ateamer
Pattern Altitude
Shell companies and offshore ownership/registration might well be able to take care of that.
California FBOs Told To Stop Selling 100LL, Switch To G100UL
- Thread starter FPK1
- Start date
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
The only constant in our lives is change. Piston aircraft have been provided an exemption from lead for 40 years. (The official phase out of lead began in 1976).
I don’t understand owner complaints on the cost of a 1 time fuel STC. You will pay hundreds more for your planes nav data subscription over a few years than you will for the fuel STC and no one is complaining to Jeppesen.
Last edited:
you asked...Keep dreaming.….. I see a sales job in your future. lol.
I have no problem paying for the STC. However, it will be several years before the fuel would be available in my area. So why buy an STC for a fuel that might not exist pending the large scale California experiment. But if I wanted to travel to a place that has mandated it's use, then you're forced to buy it. That's where my rub lies.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
I know pilots who buy a plane to go to the same restaurant every Sunday for breakfast…. Then the restaurant closes.
You speak as though this STC is very expensive, it isn’t. Most the cost is record keeping and notifying STC holders in the event of an AD.
Pinecone
En-Route
No, it isn't.
And he also stated that there is a significant percentage of fleet that will not be able to use the Swift product. Which means it is NOT drop in.
The problem with restructuring to a new corporate entity just means you get to get sued by the
As for cost, Lycoming already has an SB that allows you to double the oil change interval. So, in 2000 hours you save 20 oil changes. Plus you burn less fuel per hour due to higher energy density.
It's 600 bucks. Rather insignificant when it comes to airplane ownership. The beacon I'd like to put on was 900. But I'm in the Midwest and probably several years away from the fuel being available. My reluctance comes from the unknowns and my own pessimism. What if the Gami gas shows recession issues like they were seeing with the swift fuel? And then the fuel goes away before the Midwest sees it? Or something actually comes from eagle or PAFI or whatever the next acronym might be.
If I was in California I'd be buying it. I'm all for the roll out. I just don't like the idea of being mandated to buy an stc'd fuel that will take 5-10 years to roll out if everything goes perfect. And probably being last on the list.
I actually do like the ingenuity Gami used in circumventing the bureaucracy. If it was available anywhere in a 100 mile radius, I'd be buying the STC. Especially with salesman @Jim K reinforcing the benefits.
Last edited:
This is the main reason I didn't jump at the discounted stc's in spite of my apparent enthusiasm. For some reason I can't figure out, the "powers that be" don't seem to want the gami solution. Maybe that's for good reason, maybe it's just so they can feed from the public trough for a bit longer. Either way, I'm not totally convinced that 100LL will disappear before the engines that require it do, or that if it does, gami gas (i like that name...) will be the replacement.
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,659
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
This issue is whether the distributor was one of the ones agreeing. It is through the distributors that this might cover all of California. Fortunately, California is a narrow state so Nevada and Arizona FBO's on or near the border should do well.
There's always a way. No matter what crap one lawyer can conjur up, some other lawyer can find a loophole.
A few years ago, while browsing around the local Orvis shop, I found a nice old depression-era SxS 12ga shotgun in the rack and decided to buy it. The salesman said, "Sure thing, but we have to take a walk first." HUH? He led me out the door and about a block down the street to a different building. We went inside, filled out the 4473 form, did the background check call, I forked over some cash, and we concluded the sale. Then we walked back to the Orvis shop and I picked up my gun.
It seems that his FFL listed the other building as his business address so, legally, he had to conduct the sale there.
I can see the fuel businesses making "the sale" and collecting money across the street or in the parking lot or somewhere to get it out of the FBO.
Or...
"Hey, buddy. I can't sell 100LL at this airport, so pull your plane up next to the airport fence. I'll park the fuel truck along the street and snake the hose over the fence."
This could get entertaining.
A few years ago, while browsing around the local Orvis shop, I found a nice old depression-era SxS 12ga shotgun in the rack and decided to buy it. The salesman said, "Sure thing, but we have to take a walk first." HUH? He led me out the door and about a block down the street to a different building. We went inside, filled out the 4473 form, did the background check call, I forked over some cash, and we concluded the sale. Then we walked back to the Orvis shop and I picked up my gun.
It seems that his FFL listed the other building as his business address so, legally, he had to conduct the sale there.
I can see the fuel businesses making "the sale" and collecting money across the street or in the parking lot or somewhere to get it out of the FBO.
Or...
"Hey, buddy. I can't sell 100LL at this airport, so pull your plane up next to the airport fence. I'll park the fuel truck along the street and snake the hose over the fence."
