FAA: No Discernible Progress On Approving G100UL Avgas

 
midwestpa24 said:
They are probably less than interested in any approving any fossil fuel based alternate. It better be electric, corn, or fairy dust.
Click to expand...

Not to be political but the current administration is heading in that direction. But they told us they would do this if elected so it must have been what the majority desired ...
 
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.
 
:popcorn:
 
Nothing will happen on anything major until there’s a confirmed administrator. Nobody “Acting” is going to do anything significant and the new person will “need time to get up to speed” which means no progress on GAMA, MOSAIC, Medical, etc etc etc etc until two years into the next administration, whoever is President then.

Cheers
 
 
It really is time for Braly to reach out to media besides the aviation press. Start getting some stories on popular news sites and TV news shows, play up the environmental stuff, maybe get the EPA quoted, get some video of tree-huggers singing Kumbaya and holding hands at an airport, etc. A story or two about CA airports banning lead and the FAA opposing the ban would help.

Braly needs to shine some light into the darkened rooms of the FAA. He’s done it their way for years and they’re screwing him over.
 
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?
 
X3 Skier said:
Of course the EAGLE Fiasco will require the same ridiculous amount of testing of whatever comes out of that goat rope, won’t it?:rolleyes:

Cheers
Click to expand...


Nothing will come out of that goat rope. Remember, not only do they have to invent a new fuel, but now they have to do it without violating Braly’s pateants.
 
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...

Didn't the Supreme Court recently issue an opinion which will begin to rein in the administrative state?
 
These people want nothing short of a carbon neutral solution….we aren’t there…not even close. When FAA executives make bone headed comments regarding converting current GA to all electric….these are PhD types…I’ve lost all faith in our leadership.
 
Walboy said:
Didn't the Supreme Court recently issue an opinion which will begin to rein in the administrative state?
Click to expand...


Slightly. But it’s a very high bar, will not do much for many years, and might not effect this anyway.
 
It's the Hunger Games (without the child-killing death battles); all things are intended to support the power and lifestyles of the "Important Ones, at the expense (both pecuniary and lifestyle) of the Less Important Ones in the districts.

Personal transportation is disfavored (unless you're an Important One).

Single-family homes are disfavored.

If you live outside of a major metropolitan area, you're disfavored (except, you know, Martha's Vineyard, Telluride, Aspen, etc.).

If you live where air conditioning is needed to make summertime living comfortable, you're disfavored.
 
Daleandee said:
Not to be political but the current administration is heading in that direction. But they told us they would do this if elected so it must have been what the majority desired ...
Click to expand...
Hey. I started it out with "not to be" so therefore it is not.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No.
Click to expand...


He's thinking of West Virginia v. EPA and the major questions doctrine. From Wikipedia,

The major questions doctrine is a rough analogue to the nondelegation doctrine, where the Supreme Court has held in recent years that in order for them to do so, Congress must have clearly authorized agencies to regulate issues the Court considers to be of vast significance.[14] When Congress fails to comply with this clear statement rule, the courts may infer that Congress did not intend to empower the agency. For example the Supreme Court ruled in June 2022 that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan that would require energy producers to shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources was not part of the mandate to the EPA by the Clean Air Act, as the Court believed it fell under its major questions doctrine.[15]

It's not likely to have much if any effect on any government agency.
 
Bad luck on the timing, maybe. The FAA Administrator resigned 3/31/22, and since then there’s only an acting Administrator.

Despite promising to issue a full STC for G100UL avgas in May, the FAA still hasn’t announced expanded approval for the fuel and the agency has declined to answer AVweb’s queries on when the approval process will be completed.
Click to expand...
 
NoHeat said:
Bad luck on the timing, maybe. The FAA Administrator resigned 3/31/22, and since then there’s only an acting Administrator.
Click to expand...


There’s a rumor that he was forced out because he was planning to approve the G100UL STC.
 
Wrong gummint agency....the EPA regulates it....and the FAA enforces the aviation portion of it. 14 CFR 36 & 34 are the responsibility of other agencies.

