100LL Debacle

Dave Anderson

Dave Anderson

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
529
Location
Twice a month beside Biden's WH retreat.
Display Name
Display name:
SkyDreams
One of my reasons for letting my AOPA expire is the ridiculous statements by President Mark Baker that this is the biggest issue in General Aviation. I laughed then called and asked what about:
  • Insurance
  • General Fuel Prices
  • Aircraft cost due to liability
  • Airport closures
I simply enjoy Paul's videos and was surprised to see this two-part no holds barred reporting on 100LL. Imagine if organization like AOPA when take a logic approach to these problems, they might simply help us.


 
Dave Anderson said:
One of my reasons for letting my AOPA expire is the ridiculous statements by President Mark Baker that this is the biggest issue in General Aviation. I laughed then called and asked what about:
  • Insurance
  • General Fuel Prices
  • Aircraft cost due to liability
  • Airport closures
I simply enjoy Paul's videos and was surprised to see this two-part no holds barred reporting on 100LL. Imagine if organization like AOPA when take a logic approach to these problems, they might simply help us.


Click to expand...
I'm confused. What was the ridiculous statement by Mark Baker?
 
I suspect statements by Mark Baker that 100LL is the biggest issue in GA.
 
I’m using ul94 with the swift STC . It seems that GAMI is ready to go with there ul100 going to need an STC .
 
Planes will continue to fly, albeit less, without insurance (I don’t need it, but have it), high fuel prices (this sucks), high cost of entry (I’m already in, poor new guys), and less airports (not good, but not a killer). They can’t fly at all without fuel (my investment drops dramatically in value if no one can fly my mill). Those are facts. I don’t know Baker or AOPA politics.
 
I agree it’s top priority. I also think Baker is bungling it, but whether through incompetence or for nefarious reasons is unknown.

There exists a fuel that has passed FAA testing, and if Baker really gave a rip about making sure GA continues to have fuel he’d be raising Cain to get the STC signed.

Instead he’s helping kick the can down the road.
 
Bob Noel said:
I suspect statements by Mark Baker that 100LL is the biggest issue in GA.
Click to expand...
Correct As the video suggests, we have been down this path before. Agree with others he's actually making it worse. While I agree with the sentiments it long term needs to happen it isn't the biggest issue at the moment. Nobody, including the FAA is going to accept the liability if the replacement isn't 100% full proof.
 
Half Fast said:
I agree it’s top priority. I also think Baker is bungling it, but whether through incompetence or for nefarious reasons is unknown.

There exists a fuel that has passed FAA testing, and if Baker really gave a rip about making sure GA continues to have fuel he’d be raising Cain to get the STC signed.

Instead he’s helping kick the can down the road.
Click to expand...
So you think this is more important that insurance reform or name your issue? Just a question.
 
Dave Anderson said:
So you think this is more important that insurance reform or name your issue? Just a question.
Click to expand...


Yes I do.

There is only one, one, provider of TEL and it’s not even in the US. TEL for avgas comes only from Innospec, a British company. If they decide to stop making it, or if Britain bans exporting it, we’re hosed. Most of the US piston GA fleet would be grounded. We’re trusting our continued ability to buy 100LL not just to the EPA, but also to a foreign company and a foreign government.

The other issues might make my flying more expensive or less convenient but they won’t end it. Loss of 100LL without a viable replacement would both ground my airplane and make it nearly worthless.
 
Dave Anderson said:
Nobody, including the FAA is going to accept the liability if the replacement isn't 100% full proof.
Click to expand...


Then maybe the FAA should require extensive testing under the supervision of FAA technical experts. Those experts could then recommend approval or disapproval for a fuel once it’s completed testing.

Oh wait - they did that, didn’t they?

And despite the recommendations of FAA experts, GAMI’s STC still awaits a bureaucrat’s signature.
 
I don’t think lost of 100LL will doom everything. It will be painful but a lot of the fleet can use mogas. The planes that can’t will be stuck but the mogas capable ones will just switch.

And you can argue that if 100LL doesn’t exist maybe then someone will make engine solutions for those remaining planes that allows them to use mogas as well.

The 100LL situation will either resolve by accepting the new alternatives or as above via other engineering solution. What the other engineering solution means it that it’ll cost way too much.

Is 100LL the top priority? Maybe. I for one would love to not have to worry about lead.
 
Half Fast said:
h


Those “stuck” planes comprise about 2/3 of the piston engine fleet. We’re not talking just a handful Without them there will be a big revenue hit to small airports.
Click to expand...
Not to mention new engine solutions to run Mogas would also have to be design and STCd for each airframe, along with purchase and installation costs likely north of $60K. Not exactly an even trade when they were flying just fine up until 100LL gets banned.
 
