G100UL unleaded avgas approved

txy said:
There is no public health problem associated with 100ll, unless you count the group psychosis that got us here. The “problem” was entirely fabricated by Friends of the Earth with the cooperation of the air division of EPA and local environmental agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in northern California. Epidemiological studies don’t control for other sources of lead, and can’t explain similar lead levels away from airports. Air studies showed no concentrations of airborne lead higher than EPA’s already low action level. (One study at my airport put monitors inside the fence in the runup area, immediately behind aircraft—virtually almost up the tailpipe of aircraft. This study violated EPA and the monitor manufacturer’s standards and directions for conducting air studies, yet it still only generated a couple of hits.

None of this has stopped anti-airport groups and politicians from repeating false claims about 100ll. What was more disturbing was the lack of support from the alphabet groups in fighting this charade. Instead, it was accepted as gospel that 100ll is bad, that the end is inevitable, and that the best that could be done was to find a substitute.

So, this was a political problem that presented a business opportunity. I don’t fault GAMI for solving it, but I’m not happy about paying for it. I’m especially not happy because I’m living in California and get taxed heavily on fuel, the hangar I rent from the County, and my airplane. There’s an enormous surplus of fuel tax revenue that the State is legally required to spend only on airports and aviation, but it remains unspent. Since it’s OUR money, it would make sense to buy every aircraft owner based in California an STC to use G100. And eVTOL pigs might fly.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. TEL is extremely harmful. And lead also stays in the environment for extremely long periods of time, and the real level of safe exposure is none.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Incorrect. TEL is extremely harmful. And lead also stays in the environment for extremely long periods of time, and the real level of safe exposure is none.

Tim
Click to expand...

I've been handling lead with my bare hands for 20+ years on a near daily basis. (around 400,000lbs of it as a VERY conservative number) The issues are WAY over blown.
 
Of course TEL is extremely toxic--if you drink it or put it on your skin. The point is that there is so little of it in emissions from aircraft that NO properly conducted study has found that aircraft exhaust results in human exposure to TEL that exceeds EPA's action level. Regarding the "zero" exposure threshold, it reminds of EPA's one-time rule on asbestos--that a single fiber can cause mesothelioma. EPA lowered the threshold for lead exposure a few years back. If "zero" was correct, I'm surprised they didn't go there.

Anecdotally, while dealing with the bogus lead monitoring at my airport, I had my whole family, including kids, tested for Pb in blood. We've spent our whole lives around airports and airplanes. The results? Low/normal.

But I agree with other posters that all of this history is almost certainly moot now. The only reason I bring it up is to a) vent a little, and b) make a record of what happened on the chance that we might do better the next time anti-aviation forces attack.
 
Last edited:
dans2992 said:
So, are these guys making money on the STCs that apparently everyone will have to purchase, or by patenting the formula… or both? Someone is going to get really, really rich off of this.

Per the video, the STC will be basically a sticker to apply to your filler port area saying you’re allowed to use 100UL. If the FAA is issuing blanket “drop in” approval…. That seems to be ridiculously unnecessary, with no value add. I guess that’s just the way of the FAA.
Click to expand...

wealth and petroleum products have been hand in hand since we started pumping it.


EdFred said:
If it's just a sticker, I'll print one, slap it on the tank cover and call it good. I won't be paying for an STC for something that's not permanently attached to the plane. I doubt the FAA is going to be hanging out by fuel pumps and asking for your logbook.
Click to expand...

yup, my c85 was NOT designed for 100ll and they don’t worry about that, so I think I’d be in same boat as you: fill tank-clear prop!
 
Huckster79 said:
wealth and petroleum products have been hand in hand since we started pumping it.




yup, my c85 was NOT designed for 100ll and they don’t worry about that, so I think I’d be in same boat as you: fill tank-clear prop!
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, my placards also are holdovers from the early days of lead free too!
 
I suspect that if someone got hassled by FSDO for pumping G100UL without the desired sheaf of paperwork, one G. Braly would probably take the suit pro bono just to push it all the way up and have standing to skip the STC process for their fuel.
 