This could get entertaining.
Nobody's gonna stop you from putting the fuel in your tank (well, I don't know about those highfalutin' airports where they pump your gas for you). But if you're ramp checked, or have an accident...
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,659
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
But if the distributors are not even shipping 100LL into California, what then? You have to get the fuel to put it in.
Nobody's gonna stop you from putting the fuel in your tank (well, I don't know about those highfalutin' airports where they pump your gas for you). But if you're ramp checked, or have an accident...
The airport manager at my home field, a municipal airport, has said that the agreement for fuel sales with Phillips 66 is exclusive. If so, I would imagine that's a standard arrangement in most places. If one governmental agency bans a certain type of fuel that another governmental entity has agreed sell exclusively, where does that leave the fuel user? How common are exclusive fuel sales rights?
FPK1
Line Up and Wait
Probably contractually exclusive... I believe a court order would override the contract.
Contracts usually have an exclusion or exception for acts of God, so when a judge starts thinking he’s God,....
Yeah, I think we often forget how little attention the public actually pays to GA. The only thing most of the public cares about(or is even aware of) when it comes to aviation is commercial air travel. The only way I see widespread adoption happening is if powerful people/groups really get behind it and push. The FAA has bigger concerns right now, the public has bigger concerns right now, and I don't see that push coming anytime soon. If it starts to look like places I fly to are switching to it, I'll get the STC but I'm also unconvinced the switch is inevitable.
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,659
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
If Phillips agreed to the consent decree, then it will be the one breaking the contract as they will cease to deliver. If Phillips is not a party to the consent decree, then they can continue shipping 100LL to your airport.
Do you think the EPA might back down? It's hard to see why they would.
ateamer
Pattern Altitude
It wasn’t the EPA that sued. It was a private company.
The lawsuit only affects California. I think Cowman was talking about outside of California.
I was thinking more along the lines of a state government banning 100LL but airports having exclusive agreements with a distributor that only sells 100LL. Can't sell 100LL because of state regulation, can't sell 100UL because of contract. What then?
The manager at my airport says selling 100UL is off the table because of the contract with Phillips.
It's all hypothetical right now.
sourdough44
En-Route
Just to back up a little, what does the amount of 100LL burning add to the environment, in a negative way? I’m just wondering on studies done? As far as fuels go, 100LL seems like a minor player.
I guess it’s sounds like I’m against any restrictions, maybe I am. What does science say?
One can go with ‘any lead is bad’, like bullets for hunting. The lead wheel weights are mostly gone.
Then pilots acting like lead is bad for your, or most engines, ok, get ahead of the curve & STC.
I remember hearing that 100LL, wasn’t real low on lead, compared to auto fuel of the 1970’s. I wonder why not just reduce the lead in 100LL? Make it 100 ‘very low lead’. Anyway, trying to roll with it.
Think of E-15 auto fuel, many will spout negatives.
I guess it’s sounds like I’m against any restrictions, maybe I am. What does science say?
One can go with ‘any lead is bad’, like bullets for hunting. The lead wheel weights are mostly gone.
Then pilots acting like lead is bad for your, or most engines, ok, get ahead of the curve & STC.
I remember hearing that 100LL, wasn’t real low on lead, compared to auto fuel of the 1970’s. I wonder why not just reduce the lead in 100LL? Make it 100 ‘very low lead’. Anyway, trying to roll with it.
Think of E-15 auto fuel, many will spout negatives.
Because then it will no longer be 100 octane.
Take the lead out of 100LL and you get 94UL.
We’re contracted with Titan Fuels. It is exclusive in the sense that they’re the only distributor that we resell, but the contract isn’t perpetual. If state law required the disuse of leaded aviation fuel, the contract would have to be amended for such.
In the grand scheme of things, it really wouldn’t make a difference from a business standpoint. Titan, Phillips, AVFuel etc., get their supply from the same terminals. If the refinery stopped producing it due to state (or federal, at some point) law, they won’t have a choice. I suspect at some point, it’ll just be a drop in replacement like some have indicated, but I still feel like it’s a few years out before it becomes nationwide.
FPK1
Line Up and Wait
Pretty good article with a few more details...
www.avweb.com
Avgas Issue Comes To A Head And It's About Time - AVweb
It looks like the courts will decide which fuel we end up with and when.
www.avweb.com
schmookeeg
En-Route
A hair over 4 years of database updates = 1 G100UL STC for my plane.