SebIp said:
I don’t think lost of 100LL will doom everything. It will be painful but a lot of the fleet can use mogas. The planes that can’t will be stuck but the mogas capable ones will just switch.

And you can argue that if 100LL doesn’t exist maybe then someone will make engine solutions for those remaining planes that allows them to use mogas as well.

The 100LL situation will either resolve by accepting the new alternatives or as above via other engineering solution. What the other engineering solution means it that it’ll cost way too much.

Is 100LL the top priority? Maybe. I for one would love to not have to worry about lead.
Click to expand...
My Mogas capable plane requires a 3k stc and fuel pump not to mention paying the mechanic to install it.

The most popular GA plane sold today would be grounded.

On the other hand, shuttering the TEL plant could perhaps force the FAA's hand and approve the GAMI fuel as it's passed everything obstacle the FAA has thrown at them. The only problem is nobody at the FAA has the stones to sign off on it.
 
I always thought the STC process was about proving to the FAA that the alteration doesn't hurt performance or safety. I'm thinking in terms of speed mods or stol kits. Yet when it comes to autopilots and a 100LL replacement it's a nightmare.

Did Swift have this difficult a time getting UL94 approved?
 
Dave Anderson said:
One of my reasons for letting my AOPA expire is the ridiculous statements by President Mark Baker that this is the biggest issue in General Aviation. I laughed then called and asked what about:
  • Insurance
  • General Fuel Prices
  • Aircraft cost due to liability
  • Airport closures
Click to expand...
What *exactly* do you expect AOPA to do about the first 3 items on your list? It's a lobbying group, not magicians. AOPA CAN do something about leaded fuel, and as others have pointed out the public is rapidly turning against GA because of leaded fuel. It's a bit small minded to think that an organization can just wish away problems because they want to. There are other factors at play, so I agree with Mark, leaded fuel is the biggest problem plaguing GA *That AOPA can directly help with*.
 
AKiss20 said:
I dunno, lobbyists would probably accept 5 million $1s, or 50,000 $100s. :p
Click to expand...
Nah, just between 89.00 and 189.00 for the year. They also like asking for my money when I kick off to become a legacy donor.
 
Half Fast said:
Oh, and if the FAA is so concerned about the safety of GAMI’s juice, why did they already issue an STC approving it for many planes before EAGLE began?

This isn’t about safety; this is about the FAA and the AOPA rigging the game.
Click to expand...

It's about a bureaucracy doing what it does - being bureaucratic. To the world, a hammer only sees a nail. To the FAA, they only see reasons to solve problems, not to have problems solved. They are rewarded not for solutions but for forming committees and making programs that rewards them by letting them add people and power.
 
SebIp said:
I don’t think lost of 100LL will doom everything. It will be painful but a lot of the fleet can use mogas. The planes that can’t will be stuck but the mogas capable ones will just switch.

And you can argue that if 100LL doesn’t exist maybe then someone will make engine solutions for those remaining planes that allows them to use mogas as well.
Click to expand...

Question about mogas compatibility - would it be more accurate to state that certain engines are adaptable for Mogas vs the plane in which the engine is installed?

Honest question. Just trying to understand the issue better while minimizing questions.
 
BPM said:
Question about mogas compatibility - would it be more accurate to state that certain engines are adaptable for Mogas vs the plane in which the engine is installed?

Honest question. Just trying to understand the issue better while minimizing questions.
Click to expand...


It’s both. There are airplane issues as well, due to things like fuel pumps, fuel lines, tank types and locations, etc.
 
BPM said:
Thank you for the quickly formed opinions and ranting.
Click to expand...

FIFY. :).


If the FAA wanted to make this go away,
1- buy the formula from the nice people who made it - give them a fraction of what it would cost to run the eagle program. Or pay a royalty until the patent expires.
2 - Authorize it’s use, make the formula public domain
3 - De authorize adding lead in fuel in 2 years.
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
FIFY. :).


If the FAA wanted to make this go away,
1- buy the formula from the nice people who made it - give them a fraction of what it would cost to run the eagle program. Or pay a royalty until the patent expires.
2 - Authorize it’s use, make the formula public domain
3 - De authorize adding lead in fuel in 2 years.
Click to expand...
Someone buy this man a beer
 
Those of you fussing about Mark Baker and AOPA, saying they haven’t shown enough support of GAMI, are you aware of George Braly’s public comments, praising the hard work Baker has done and continues to do?

George is the one person who knows the most about this topic, and he says Baker and AOPA are doing good, supportive work. That’s enough to convince me.
 
public comments can be simple diplomacy.

Would there be much value to George Braly publically trashing AOPA?
 
Everyone is discussing the wrong three letter acronym. The FAA isn't the problem, it's the EPA. With the current political climate (irony intended), there are dangerous ideas floating around that could foment a crisis any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top