So, Why Do We Need EAGLE And ASTM, Anyway? (Avweb)

wayneda40

wayneda40

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
613
Display Name
Display name:
waynemcc
Amen!
"Two competing unleaded high-octane fuels are now on the market. Isn’t that what everyone wanted?"

Summary: "The events of the past week make me wonder what, if any, place ASTM actually has in all of this. If trucks full of fuel with no ASTM spec are crossing the country, if airport fuel sellers are putting it in their equipment and airplane operators, including flight schools, are buying it based on the FAA approval, then what value does the ASTM spec add?"
 
Last edited:
American Society for Testing Materials, ASTM, is a quality assurance organization. You create a chemical product, and market it.

They provide testing specifications and procedures that assure that you get what was created, no matter where you buy it.

All aviation fuel in the past had ASTM specifications, and refiners were required to test refinery output regularly to assure the public received fuel that met the specs.

Fuel in storage is retested at intervals, to assure that it has not degraded too much, and does not meet detonation and other limits.

They provide a safety net that we never see, which prevents delivery of dangerous fuel to every one of us, including the MO gas burners, as MO gas is also tested.

The FAA decides a fuel can be used, ASTM assures you get what the FAA approved.

At the electric company, we tested in house, samples of every tanker of transformer oil or breaker oil, to assure that all of it met the standards. If the tests failed, we refused the shipment, and returned it.


Edited to add: The requirement to test the fuel tanks for water, to assure they do not pump water into your plane when you fuel up, is from ASTM procedures and standards. This one test that is critical to flight safety. The test is quite simple, and positive. It is inexpensive as well.

Do you think keeping water out of your fuel is important to your safety?
 
Last edited:
geezer said:
Edited to add: The requirement to test the fuel tanks for water, to assure they do not pump water into your plane when you fuel up, is from ASTM procedures and standards. This one test that is critical to flight safety. The test is quite simple, and positive. It is inexpensive as well.

Do you think keeping water out of your fuel is important to your safety?
Click to expand...
Is that tank testing an ASTM requirement included in those for 100LL and Jet-A?
Does 94UL have an ASTM testing procedure and specs?
 
Last edited:
@geezer is correct in that quality control at various steps along the way is important for production and distribution of fuel.

But I don't see why an ASTM spec would be the only way to define and achieve reliable quality control. In fact, GAMI has addressed quality control for G100UL, without an ASTM spec. Maybe that's unusual in the world of fuels, but that doesn't make it invalid or ineffective.

- Martin
 
Requiring fuel to meet an ASTM (or other) spec makes sense when there are multiple suppliers and you need to guarantee consistency, i.e. they all have to meet the same spec. In the case of G100UL (or 94UL) there's only one supplier and they're making it to their own spec. Though my understanding (I could be wrong) is that 94UL is just 100LL (which does meet the spec) with the lead omitted.
 
wayneda40 said:
what value does the ASTM spec add?"
Click to expand...
Its the first step to dropping other approval requirements like an STC. For example, aviation multi-grade oils initially required STCs until the SAE or ASTM standard was revised to include those type oils, which put the oil approval at the "fleet" level vs the individual type certificate level.
 
What test procedure does GAMI require for assuring the tanker of their fuel meets their formulation, and is not degraded by residue in the delivery tanker?

I have learned first hand that a full tanker of high quality, and necessarily ultra pure liquid may be rendered dangerous by the presence of about 5 gallons of a leftover liquid product not steam cleaned out of the tanker before arriving at the source of our product. The source refused to accept return, as the cost of "cleaning" the product was greater than the cost of producing it. The product was not cheap, at about 10 times the price of gasoline at the time.

Unfortunately, the truck was an independently owned one, and presumably bankrupted, since we did not pay for the product, and it had a high cost of disposal, so he was doubly in arrears unless he dumped to product somewhere and did not get caught.

My home airport sends a sample of delivered fuel to an outside contractor to do the ASTM tests of delivered fuel. Does that lab have a GAMI specification for GAMI fuel, plus an approved test sequence for proving the delivered GAMI is pure and good?

This is important before that fuel is pumped into you airplane, and assures that you do not have a detonation problem on takeoff, and break your engine.
 
My biggest gripe with this is that it appears I will need to get multiple STC's to use different unleaded fuel versions as one companies STC doesn't apply to another companies fuel. The TCDS on my PA22 says I only need 80/87 octane aviation fuel or better. When I emailed Gami and wanted clarification that their fuel is aviation rated they stated it is in fact classified as an aviation fuel. So I inquired about the need for an STC and the response was, well- we created it so you have to buy it. That doesn't sit right with me as the TCDS says any aviation fuel of 80/87 or better which means by default any unleaded version hat is classified as aviation fuel would be allowed. Mogas is not aviation fuel so you need an STC. But then my real issue is that with competing companies for fuel I doubt airports will provide multiple options from competing companies. Airport A will have brand 1, airport B might also have brand 1, but they could have brand 2, 3, or whatever. This then forces a pilot to purchase a paper STC on the spot if they need fuel. As long as 100LL is still in use this won't be a problem but some states (Ca) are trying to get rid of all 100LL.
 