When the G100 is approved for all aircraft engines, 100LL will be sunsetted out of existence. Most FBOs can only handle one grade of Avgas without further capital investment, so G100 will be the only fuel available, unless you have a mogas STC. Seems to me a more painless way for GAMI to profit would be for them to license the formula to refiners, who would then recover that in the wholesale price of gas. This assumes they have patent protection for their work.
 
txy said:
How about spouts on gas cans?
Click to expand...
B214722.jpg
 
Morgan3820 said:
I think this is awesome from a supply chain point of few. No more trucking from distant refineries, no more issues with tetraethyl lead. I think GAMI did a wonderful job and if we have to pay them a little money for an STC, I am happy to do so. I think they deserve every bit of it. They could’ve been a lot more greedy about it. If they patented it you’ll be paying the royalty. as it is, anybody can make this stuff. Could you imagine if Shell aviation fuels came up with this.? Then you would be paying dearly.

As for the complainers, you don’t even know the details yet Some people would complain about a free lunch.
Click to expand...
You mean some people DO complain about a free lunch (or free anything).
I almost had to call the cops on a guy once. A vendor gave us a bunch of free product and suggested we give it free to customers, with a related purchase. One guy said he didn't want the free product, and he demanded that we reimburse him the full price for the product that he declined. I said OK, it was free so your refund is zero. He argued that he should get the stated value of the product. I was just going to escort him out and ask him not to return till he threatened my receptionist.
 
I saw some mention of it being possible that getting rid of the lead might extend our oil change intervals and TBO times. If that turns out to be the case it might offset the extra fuel cost enough to make it a wash.

That said, I'm content to keep burning 100LL for now. If they think it's that important then maybe we need to see subsidies for the STC and for FBOs to make the stuff available. Otherwise I can't imagine very many pilots or FBOs rushing to adopt this and a ton of opposition to mandating it.
 
cowman said:
I saw some mention of it being possible that getting rid of the lead might extend our oil change intervals and TBO times. If that turns out to be the case it might offset the extra fuel cost enough to make it a wash.

That said, I'm content to keep burning 100LL for now. If they think it's that important then maybe we need to see subsidies for the STC and for FBOs to make the stuff available. Otherwise I can't imagine very many pilots or FBOs rushing to adopt this and a ton of opposition to mandating it.
Click to expand...
Opposition to mandating ADS-B didn't work out too well.
 
cowman said:
I saw some mention of it being possible that getting rid of the lead might extend our oil change intervals and TBO times. If that turns out to be the case it might offset the extra fuel cost enough to make it a wash.

That said, I'm content to keep burning 100LL for now. If they think it's that important then maybe we need to see subsidies for the STC and for FBOs to make the stuff available. Otherwise I can't imagine very many pilots or FBOs rushing to adopt this and a ton of opposition to mandating it.
Click to expand...

Say it triples my oil change interval. My oil change costs me around $80. (Disposal costs me nothing) So my oil changes costs now for 150 hrs is $240 and would be $80. So it would save me about $1.07 per hour. This fuel is going to cost me at minimum $7.50/hr more. I doubt the TBO will be bumped to 4000 hours, TBO doesn't matter for part 91, and lead isn't really getting into the crank case and on the cams and crank anyway. We're still behind in cost no matter how they spin in.
 
EdFred said:
Say it triples my oil change interval. My oil change costs me around $80. (Disposal costs me nothing) So my oil changes costs now for 150 hrs is $240 and would be $80. So it would save me about $1.07 per hour. This fuel is going to cost me at minimum $7.50/hr. I doubt the TBO will be bumped to 4000 hours, TBO doesn't matter for part 91, and lead isn't really getting into the crank case and on the cams and crank anyway.
Click to expand...
I've changed enough of my own oil over the past 50 years. I now pay my A&P about $250 every 3 months to change the oil, plus another few bucks for an oil analysis.
 
JOhnH said:
I've changed enough of my own oil over the past 50 years. I now pay my A&P about $250 every 3 months to change the oil, plus another few bucks for an oil analysis.
Click to expand...

