FAA: No Discernible Progress On Approving G100UL Avgas

Jeff Oslick said:
If they make it a law, the FAA loses the power to approve/disapprove it. That is how we got BasicMed. The only minor hump with G100UL is that there is a slight density difference vs. 100LL, and technically that should be accounted for in W&B calculations. My understanding is the power density is slightly better, so use of existing performance tables would not be negatively effected (i.e., performance may be slightly better with G100UL).
Click to expand...

Energy density is higher, so no change required in performance tables. However, it does affect the fuel/air ratio. So as a result, you will likely have to be aware of changes of mixture in more "edge" cases. e.g. taking off hot and/or high definitions might change.

Tim
 
Jeff Oslick said:
G100UL is about 5% higher density. (6.3 vs. 6.0 lbs/gal).
Click to expand...

Thanks. That is a bigger difference than I would have thought. If I recall correctly, the change in gasoline density caused by temperature alone is less than half that, for the kind of temperature swings one might reasonably encounter.
 
ateamer said:
Even if they make it law, the FAA will refuse to approve it. They’ve ben required since 2004 to issue pilot certificates with a photo.
Click to expand...

FWIW ... my certificate has a couple of folks on the back of it! :happydance:
 
Any news about yesterday’s congressional committee meeting? How did Braly make out?
 
JOhnH said:
I believe it is to be livestreamed here:
Click to expand...
I believe you can watch it here. They are in recess until around 54 minutes into the stream, and Braly start talking at around 1hour or so.
 
Just watched Braly's testimony. Direct and to the point. The FAA is sitting on their hands. He also made the point that the FAA is in defiance of a Congressional mandate to approve an unleaded aviation fuel as soon as it passes the technical requirements, which G100UL has done. He added that if the FAA had approved him issuing the STCs in March, when they should have, California would have G100UL supplies in Aug/Sept 2022 (which will now be further drawn out).
 
Jeff Oslick said:
He also made the point that the FAA is in defiance of a Congressional mandate to approve an unleaded aviation fuel as soon as it passes the technical requirements, which G100UL has done.
Click to expand...

If we had "justice for all" then the truth that Braly pointed out would be investigated and the FAA would have to answer a contempt of congress charge. That will never happen of course and I suspect we may have to witness the wheels of "justice" run over Braly ...
 
Daleandee said:
If we had "justice for all" then the truth that Braly pointed out would be investigated and the FAA would have to answer a contempt of congress charge. That will never happen of course and I suspect we may have to witness the wheels of "justice" run over Braly ...
Click to expand...

He was smart about that, and pointed out the FAA whistleblower who revealed that FAA management wasn't listening to the FAA engineers on the 737-Max certification failures. He implicitly drew the analogy that all of the FAA internal experts approved G100UL, it was management defying the expert opinions of the FAA engineers, again.
 
ateamer said:
Even if they make it law, the FAA will refuse to approve it. They’ve ben required since 2004 to issue pilot certificates with a photo.
Click to expand...
Actually I look a lot like the guy on the right on the back of my certificate, especially the haircut.

Cheers
 
FYI - Mark Baker’s statement can be read here:
http://aireform.com/wp-content/uplo...o-HouseOversightEnviroCommHrg-M.Baker-16p.pdf

Mostly motherhood BS about being “laser focused” on finding a fuel, plus some whining about fuel bans in California. No real substance at all.

The only successes he points to are GAMI and Swift, and he says nothing about why GAMI’s fuel hasn’t been approved.

He’s an utterly useless bag of hot air.
 
Half Fast said:
FYI - Mark Baker’s statement can be read here:
http://aireform.com/wp-content/uplo...o-HouseOversightEnviroCommHrg-M.Baker-16p.pdf

Mostly motherhood BS about being “laser focused” on finding a fuel, plus some whining about fuel bans in California. No real substance at all.

The only successes he points to are GAMI and Swift, and he says nothing about why GAMI’s fuel hasn’t been approved.

He’s an utterly useless bag of hot air.
Click to expand...
Not so useless to the FAA I guess.
 
George was very complimentary of Mark....o_O
Half Fast said:
FYI - Mark Baker’s statement can be read here:
http://aireform.com/wp-content/uplo...o-HouseOversightEnviroCommHrg-M.Baker-16p.pdf

Mostly motherhood BS about being “laser focused” on finding a fuel, plus some whining about fuel bans in California. No real substance at all.

The only successes he points to are GAMI and Swift, and he says nothing about why GAMI’s fuel hasn’t been approved.

He’s an utterly useless bag of hot air.
Click to expand...
 
Half Fast said:
FYI - Mark Baker’s statement can be read here:
http://aireform.com/wp-content/uplo...o-HouseOversightEnviroCommHrg-M.Baker-16p.pdf

Mostly motherhood BS about being “laser focused” on finding a fuel, plus some whining about fuel bans in California. No real substance at all.

The only successes he points to are GAMI and Swift, and he says nothing about why GAMI’s fuel hasn’t been approved.

He’s an utterly useless bag of hot air.
Click to expand...

That letter is a clear example of why I quit AOPA a few years ago. There is a f---ing solution. As Braly said, G100UL is a few pen-strokes away from being STC-available for EVERY piston engine aircraft in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top