To be or not to be ... commercial availability of G100UL

Can’t find Ul 94 most of the time never mind G100 UL
 
frfly172 said:
Can’t find Ul 94 most of the time never mind G100 UL
Click to expand...
True that.

From the article:

"NATA is a member of the End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) group and its president Curt Castagna is the co-chairman of EAGLE."

Seems a bit of conflict:

EAGLE Projects Approval For PAFI Unleaded Fuel In 2025 - Bellanca Aircraft, Inc.

AVweb The End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) group expects the lone survivor of the Congressionally-mandated Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI) to be approved by late 2025 but it may […]
bellancaaircraft.com bellancaaircraft.com
 
Wanna know what I think? I think this whole thing would’ve been settled years ago if George weren’t such a pretentious, condescending, sarcastic tw-t.
 
Daleandee said:
“At present, G100UL is not commercially available for distribution and sale in the U.S. largely due to the fact it does not have an ASTM International product specification.”
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. One has nothing to do with the other. “Commercial availability” <> “ASTM spec.” This is nothing more than NATA behaving like a used car salesman.
 
Half Fast said:
Non sequitur. One has nothing to do with the other. “Commercial availability” <> “ASTM spec.” This is nothing more than NATA behaving like a used car salesman.
Click to expand...
I'm just wondering how long the "used car salesman" could be a hindrance ... if in fact they are at all.
 
Daleandee said:
I'm just wondering how long the "used car salesman" could be a hindrance ... if in fact they are at all.
Click to expand...

I’d be surprised if it were a hindrance at all. It puts EAGLE, an FAA program funded by taxpayers, in the position of opposing the very type of fuel it’s supposed to bring about. If NATA keeps making noises like this, the optics will be terrible for the FAA.
 
Half Fast said:
I’d be surprised if it were a hindrance at all. It puts EAGLE, an FAA program funded by taxpayers, in the position of opposing the very type of fuel it’s supposed to bring about. If NATA keeps making noises like this, the optics will be terrible for the FAA.
Click to expand...

Agreed ... yet it seems as if they have a point as to the liability that some may be assuming they would incur if they sell fuel without the revered "ASTM International product specification" especially if valid concerns are found with G100UL later on.

Best advice I've heard is to fly while you can still get gas ... ;)
 
more competitor chest beating.....nothing more than commercial politics. ;)
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
more competitor chest beating.....nothing more than commercial politics. ;)
Click to expand...
Clogging up the process and as Half Fast noted it makes the FAA look bad (as if they can't do that enough on their own) ...
 
Daleandee said:
yet it seems as if they have a point as to the liability that some may be assuming they would incur if they sell fuel without the revered "ASTM International product specification" especially if valid concerns are found with G100UL later on.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think that’s a stretch. The FAA has approved the fuel. We have many things on our planes that have STCs and no revered international specifications.
 
Half Fast said:
Maybe, but I think that’s a stretch. The FAA has approved the fuel. We have many things on our planes that have STCs and no revered international specifications.
Click to expand...
Fair point. Just wonder how much they will play this to try & make themselves relevant ...
 
Half Fast said:
How does the FAA effectively say G100UL is no good but we approved it for every piston engine in the fleet?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing they won't but as I understand it the FAA is not on the hook if something were to go wrong as NATA pointed out in their statement, “Because the FAA does not indemnify any entity in the supply chain for damages caused by fuel-related issues, fuel distributors and FBOs will similarly lack assurances that the unleaded fuel they are selling will not expose them to liability.”
 
Daleandee said:
I'm guessing they won't but as I understand it the FAA is not on the hook if something were to go wrong as NATA pointed out in their statement, “Because the FAA does not indemnify any entity in the supply chain for damages caused by fuel-related issues, fuel distributors and FBOs will similarly lack assurances that the unleaded fuel they are selling will not expose them to liability.”
Click to expand...

Does the FAA ever indemnify anyone? Is there indemnity with an ASTM spec? Or is the spec just an affirmative defense, like an STC?
 
Half Fast said:
Does the FAA ever indemnify anyone? Is there indemnity with an ASTM spec? Or is the spec just an affirmative defense, like an STC?
Click to expand...
No & no as far as I know but they may feel they have a better defense if everyone is in agreement with the new fuel.

I believe you are correct in that this is just noise but NATA obviously has a reason to toss this stumbling block in the road ...
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Wanna know what I think? I think this whole thing would’ve been settled years ago if George weren’t such a pretentious, condescending, sarcastic tw-t.
Click to expand...
I kinda like that though. I think he'd fit in fine on POA
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Who...George? Nah...He's the smartest guy in the room. ;)
Click to expand...
Interesting... I've watched several hours of video webinars with George Braly as the lead presenter... and always came away with the impression of him as an honest, well-informed, experienced-in-engines kind of guy. Clearly YMMV
Wayne
 
The longer this drags out, the more our airports are at risk! The lead issue seems to be picking up steam...
 
Half Fast said:
I’d be surprised if it were a hindrance at all. It puts EAGLE, an FAA program funded by taxpayers, in the position of opposing the very type of fuel it’s supposed to bring about. If NATA keeps making noises like this, the optics will be terrible for the FAA.
Click to expand...
"NATA is a member of the End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) group and its president Curt Castagna is the co-chairman of EAGLE."

NATA president is Co- chair of EAGLE.

That sounds like a hindrance.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Wanna know what I think? I think this whole thing would’ve been settled years ago if George weren’t such a pretentious, condescending, sarcastic tw-t.
Click to expand...
I'd like to buy a vowel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top