I don't mind it. I can even do it without getting any oil on my hands, or crawling on the ground. Open cowl, slide tube on quick-drain, empty into 5 gallon jerrican, change oil filter, safety wire, run up. Done. Less than 30 minutes.
 
The only item not asked in the interview, do byproducts of this fuel promote engine corrosion.
 
RE: the gas cans...
Local farm stores are selling these things
3943-Semco-5-Gal-Plastic-Utility-Jug-Red.jpg


Note that it doesn't outright say anywhere that it's for gas.... just "automotive & industrial fluid".
 
Palmpilot said:
This study attempts to account for other lead sources, but I don't have the expertise to evaluate the methodology.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_Aviation_Gasoline_on_Blood_Lead_in_Children
Click to expand...

Neither do I, but the conclusions are awfully bold in light of the details in the study. When considered along side other studies that don't focus on aircraft exhaust as a source of lead exposure to children, this study's conclusions read like they simply found what they were looking for. (For one example, lead passes through the body very slowly ("On average, [lead] requires slightly more than 1 year for children enrolled in case management with BLLs ≥10 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL) to decline to <10 μg/dL [Dignam et al. 2008]."), yet this study claims that there was a significant reduction in lead levels in blood in the days and weeks following 9/11. That doesn't make sense. Changes in BLL take much longer to show up.) There are dozens of sources of airborne lead in the environment other than aircraft exhaust. Controlling for all of them is, to say the least, an extremely tall order.

At the risk of drifting, the recent FAA-sponsored study on public sensitivity to aircraft noise is an example of a flawed study design, layered in hundreds of pages of statistical analysis, that leads to counterintuitive conclusions (that people are significantly more annoyed by aircraft noise than they are by noise of the same volume from other sources). The danger is that this kind of pseudo-science will be used as the basis for regulating airports and aviation. We need our advocacy groups to support objective research. If there is a real problem, then let's own it and deal with it. Too often, it seems, the problem turns out to be that someone has an interest in finding a problem, and the funding to create it.
 
https://www.avweb.com/insider/flying-g100ul-yeah-it-works/

Over 10 years in the making. If they can get costs down to near 100LL I'm all for it. But I fear things might get even more rapey.

What's interesting is they claim plugs and oil life may improve. 11 years of testing and that's the best answer you have?

Exciting and a big congratulations. Now can you buy me dinner before you bend me over.
 
JOhnH said:
You mean some people DO complain about a free lunch (or free anything).
I almost had to call the cops on a guy once. A vendor gave us a bunch of free product and suggested we give it free to customers, with a related purchase. One guy said he didn't want the free product, and he demanded that we reimburse him the full price for the product that he declined. I said OK, it was free so your refund is zero. He argued that he should get the stated value of the product. I was just going to escort him out and ask him not to return till he threatened my receptionist.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a nut job. Good candidate for congress.
 
EdFred said:
If it's just a sticker, I'll print one, slap it on the tank cover and call it good. I won't be paying for an STC for something that's not permanently attached to the plane. I doubt the FAA is going to be hanging out by fuel pumps and asking for your logbook.
Click to expand...
Actually, you'd be stealing from the STC holder, would you not?
 
GAMI has to be aware that with self service pumps, there's no way to stop someone from using leaded vs unleaded. It's like those k cups. The machine cost is miniscule compared to the cost of the cups over the lifetime. Granted the percentage of people that will use the stuff for one reason or another will be quite small until they're forced to or it makes economic sense. The cost of the stc is probably just to cover paperwork. If all it is is a sticker, they have to make the stc cheap enough for someone to buy it.
 
JOhnH said:
You mean some people DO complain about a free lunch (or free anything).
I almost had to call the cops on a guy once. A vendor gave us a bunch of free product and suggested we give it free to customers, with a related purchase. One guy said he didn't want the free product, and he demanded that we reimburse him the full price for the product that he declined. I said OK, it was free so your refund is zero. He argued that he should get the stated value of the product. I was just going to escort him out and ask him not to return till he threatened my receptionist.
Click to expand...
Was he French?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Actually, you'd be stealing from the STC holder, would you not?
Click to expand...