I just can't help but feel that swift is somehow behind the scenes of all this. They're a bunch of oil guys who saw a captive market and decided to try & exploit it. D'Acosta has said as much in interviews. Look at the "about us" page of their website. I don't think any of their leadership are pilots. D'Acosta also never misses a chance to bad mouth GAMI.

Meanwhile Braly not only beat them to a working fuel, but did it because he loves general aviation. My guess is that the swift has enough connections in the oil business and government to drag this thing out and give them time to catch up. Why AOPA et al are going along with it, I can't understand, unless swift is greasing their palms too.

It looks like we might get to see both fuels run side by side for a couple years since GAMI finally managed to clear the roadblocks and sell their fuel. That will be a good thing. I guess that is the one good thing that may come of EAGLE. If they hold off the ban on 100LL until 2030, we'll get a chance to run the replacements for a while and make sure they aren't going to cause any unexpected issues.

geezer said:
What test procedure does GAMI require for assuring the tanker of their fuel meets their formulation, and is not degraded by residue in the delivery tanker?
Click to expand...

At the moment, I assume they're using the same dedicated tankers that haul 100LL. Those tanks can't be used for anything else due to the lead contamination. I believe Braly has said they they have written specs that will be provided to producers and labs to make sure that the fuel still meets spec at the nozzle.
 
geezer said:
What test procedure does GAMI require for assuring the tanker of their fuel meets their formulation, and is not degraded by residue in the delivery tanker?
Click to expand...
Good question, but one that has been answered by GAMI. See their G100UL FAQ (look for "S6 - Does the G100UL specification require the use of ASTM tests for conformity testing?"):
g100ul.com

G100UL

Find out more about GAMI's G100UL® high octane unleaded aviation gasoline.
g100ul.com g100ul.com

In there, they state: "Nearly all of the test requirements are the same as for ASTM D910 (100LL) with a few substitutions of alternative ASTM test methods that are more appropriate based on differences in the fuel chemistry. For those tests that are in common with 100LL most of the limits are either identical or very similar and fall within the boundaries of other fuel chemistries approved for use in aircraft engines."

So GAMI follows the same basic idea of quality control and of ensuring conformity that we have all been using successfully for 100LL. It's just that GAMI published those things outside of an ASTM spec.

Regards,
Martin
 
Jim K said:
At the moment, I assume they're using the same dedicated tankers that haul 100LL. Those tanks can't be used for anything else due to the lead contamination. I believe Braly has said they they have written specs that will be provided to producers and labs to make sure that the fuel still meets spec at the nozzle.
Click to expand...

Especially since G100UL can be mixed with 100LL with no ill effects. Shouldn't need to ensure anything on the tanker-side of the equation is cleaned as long as it's the same ones used for 100LL.
 
Will Kumley said:
That doesn't sit right with me as the TCDS says any aviation fuel of 80/87 or better which means by default any unleaded version hat is classified as aviation fuel would be allowed.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The fuel type, grade, and specification are part of the initial engine certification. So while the grade is listed in both the airframe and engine TCDS, the engine TCDS will usually give you what approved specification fuel is required or a reference where to find the specification.

For example, the Lycoming approved fuel specifications are listed in Service Instruction 1070 which is referenced in most TCDS. So if the fuel you want to use is not listed under one of those approved specifications, then you would need an STC or other means to use that fuel. Now if you use one of the unleaded fuels listed in 1070, then no STC required as that fuel falls under the original TC.
 
Bell206 said:
MIL-SPEC was first. ASTM, SAE, etc use came a number of years later.
Click to expand...
And I suspect aviation fuel came before the Mil Spec as well…they came up with the fuel, and wrote the documents to ensure that the fuel is what it’s supposed to be. They didn’t write the specifications and create fuels to match.
 
Jim K said:
I just can't help but feel that swift is somehow behind the scenes of all this. They're a bunch of oil guys who saw a captive market and decided to try & exploit it. D'Acosta has said as much in interviews. Look at the "about us" page of their website. I don't think any of their leadership are pilots. D'Acosta also never misses a chance to bad mouth GAMI.

Meanwhile Braly not only beat them to a working fuel, but did it because he loves general aviation. My guess is that the swift has enough connections in the oil business and government to drag this thing out and give them time to catch up. Why AOPA et al are going along with it, I can't understand, unless swift is greasing their palms too.

It looks like we might get to see both fuels run side by side for a couple years since GAMI finally managed to clear the roadblocks and sell their fuel. That will be a good thing. I guess that is the one good thing that may come of EAGLE. If they hold off the ban on 100LL until 2030, we'll get a chance to run the replacements for a while and make sure they aren't going to cause any unexpected issues.



At the moment, I assume they're using the same dedicated tankers that haul 100LL. Those tanks can't be used for anything else due to the lead contamination. I believe Braly has said they they have written specs that will be provided to producers and labs to make sure that the fuel still meets spec at the nozzle.
Click to expand...
D'acosta is really slimy.

