ASTM D910 specification for Aviation Gasoline.

The problem with UL is, D910 REQUIRES lead in the fuel.

There is NO mechanism in the FAA authorization or regs for a fleet wide approval.
Click to expand...
...which brings up the question, how did the existing ASTM specifications get created?
 
Pinecone said:
FAA did not issue a fleet wide approval for 100LL. It met the TCDS of aircraft by meeting ASTM D910 specification for Aviation Gasoline.

The problem with UL is, D910 REQUIRES lead in the fuel.

There is NO mechanism in the FAA authorization or regs for a fleet wide approval.
Click to expand...

Are you certain? 14 CFR 33.7 just says that "engine ratings and operating limitations are established by the Administrator and included in the engine certificate data sheet".

Further the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 requires the FAA to offer a process beyond the "traditional means of certification" to authorize the use of unleaded AVGAS. I don't think this requires ASTM standards or PAFI program approval per-se, that was just the process the FAA came up with to implement what Congress demanded. If anyone knows different please let me know but I believe the FAA could modify this to allow alternative methods of qualifying a fuel - like field experience via STC with X aircraft over Y time without issue.

The FAA could also just classify use of a fuel of "equivalent in performance and quality" to 100LL as a "minor alteration" which by definition only requires a logbook entry. Unless someone sues whatever the Administrator (the FAA) says is a "minor alteration" is a minor alteration.


For the most part this is CYA. The FAA doesn't want to be responsible for saying "sure use G100UL or 100R" then have some problem and get blamed for ruining aircraft paint jobs or an engine blowing up - even if those things aren't caused by those fuels. If people think it was and start yelling about it that puts the FAA in the hot seat. They'd rather just point at industry and say "those guys over there said it was OK".


If Innospec's TEL factory burns down tomorrow (or they just decide they don't want liability for selling it) is the FAA really going to say the entire GA piston fleet is grounded for the next 5 years while we sort it out? Or are they going to say G100UL and 100R are fine? I know which one I'd bet money on.
 
Jay Urish said:
I can think of a half dozen other things I would call him.
Click to expand...
I think some people mistake charisma for intelligence. He is charismatic but not particularly intelligent. His wealth came entirely from family money and he squandered a lot of it (he was a client of ours, I'm not proud to admit.) And people wonder why the state is in such an economic mess.
 
Palmpilot said:
So what's preventing that from happening now, when it has happened before?
Click to expand...

ASTM writes descriptive specifications, not performance specs, which is why the old spec calls out lead as a required ingredient. This presents some IP issues for companies which have invested heavily into developing new fuels.

If the ASTM were to write a performance spec, without regard for any particular formulation, it might work, but I don’t know whether they’re capable.
 
ateamer said:
After living in California for 38 years, being gone for six years after moving to Florida, and driving back for a visit, I am even happier that I left and have no regrets.
Click to expand...
I spent a lot of time in California, lived in NC awhile working internationally and relocated to Florida for 20 plus years but kept my home in NC and finally returned. It’s much more peaceful in a fly-in community in NC than when I lived just south of your Port St Lucie community in Stuart. All of those areas had some advantages and my NC community is growing faster than I would prefer but growth everywhere is inevitable.
The issue of getting the lead out is a real one but often comes down to which engines can do without lead or how to safely develop options. I understand how people are stuck needing leaded gasoline due to engines but hopefully alternatives can continue to be found to resolve those issues without too much re-engineering or replacement. I’m fortunate to have an old plane that I can legally and safely fly with recreational fuel. My Continental can burn unleaded legally as long as there’s no alcohol in it and I realize that I’m fortunate to have an engine and plane combination that’s capable of this! Just remember that there are options of different airplanes and locales for everyone that can provide pleasure for most situations and enjoy your life!
 
diabolical said:
The issue of getting the lead out is a real one but often comes down to which engines can do without lead or how to safely develop options. I understand how people are stuck needing leaded gasoline due to engines but hopefully alternatives can continue to be found to resolve those issues without too much re-engineering or replacement.
Click to expand...

That’s behind us, as there is an unleaded fuel, G100UL, that the FAA has already approved for every piston engine airplane in the fleet.

The issue now is getting it to market, and that’s entangled in politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top