- Joined
- Jul 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,888
- Display Name
Display name:
Albany Tom
That is *way* too harsh. I've based at an airport without fuel and absolutely made the decision to go straight to it and deal with getting fuel there later.That’s when you land early and sit it out. Time to spare? Go by air.
If you can’t trust yourself to make the right decision in a simple scenario like this, you shouldn’t be flying.
I figured this statement would be made. Given the context of the OPs statements, I made an assumption of relative inexperience not just in ownership, but flying in general.That is *way* too harsh.
Ignoring how you misrepresented what I said, I'll answer this:Actually, you said
You didn't say that it's "not a safety issue". You said fueling the plane yourself at your home field is safer than stopping and getting fuel when you're "tired". Saying one thing is "safer" means the other is less safe.
Agree that if you are too tired to land you shouldn't take off. But if you are already in the air and you have a choice of landing elsewhere to get fuel, or going home and dealing with fuel tomorrow, you still have to land somewhere. Landing at home and dealing with it later sounds like the better choice to me.But I would say that if you're too tired to land, taxi to the FBO, have a line guy put some fuel in your tanks, and take off then you probably shouldn't be flying in the first place. Even if the field only has self serve, if you're too tired to handle that safely, you should stay on the ground. Get a hotel until you're better rested.
I don't see him saying he was burning past reserve to beat the weather. Everything he wrote is valid if he lands with a legal 31 minutes of reserve fuel. He would have then been legal and safe landing at his base, but also justifiably uncomfortable taking off again. It's that second flight that would be burning past reserve and precisely the problem he's trying to solve. Getting fuel to his plane so he can be safe and legal (the two being well aligned in this case) for that second flight.I figured this statement would be made. Given the context of the OPs statements, I made an assumption of relative inexperience not just in ownership, but flying in general.
Burning past reserve fuel on a collision course with a fast moving weather system is not good novice-level ADM and I’m fine with disagreeing on that statement, but reality is those without experience tend to paint a rosier picture of their options than reality presents, hence the FAA’s position on PAVE as a risk-mitigation strategy.
True.He says the aviation octane rating is different than motor octane or the R+M.
They claim the 100LL performs just the same as 110 leaded racing gas.
He claimed the R+M rating was closer to 114-116 octane for 100LL?
My comments were NOT about the OP. Other than commenting that the OP was overthinking the situation, I was responding to comments others made.But again I will point out that the question was about buying fuel in containers. The answer is "sure, that shouldn't be a problem". It should not sound like he is a lazy idiot that will sacrifice safety in the name of convenience.
If the feds found out an airport is selling off road avgas to non-aviation motors they can be fined bags full of $$$$ a day. And the users of avgas in non-aviation motors can land in a peck of trouble they really don't want.
I don't see him saying he was burning past reserve to beat the weather. Everything he wrote is valid if he lands with a legal 31 minutes of reserve fuel. He would have then been legal and safe landing at his base, but also justifiably uncomfortable taking off again. It's that second flight that would be burning past reserve and precisely the problem he's trying to solve. Getting fuel to his plane so he can be safe and legal (the two being well aligned in this case) for that second flight.
I don't see him saying he was burning past reserve to beat the weather. Everything he wrote is valid if he lands with a legal 31 minutes of reserve fuel. He would have then been legal and safe landing at his base, but also justifiably uncomfortable taking off again. It's that second flight that would be burning past reserve and precisely the problem he's trying to solve. Getting fuel to his plane so he can be safe and legal (the two being well aligned in this case) for that second flight.
He says the aviation octane rating is different than motor octane or the R+M. He claimed the R+M rating was closer to 114-116 octane for 100LL?
Some airports do indeed say, "for aircraft only". I know people who have had an airport say no to filling their gas cans, until they said, "it's for an ultralight", and then it was allowed.
If the feds found out an airport is selling off road avgas to non-aviation motors they can be fined bags full of $$$$ a day. And the users of avgas in non-aviation motors can land in a peck of trouble they really don't want. But I am no fed and I won't go squealin'...
Why would a fed have ANY interest in what people fuel offroad vehicles with, or which fuel station provided that fuel?
It all boils down to money, taxes. The man wants his share.
There are multiple fuel taxes in play. Some federal, some state.
The most common ones affecting us are road and aviation. If you are not using the fuel for either one of those, yet you bought the fuel at a location which has those fees included. You can deduct the taxes already paid on your federal (and some state) income taxes.
The "man" only cares that you paid the taxes. The bad part is in multiple states, the fuel delivery is required to add the road taxes. It is incumbent on the FBO or Boat dock to actually file the paperwork and get a refund on the road taxes for the fuel purchased. From what I have seen many places do not make the effort and just add the aviation taxes on top. So when buying avgas, you are often paying the road taxes and the aviation taxes....
Tim
This is wrecking the traditional narrative.
I’m certain the narrative can withstand this. And much, much more.
The State. If we sell Avgas to some guy off the street and it winds up being used in something unapproved and it gets traced back to us, we’d be on the hook. Is the chance slim? Yes for sure, but it’s not something I care to engage in.Fined by who?
The State. If we sell Avgas to some guy off the street and it winds up being used in something unapproved and it gets traced back to us, we’d be on the hook. Is the chance slim? Yes for sure, but it’s not something I care to engage in.
So if anything, you’re paying too much tax if you put the fuel into an airboat instead of an airplane. Why, then, would the government object?
The State. If we sell Avgas to some guy off the street and it winds up being used in something unapproved and it gets traced back to us, we’d be on the hook. Is the chance slim? Yes for sure, but it’s not something I care to engage in.
In the few cases I am aware of, the problem is environmental regulations. Most small boats are also regulated, largely at the state level from what I understand. And 100LL going right into the water is considered kinda bad.
Tim
Golf carts, lawn mowers, tractors, snow blowers.......Because legally it cannot be used in a on road vehicle, as road taxes have not been paid.
So acceptable answers are ultralight, airboat, boat, race car, off road buggy or ATV.
Actually more likely the state would come after them first. But Feds would be involved as part of the road tax on fuel is a Federal taxThat's the second time that has been claimed in this thread. I've never heard of this. Why would a fed have ANY interest in what people fuel offroad vehicles with, or which fuel station provided that fuel?
The on-road car tax dodge issue is understandable, but I have never seen anyone rock up and fuel their toyota with avgas. I'd sort of love to see it, RIP their catalytic converter
It doesn't matter what fuel. A sheen on the water is a violation and a fine. Even one drop of diesel will make a sheen.In the few cases I am aware of, the problem is environmental regulations. Most small boats are also regulated, largely at the state level from what I understand. And 100LL going right into the water is considered kinda bad.
Tim
Actually more likely the state would come after them first. But Feds would be involved as part of the road tax on fuel is a Federal tax
You understand that airboats use airplane engines, right? They don’t dump fuel into the water.
No matter how careful you are, you always see gas and oil around power boats.
Then what difference does it make where you buy the fuel?
Avgas has TEL. a/k/a lead. Racing gas does not. Boat racing gas does not. Boat gas does not. You notice a theme here?
Tim
As I said in #107Yes, and airboats, using airplane engines, use avgas. You have yet to explain what difference it makes where the avgas is bought.
In many states avgas is effectively illegal in or around waterways.