How? If I make a decal to put on my car that the dealer wanted to sell me for $1000 is that stealing from the dealer too?

Or to keep it aviation, making my own panel placards that Piper wants waaaaay too much for.
 
txy said:
How about spouts on gas cans?
Click to expand...

Bought a gas can a while ago at Ace Hardware. Ace Guy pointed to a spout next to the can display that didn’t have the stupid effing EPA contraption on it and mentioned I might want buy one of those. Problem eliminated.

Cheers
 
Salty said:
Federal regulations forcing the purchase and use of an STC and consumable product produced by a private company. Who could have a problem with that?
Click to expand...
Nobody forces you to fly. Auto gas is produced by private companies and unleaded gas is required by law to be used in your automobile - ever thought of that? It is exactly the same thing. You are required by law to use a fuel produced by private companies in order to have the privilege of driving your own car.

Unless you want to buy your own crude oil and refine some gasoline from it, that is your right.
 
I went to a Forum today at AirVenture scheduled for Mike Busch to talk about what is considered Preventive Maintenance. Up pops the GAMI guy in Mike’s place and after 30 minutes of listening to him pat himself on the back and whining about the FAA bureaucracy which he apparently singlehandedly reduced to rubble, I left.

Sum total of the 30 minutes I endured was
a) this will be approved for all spark ignition engines in all airplanes (eventually with no timetable defined)
b) it can be mixed with any current avgas, mogas and additives
c) this will be licensed to other petroleum companies (I think)
d) the speaker believes he is the savior of general aviation piston aircraft
e) if it wasn’t for him, the FAA would never have approved any unleaded fuel ever
f) it weighs .1 lb more per gallon
g) d and e again at least ten more times.
h) the are approximately 10 good people in the FAA and he found them singlehandedly
I) the price will be “comparable” to 100LL
j) the STC will consist of a sticker
k) h at least five more times
l) it is orange/yellow color and mixed with 100LL the combo is orange/yellow.

I’d rather hear Mike Busch.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Opposition to mandating ADS-B didn't work out too well.
Click to expand...

The alphabet groups didn't push back hard at all on that one. I remember AOPA's articles on it and the lack of push back was surprising. I guess it was far enough in the future (circa 1995 or 2000) that nobody had though completely through the ramifications.
 
At around >$5.75 you start seeing a pretty steep dropoff in recreational participation (this is circa 2011-2013 seasons); resale prices and inventory reflect that dynamic as well. Twin ownership drops off a cliff sooner. So they better be careful with the pricing increase, they might just create the mother of all Pyrrhic victories.
 
Sounds like it will be time to run mogas, is someone going to dip my tanks to see what I have in there? I doubt it.
 
EdFred said:
If it's just a sticker, I'll print one, slap it on the tank cover and call it good. I won't be paying for an STC for something that's not permanently attached to the plane. I doubt the FAA is going to be hanging out by fuel pumps and asking for your logbook.
Click to expand...
They will be too busy looking for the guys who put auto parts on their planes or fly around without medicals, flight reviews or non IR pilots flying around in IMC.
 
LesGawlik said:
I am happy to see people make money off of brilliance and perseverance. But I draw the line when I'm compelled to purchase an item or stop doing what I have done for years, with no true benefit. That's either theft or extortion, and not "good on them."
Click to expand...

Well, of course, not really either on GAMI’s part. The FAA and EPA on the other hand…
 
Half Fast said:
And nothing prevents some other company from creating their own product and seeking incorporation into the STC.
Click to expand...

And once a competitor knows this can be done, it becomes much easier to figure out a formulation that works around a patent.

Competition is good for the consumer.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Flying is a privilege
Click to expand...

Honestly I do not understand why people say this as a distinction from a right.

Why should one not be able to travel freely through the air so long as one is not endangering others by doing so? It is not like the danger to others from flying small aircraft is so vastly much greater than say driving a car on the street. Both activities endanger others to some small degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top