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority (in consultation with the FAA) to regulate emissions from aircraft. The CAA specifies that, in setting standards, the agencies must consider the time needed to develop required technology, consider cost, and must not adversely impact aircraft safety or noise. At present, there are no regulations that apply to emissions from aircraft that use leaded fuel. However, FAA enforces existing emission standards for commercial jet aircraft and engines through the certification process of engines. Commercial jet engine manufacturers have responded to requirements for emissions reductions through technology changes by improving jet engine designs and efficiency. If the EPA finds that aircraft emissions present an endangerment to public health or welfare, they can establish limits on aircraft emissions, and then the FAA has the authority to regulate aircraft emissions through the development of standards for the composition or chemical or physical properties of an aircraft fuel or fuel additive.
Click to expand...
NoHeat said:
Bad luck on the timing, maybe. The FAA Administrator resigned 3/31/22, and since then there’s only an acting Administrator.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
People reflexively go to the partisan stuff. I truly believe this is just the executive cabinet doing what they've always done: run the clock offense on the aggrieved. The DoD services do the same thing with us (their indentured labor).

The ultimate effect here is to mothball piston GA; it's an airspace grab ultimately. But they have to mind the airlines pilot accessions interest, hence run the clock. This isn't about ecological policy on either side of the anthropogenic climate change mouth-foaming kerfuffle. This is about control and representation of the favored within the NAS, as @SCCutler highlights in post #20. Yes, it bones up GAMI on a personal business level, but this effort is motivated at constituencies bigger-pocketed than GAMI, in the eyes of the regulatory-captured agency.

Personally I don't know why rec players would be pearl clutchy about this. Most of us aren't 'new' here. Plenty of examples of this behavior as early as 2013 (part 23 re-write implementation). Where FAA openly scoffed at Congress' directive to implement, a full 2 years late, and cut out most of the meaningful reforms for us "poors" who were never going to buy a new production airplane in the first place. Run the clock offense is old as the sport itself. Ever heard of justice delayed justice denied? We live this stuff every day in fac built land. They got suckers these days making rain dances to the sky over MOSAIC potato. lulz. The cavalry is coming boys! *muffled laughter*

As to the US being a representative government in bona fide? Gentlemen, please. Adult bed time stories at this stage of our lives?
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
View attachment 108688
Click to expand...
publication578.jpg
 
Half Fast said:
He's thinking of West Virginia v. EPA and the major questions doctrine. From Wikipedia,

The major questions doctrine is a rough analogue to the nondelegation doctrine, where the Supreme Court has held in recent years that in order for them to do so, Congress must have clearly authorized agencies to regulate issues the Court considers to be of vast significance.[14] When Congress fails to comply with this clear statement rule, the courts may infer that Congress did not intend to empower the agency. For example the Supreme Court ruled in June 2022 that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan that would require energy producers to shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources was not part of the mandate to the EPA by the Clean Air Act, as the Court believed it fell under its major questions doctrine.[15]

It's not likely to have much if any effect on any government agency.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with the doctrine.

That's why I said "No."
 
Why are so many pilots looking forward to this? Isn't it just going to be even more expensive?
 
Lindberg said:
Why are so many pilots looking forward to this? Isn't it just going to be even more expensive?
Click to expand...


It will likely save more money in engine life than it will cost. Besides, I don’t particularly like getting leaded gas on my hands when fueling or sumping my tanks.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
These people want nothing short of a carbon neutral solution….we aren’t there…not even close. When FAA executives make bone headed comments regarding converting current GA to all electric….these are PhD types…I’ve lost all faith in our leadership.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

OK ... that's a wrap!
 
Lindberg said:
Why are so many pilots looking forward to this? Isn't it just going to be even more expensive?
Click to expand...

Without lead synthetic oils with double or triple the interval between oil changes become possible. Lower chance of fouling spark plugs. (BTDT, it sucks). Old warbirds can run near their rated power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top