I'm salty at the need for the STC at all. That's a different and well-worn thread though. I intend to pirate the fuel if it becomes the only source available to me here. I have also made duplicates of the wing sticker that Gami sells, and next time I'm at osh, I intend to print a bunch and leave stacks of them lying around as protest.
The cost of the fuel will be telling when it lands this summer. I'm hoping they keep it under 10 bucks. I don't think anyone here is ready for $10+ avgas but who knows. This state is awash in cash, maybe nobody blinks.
Pinecone
En-Route
And home much is that going to cost when he has to drive to another state to buy it at retail and then drive it back? Terminals deal with tanker truck size loads, not fuel truck size.
Pinecone
En-Route
Except that I am sure the contract lets him sell another fuel if Phillips is unable to sell any fuel.
And I HIGHLY suspect, the fuel distribution companies will be delivering G100UL if that is all that can be sold. Otherwise, they are just walking away from the market.
Wouldn't burning 100UL without the STC technically make your airplane unairworthy? An IA would likely notice during an annual inspection and might have something to say.
Those are two separate issues. Clearly the sale of aviation fuel involves interstate commerce, which would give the congress constitutional authority to regulate, but it doesn't follow that states are precluded from also regulating the sale. You have to demonstrate one of the three types of federal preemption. The three types of federal preemption are: (1) Conflict preemption-- that it's impossible to comply with both federal and state regulation, (2) express preemption-- congress passes an act that expressly preempts states from regulating the subject, or (3) field preemption-- meaning that congress has so thoroughly regulated the field that there is no room left for the states to regulate it. We can probably debate these, but I suspect that a court would not find preemption under any of these three categories.
I think that if the FAA requires an expensive STC fee to be paid long in advance to a commercial company in order to use G100UL, and if a state requires you to use G100UL even for a once in a lifetime fuel stop purchase, that a reasonable person would find that to be tantamount to impossible.
The supreme court has stated that the standard for conflict preemption of state law is that the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” In preemption analysis, courts should assume that “the historic police powers of the States” are not superseded “unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2501, 183 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2012).
Here, the Congress has delegated authority to the FAA, which in turn has approved the use of GAMI as an aviation fuel, so it would seem to me hard to argue that state law requiring its sale once commercially available would satisfy these standards. The FAA has set up the system that requires users to pay an STC, so again, my gut reaction is that this wouldn't be a conflict that would result in federal preemption.
Last edited:
I’m not a lawyer but I think it’s an unreasonable obstacle to the broader objectives of Congress and FAA in funding the National Airspace System and Federally funded airports that an individual would be forced to pay a several hundred dollar fee (regardless of what it buys) solely in order to make a single fuel stop at a Federally funded airport in California while e.g. flying interstate from Hawaii to Nevada.
Would the Federal Government see it as obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the Federal Interstate Highway System if in order to refuel a non-CA resident’s Oregon registered Ford Fiesta on Highway 5 in California, a $600 one-time licensing fee were required?
This also reminds me a bit of California’s efforts to stop residents from importing used ‘49 state’ Federally certified cars that could not be sold as new cars in the state. If I recall the saga correctly, they first forbade it completely, then they tried charging huge ‘impact’ fees, then the Federal Government put an end to that and the fees were refunded. The final rule was that import of Federally certified used cars is allowed, with the definition of used meaning 7500 miles on the odometer.
I think a similar battle would ensue if California used the STC fee as a disincentive to people transiting the state by plane.
Would the Federal Government see it as obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the Federal Interstate Highway System if in order to refuel a non-CA resident’s Oregon registered Ford Fiesta on Highway 5 in California, a $600 one-time licensing fee were required?
This also reminds me a bit of California’s efforts to stop residents from importing used ‘49 state’ Federally certified cars that could not be sold as new cars in the state. If I recall the saga correctly, they first forbade it completely, then they tried charging huge ‘impact’ fees, then the Federal Government put an end to that and the fees were refunded. The final rule was that import of Federally certified used cars is allowed, with the definition of used meaning 7500 miles on the odometer.
I think a similar battle would ensue if California used the STC fee as a disincentive to people transiting the state by plane.
Last edited:
Kristin
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,659
- Location
- Twin Cities
- Display Name
Display name:
Kristin (The Aviatrix)
If a state were to ban 100LL then the exclusive contract with the distributor is probably null and void unless that distributor has some fuel to provide that is acceptable to the state. The contract with the airport very likely has what is called a Force Majeure clause that says that the obligations under the contract are null and void if some outside event prevents performance by either party.