GAMI Responds to Cirrus G100UL Service Advisory

MountainDude

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,018
Display Name

Display name:
MountainDude
Cirrus seems to have issued an advisory based on n=1, and even for that n=1 they have no evidence that the fuel caused the problem.

 
It’s always easier to point fingers then to study the issue before making comments.
 
It’s always easier to point fingers then to study the issue before making comments.
Better to point fingers than accept anything that is contrary to one's personal viewpoint.

G100UL does not taste as good as 100LL.

You can have my lead when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers.

When lead is outlawed, only outlaws will have lead.
 
When you read the Cirrus statement, it looks like it was written by a lawyer. And it looks like Cirrus is setting up a defense position against future lawsuits.

Tim
 
Cirrus seems to have issued an advisory based on n=1, and even for that n=1 they have no evidence that the fuel caused the problem.

The problem is you can't apply (normal) statistical analysis to an infrequently occuring event. I went through this with the FAA ADO guys (and they even ultimately agreed with me).
 
It appears from the MSDS that G100UL contains slightly higher aromatic content (primarily xylene) than unleaded automotive fuel, which on average contains a little more aromatics than 100LL. Automotive gasoline has been used in many applicable aircraft via STC for years, including my own (prior to getting high compression STC pistons). I have not experienced any unusual fuel system deterioration when using autogas. But when autogas STCs became popular, there was a great hue and cry about how it was going to rot out the fuel systems of our planes. It didn't happen.
 
The problem is you can't apply (normal) statistical analysis to an infrequently occuring event. I went through this with the FAA ADO guys (and they even ultimately agreed with me).
Oh come on, there's not even any noise in the data! It's a sample size of n=1 lol
 
Oh come on, there's not even any noise in the data! It's a sample size of n=1 lol
Like I said. We had a corrupt holder of type certificates argue ADs on n=1 before (and n=3 over decades). It allows AD compliance to be a cash cow for them. If they had to pay for the recall like automobile manufacturers, you'd see a lot less willingness to misapply statistics.
 
Sometimes, an n of 1 is all that’s needed to justify further study. [Cue the GAMI fanbois: “Nothing has ever been so thoroughly and brilliantly studied before!”]

For one thing, 1 out of how many? Denominators matter. Maybe it’s one out of three, in which case you could say the sample size is too small. That is, more study is needed.

For another, if the 1 is sufficiently serious, it’s worth investigating further. For instance, what if someone filled an airplane with G100UL and the next morning, 8-inch holes were found in both wings, with puddles of molten fiberglass on the ground below? Seems that would justify some caution.

So much of this boils down to George. Raise your hand if you think he’s easy to work with. An image consultant or PR firm, hired five years ago, would’ve paid for itself many times over by now. But his insistence that he alone — the “plucky little company in Ada,” as the av press calls it — has solved the “problem” of lead in AVGAS, his sarcastic social media presence, and his trash talk of the FAA would seem to alienate those people whose agencies he needs to impress. And his recent announcement that “G100UL is ‘commercially available,’” a naked effort to force California to ban 100LL, is a stretch, as far as the consumer is concerned.
 
FAA washes its hands of the controversy:
 
After Cirrus, now Lycoming:

Tim
 
Pretty sure if an engine manufacturer wanted out of a warranty claim they could figure out something to blame that was owner created.
 
Last edited:
After Cirrus, now Lycoming:

Tim

I sorta wonder just how many Lycomings are under a Lycoming warranty anyway. Unless you've recently bought a new engine (or airplane), or had your overhaul done by Lycoming, this doesn't matter too much. Lycoming's warranty is only 12 months for an OH, 24 months for new.

I suspect most of us are flying old engines, and had field overhauls or OHs performed by an independent shop.
 
Pretty sure if an engine manufacturer wanted out of a warranty claim they could figure out something pin it on

Probably, but if they make a habit of it word spreads fast around the aviation community. Plus, it may be cheaper for them to honor the warranty than to enter litigation.
 
Probably, but if they make a habit of it word spreads fast around the aviation community. Plus, it may be cheaper for them to honor the warranty than to enter litigation.
Over the years Lycoming has always done good on their warranty with me. Just like you point out the average private owner will only fly a couple hundred hours by time the warranty expires. On-the-other-hand, the commercial aircraft will fly 1500 hours in two years and Lycoming treats them good. Most likely once an engine crosses the 500 hours mark with little to no oil leaks it's good for another 2000 hours. Just do it in less than 20 years.
 
GAMI, Cirrus, Lycoming need to all vigorously defend their sources of current/future income and deflect any potential future expenses. No surprises here. Gotta protect.
 
I sorta wonder just how many Lycomings are under a Lycoming warranty anyway. Unless you've recently bought a new engine (or airplane), or had your overhaul done by Lycoming, this doesn't matter too much. Lycoming's warranty is only 12 months for an OH, 24 months for new.

I suspect most of us are flying old engines, and had field overhauls or OHs performed by an independent shop.
Don't start with those kinds of numbers unless you're willing to say there's no need for a 100LL replacement, since 80% of the fleet was designed for 80 octane fuel. We all stand and fall together.
 
This is going to be a long term feud until the FAA steps in with word on if the fuel will stay STC or become a ASTM product. I know from personal experience on this between all three party’s involved in the Cirrus SL.
 
This is going to be a long term feud until the FAA steps in with word on if the fuel will stay STC or become a ASTM product. I know from personal experience on this between all three party’s involved in the Cirrus SL.
FAA has no say or anything to do with it becoming an ASTM recognized standard.

And being as meeting an ASTM standard does not mean it could not cause issues. The standard just says the product meets the requirements of the standard. The standard could miss things.

And ASTM does not test things. They publish a standard, like a recipe. Each company self certifies that they meet that standard.
 
And being as meeting an ASTM standard does not mean it could not cause issues. The standard just says the product meets the requirements of the standard. The standard could miss things.
:yeahthat:

I don't know why anyone would think that an ASTM standard would somehow make a fuel safer. ASTM simply writes a spec that describes the fuel; they don't develop the fuel, nor do they certify that it's acceptable in any particular aircraft. Cirrus and Lycoming can still refuse to honor warranties whether there's an ASTM spec or not.
 
Back
Top