Another slimeball.... The head of NATA is also an EAGLE board member. Which sounds like a conflict of interest. He was also sued by his former employer.

www.avweb.com

EAGLE Co-Chair Castagna Sued By Former Employer

National Air Transportation Association (NATA) President and co-chair of the End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) Curt Castagna has allegedly been fired by his former employer and is being sued...
www.avweb.com www.avweb.com
 
Every oil major and distributor is going to test aviation fuel. Only question is how, and GAMI will supply a test standard. Swift 94 becomes a useless fuel once 100UL is available and Swift's 100 version does not work in all engines. They are basically screwed, and using their distributor leverage to make life difficult for GAMI 100UL.
 
@Martin Pauly , we all know GAMI gas is fungible with 100LL. Are the GAMI and Swift fuels fungible with each other? If I fill up with G100UL, then land for fuel at an airport selling Swift gas, am I screwed?
 
I understand George Braly's reluctance to put G100UL through the ASTM process given potential shenanigans, but at some point is dying on that hill going to become a pyrrhic victory? There's a huge market desperate to make the change to unleaded fuels and if his rivals are using the ASTM thing as the roadblock to mass distribution of his project, would it not be better to concede that battle in order to win the war? Doubtless I have oversimplified the issue, but G100UL sure seems like a winner that is being hamstrung by bureaucracy and egos.
 
Half Fast said:
@Martin Pauly , we all know GAMI gas is fungible with 100LL. Are the GAMI and Swift fuels fungible with each other? If I fill up with G100UL, then land for fuel at an airport selling Swift gas, am I screwed?
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, neither GAMI nor Swift have made any statements regarding mixing G100UL and Swift fuels.

I very much doubt that GAMI would endorse treating a mixture of G100UL and Swift fuel as equivalent to G100UL, given that Swift fuels are approved for a subset of aircraft which can use G100UL.

- Martin
 
MauleSkinner said:
They didn’t write the specifications and create fuels to match.
Click to expand...
No, but the specs were an integral part of the fuel development as they were building from existing fuel stocks and specs. There are actually several books on the history of avgas and a number papers as well. But you’ll find “aviation fuel” wasn’t a thing until WWI along with various specifications. Here’s one example from 1917:

1731464666947.png
1731464710608.png
 
Martin Pauly said:
To my knowledge, neither GAMI nor Swift have made any statements regarding mixing G100UL and Swift fuels.

I very much doubt that GAMI would endorse treating a mixture of G100UL and Swift fuel as equivalent to G100UL, given that Swift fuels are approved for a subset of aircraft which can use G100UL.

- Martin
Click to expand...
GAMI has already made some comments on that - from their website:

"However, CAUTION, while G100UL Avgas can be freely mixed with 100LL and used in any airplane, the same is not true for mixtures of G100UL Avgas (or 100LL) with UL94. Any such mixtures of G100UL Avgas and UL94 must only be used in aircraft that are already eligible to use UL94.

Possible New Fuels: As of the time this FAQ is released, there are two different fuel formulations still under consideration by the PAFI/EAGLE program. GAMI has conducted extensive engine test stand evaluations of fuel formulations based on publicly available information describing each of those two remaining PAFI/EAGLE fuel formulations. Based on that testing to date, it is GAMI’s preliminary determination that it will be unlikely that either of those two pending fuel formulations will be suitable to be freely comingled with G100UL Avgas (or 100LL), for use in any engines, other than those engines with octane requirements the same or similar to those engines that can currently operate on UL94."
 
Hang 4 said:
GAMI has already made some comments on that - from their website:

"However, CAUTION, while G100UL Avgas can be freely mixed with 100LL and used in any airplane, the same is not true for mixtures of G100UL Avgas (or 100LL) with UL94. Any such mixtures of G100UL Avgas and UL94 must only be used in aircraft that are already eligible to use UL94.

Possible New Fuels: As of the time this FAQ is released, there are two different fuel formulations still under consideration by the PAFI/EAGLE program. GAMI has conducted extensive engine test stand evaluations of fuel formulations based on publicly available information describing each of those two remaining PAFI/EAGLE fuel formulations. Based on that testing to date, it is GAMI’s preliminary determination that it will be unlikely that either of those two pending fuel formulations will be suitable to be freely comingled with G100UL Avgas (or 100LL), for use in any engines, other than those engines with octane requirements the same or similar to those engines that can currently operate on UL94."
Click to expand...
So, like, if you need more than 94 octane, don't use 94 octane fuel?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, like, if you need more than 94 octane, don't use 94 octane fuel?
Click to expand...
Re-read the 2nd part. They are saying that the other formulations with "100" in them, offer less detonation protection than G100UL. There's a caveat with Swift's 100 that it may require engine modifications to work. e.g. not able to operate at full power in high compression engines.
 
So what IS the octane of Swift 100? Is it not... 100?

GAMI's statement addresses the performance when the fuels are mixed, bit what about other potential chemical incompatibilities?

Dana,
whose engine requires 73 octane minimum
 
Dana said:
So what IS the octane of Swift 100? Is it not... 100?
Click to expand...
Octane number is not a hard and fast property of any particular fuel. The result you get depends on operating conditions. Two fuels may both test as 100 octane under a specified test condition but may not behave the same under a wider range of engines / operating conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top