FAA: No Discernible Progress On Approving G100UL Avgas

SCCutler said:
I remain resolutely confident that the true intent is to effectively kill non-jet general aviation, except to the limited extent required to provide pilots for jets. The nascent (but growing) trend to banning 100LL was expected to do the job, and the availability of a viable and readily-produced 100UL substitute is... inconvenient... to the effort to eviscerate GA. So, it is being ignored, stonewalled.

For those who believe this is only a problem for GAMI (or, for that matter, for the people who rely upon and require 100LL or equivalent, which represents the majority of the non-jet fuel used in GA), you're missing the bigger picture. GAMI met every requirement under the law for the approval of this fuel, even after extra steps were thrown in; the FAA people in charge of certifying the fuel (Wichita ACO) and "auditing" the results (Atlanta ACO - and this was an unprecedented requirement, thrown up in the face of the effort), have approved the STC without reservation. Notwithstanding all this, the FAA simply declines to approve without comment. So, the big picture: an utterly unaccountable administrative state is inventing new and secret rules.

Is this a representative government?
Click to expand...
No. But you already know.
 
MountainDude said:
This is another AOPA failure. They have a $50M yearly budget and have very little to show for it.
Click to expand...
AOPA has been doing a lot to support both GAMI and Swift, as well as EAGLE. I understand both GAMI and Swift plan public thank yous to AOPA at OSH.

The nature of effective lobbying though is that you don't embarrass the agencies and CONGRESS critters by lobbying in public.

when asked why EAGLE, when GAMI appears to have succeeded, Mark Baker explained that the issue is too important, GA fuel supply, for AOPA to pick winners, and maybe fail. So AOPA is supporting the efforts of all reasonable contenders. In addition, EAGLE also focuses on efforts that support GAMI and Swift: distribution, airport availability, etc.

note that both GAMI and Swift chose to join and actively support EAGLE... Braly and D'Acosta have been at every EAGLE meeting since the beginning, as have Baker and staff.

Paul
 
Half Fast said:
Remember, not only do they have to invent a new fuel,
Click to expand...
Not really. The issue isn't the fuel, the issue is the distillation curve from the 1930s that is part of the specification not because that's what is needed, but because it just happened to be what the curve for gasoline was at the time.
 
PaulMillner said:
AOPA has been doing a lot to support both GAMI and Swift, as well as EAGLE. I understand both GAMI and Swift plan public thank yous to AOPA at OSH.

The nature of effective lobbying though is that you don't embarrass the agencies and CONGRESS critters by lobbying in public.

when asked why EAGLE, when GAMI appears to have succeeded, Mark Baker explained that the issue is too important, GA fuel supply, for AOPA to pick winners, and maybe fail. So AOPA is supporting the efforts of all reasonable contenders. In addition, EAGLE also focuses on efforts that support GAMI and Swift: distribution, airport availability, etc.

note that both GAMI and Swift chose to join and actively support EAGLE... Braly and D'Acosta have been at every EAGLE meeting since the beginning, as have Baker and staff.

Paul
Click to expand...


And yet GAMI's STC application still sits unapproved, and we don't know why. Baker doesn't have to pick a winner; GAMI has already crossed the finish line and it's time to stop quibbling about it and acknowledge it.

Frankly, I'm tired of the arm-waving, the excuses, and the general BS. Eight more years?! This is insane. There exists a fuel that works, it's been through all the FAA testing, and it's time to get on with it.
 
PaulMillner said:
AOPA has been doing a lot to support both GAMI and Swift, as well as EAGLE. I understand both GAMI and Swift plan public thank yous to AOPA at OSH.

The nature of effective lobbying though is that you don't embarrass the agencies and CONGRESS critters by lobbying in public.

when asked why EAGLE, when GAMI appears to have succeeded, Mark Baker explained that the issue is too important, GA fuel supply, for AOPA to pick winners, and maybe fail. So AOPA is supporting the efforts of all reasonable contenders. In addition, EAGLE also focuses on efforts that support GAMI and Swift: distribution, airport availability, etc.

note that both GAMI and Swift chose to join and actively support EAGLE... Braly and D'Acosta have been at every EAGLE meeting since the beginning, as have Baker and staff.

Paul
Click to expand...
Do you work for AOPA? You sound like them. Lip service for years, with $50M in yearly budget. I am only interested in accomplishments, not promises. I like the saying "you either have results or excuses". It's very easy to see what AOPA has. Super frustrating.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Actually, if you listen to Braly's many discussions on the topic, you get a picture of a systemic problem, Other groups invested in and lobbying for more testing at the expense of approval in order to make more money for themselves. Anyone who thinks that's reflective of any specific administration or political leaning is imagining things.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
It's so sad that GAMI took on the time and expense to develop what appears to be a complete and total replacement for 100LL and the bureaucracy has for no good reason other than greed screwed this whole thing up.

They tested the crap out of this replacement fuel and from what I have read, it has performed perfectly. Now on the threshold of marketing this fuel to the masses, they have been basically strangled with useless red tape. The FAA needs to suck it up and grant certification for G100UL.
 
follow

the

money


(Stolen from somewhere... some may suspect where...)
 
So did anyone attend the meeting today? Can you share what transpired?
 
MountainDude said:
Do you work for AOPA? You sound like them. Lip service for years, with $50M in yearly budget. I am only interested in accomplishments, not promises. I like the saying "you either have results or excuses". It's very easy to see what AOPA has. Super frustrating.
Click to expand...
In the Federal lobbying space $50,000,000 annual is pocket lint.
 
I've said it before here and someone mentioned it above. The only way G100UL will get pushed through faster is if the media is made aware that a no-lead alternative is available and the FAA is stalling approval. For the pittance of profit that 100LL provides "Big Oil", I don't understand why they would want to continue the liability of producing 100LL. It's a rounding error on their balance sheets (literally, like 0.1% compared to US gasoline consumption, not even counting diesel).
 
Meanwhile, Swift announced last night that UND had agreed to use UL94 for their entire fleet of ~140 aircraft / 127,000 annual flight hours.

At the rate they’re growing, the market might leave G100UL behind.
 
Well, here’s a preview of coming attractions:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/congressional-committee-looking-at-national-100ll-ban/

It won’t be long before fuel companies decide 100LL isn’t worth the political battle, the looming EPA actions, the bad press, and the sure-to-come lawsuits from communities and “concerned citizens.” Once they decide brewing 100LL is more trouble than it’s worth, they’ll stop.

And that will happen loooong before EAGLE gets anything done.

I’ve yet to hear any real rationale for not approving Braly’s STC. Heck, EAGLE could still continue their goat rope. STC approval does not require a halt to EAGLE. Why not let Braly have a shot at licensing his juice?
 
One of you pilots attending Osh might want to track down Braly and suggest that he contact the members of this congressional committee and explain the FAA’s BS.

Sunlight can be a great disinfectant.
 
Half Fast said:
One of you pilots attending Osh might want to track down Braly and suggest that he contact the members of this congressional committee and explain the FAA’s BS.

Sunlight can be a great disinfectant.
Click to expand...

George has been invited to give testimony before the committee.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
For the pittance of profit that 100LL provides "Big Oil", I don't understand why they would want to continue the liability of producing 100LL. It's a rounding error on their balance sheets (literally, like 0.1% compared to US gasoline consumption, not even counting diesel).
Click to expand...
I assume there's some capital costs involved.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I've said it before here and someone mentioned it above. The only way G100UL will get pushed through faster is if the media is made aware that a no-lead alternative is available and the FAA is stalling approval. For the pittance of profit that 100LL provides "Big Oil", I don't understand why they would want to continue the liability of producing 100LL. It's a rounding error on their balance sheets (literally, like 0.1% compared to US gasoline consumption, not even counting diesel).
Click to expand...

You think the FAA is sensitive to media embarassment? Did anyone get a hand slapped over the 787 "hey just bless your own ish, Boeing, we're good" lack of oversight? I may have missed the heads rolling on that dereliction of duty.

They seem responsive to congresscritters alone from what I can tell. I can't afford one of those, and it appears one G. Braly can't or won't either.
 
Half Fast said:
Well, here’s a preview of coming attractions:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/congressional-committee-looking-at-national-100ll-ban/

It won’t be long before fuel companies decide 100LL isn’t worth the political battle, the looming EPA actions, the bad press, and the sure-to-come lawsuits from communities and “concerned citizens.” Once they decide brewing 100LL is more trouble than it’s worth, they’ll stop.

And that will happen loooong before EAGLE gets anything done.

I’ve yet to hear any real rationale for not approving Braly’s STC. Heck, EAGLE could still continue their goat rope. STC approval does not require a halt to EAGLE. Why not let Braly have a shot at licensing his juice?
Click to expand...

It will take time. The gears of government grind slowly, but surely. It will take 2 years for the EPA to pass their rule making, another 2 years after that for the FAA to pass their rule making and then they can start putting things in play. So it’s at least 4 years out, but you can’t wait until the end to get going.

meanwhile, I also found out today Swift is working on a new fuel, 100R, which they believe is a near drop in replacement for 100LL.

All the maneuvering means any
 
bflynn said:
It will take time. The gears of government grind slowly, but surely. It will take 2 years for the EPA to pass their rule making, another 2 years after that for the FAA to pass their rule making and then they can start putting things in play. So it’s at least 4 years out, but you can’t wait until the end to get going.
Click to expand...


In the meantime, why not just approve Braly’s STC and let him take a swing at getting his fuel produced? That’s what really ticks me off. Approving Braly’s STC does nothing to impede EAGLE. The FAA’s inaction is interfering in commerce without a compelling safety concern. They’re way outside their swim lane.

This sort of arbitrary refusal to approve an STC will discourage companies from investing in new products and stifle innovation.
 
schmookeeg said:
They seem responsive to congresscritters alone from what I can tell. I can't afford one of those, and it appears one G. Braly can't or won't either.
Click to expand...

In this case you don't need to be able to afford a Congressperson, you just might have to find yourself on the same side as the environmental extremists who think 100LL is the most evil and dangerous product on the planet. I sent an email to the Congressional committee chair for tomorrow's hearing, basically saying that pilots don't really want 100LL either, given a choice. We know it isn't great for the environment (though likely not as bad as some think), but it's not great for our engines either. And there is a choice, G100UL, and the FAA is foot-dragging and imposing unprecedented measures to delay it's approval.
 
bflynn said:
Meanwhile, Swift announced last night that UND had agreed to use UL94 for their entire fleet of ~140 aircraft / 127,000 annual flight hours.

At the rate they’re growing, the market might leave G100UL behind.
Click to expand...

Except for all the planes that cannot run 94 octane fuel. Everyone can burn 100UL.
 
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. The FAA does whatever it wants with zero oversight and accountability.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much the density differs? The density of fuel certainly changes with temperature, but it's not something we worry about in doing a W&B.
 
GaryM said:
I wonder how much the density differs? The density of fuel certainly changes with temperature, but it's not something we worry about in doing a W&B.
Click to expand...

G100UL is about 5% higher density. (6.3 vs. 6.0 lbs/gal). For our 182 with 79 gal total capacity, that is about 24 lbs different. Not a lot, but for some planes with more sensitive CG limits associated with fuel burn, it may be something worth considering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top