FAA: No Discernible Progress On Approving G100UL Avgas

Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Daleandee, Jul 16, 2022.

  1. Tarheelpilot

    Tarheelpilot Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,675
    Location:
    North Carolina once again.

    Display name:
    Tarheelpilot
    No. But you already know.
     
    SCCutler likes this.
  2. PaulMillner

    PaulMillner Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    754
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA

    Display name:
    Paul Millner
    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
     
    Palmpilot and Jim K like this.
  3. Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

    Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    14,455
    Location:
    DXO124009

    Display name:
    Light and Sporty Guy
    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.
     
    clear_prop likes this.
  4. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast

    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.
     
  5. MountainDude

    MountainDude Pre-takeoff checklist PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    478

    Display name:
    MountainDude
    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.
     
    X3 Skier, mcdewey and lblandina like this.
  6. Joepilotmsp

    Joepilotmsp Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2022
    Messages:
    17
    Location:
    Maine

    Display name:
    Joepilotmsp
    Well said!
     
  7. Joe_B1

    Joe_B1 Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2020
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Near KCON

    Display name:
    Joe_B
    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.
     
  8. TomF

    TomF Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    May 10, 2022
    Messages:
    47

    Display name:
    TomF
  9. Daleandee

    Daleandee En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2020
    Messages:
    3,542

    Display name:
    Dale Andee
    mcdewey likes this.
  10. Bob Noel

    Bob Noel Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    19,221

    Display name:
    Bob Noel
    follow

    the

    money


    (Stolen from somewhere... some may suspect where...)
     
  11. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast
    So did anyone attend the meeting today? Can you share what transpired?
     
  12. Checkout_my_Six

    Checkout_my_Six Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    11,555
    Location:
    Maryland

    Display name:
    Check_my_Six
  13. Daleandee

    Daleandee En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2020
    Messages:
    3,542

    Display name:
    Dale Andee
    I'm guessing that about covers it ...
     
  14. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast
    Well, that’s more than I expected.....
     
    Daleandee and DaleB like this.
  15. Checkout_my_Six

    Checkout_my_Six Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    11,555
    Location:
    Maryland

    Display name:
    Check_my_Six
  16. Daleandee

    Daleandee En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2020
    Messages:
    3,542

    Display name:
    Dale Andee
    Horrible audio ... but it makes no difference because there's isn't going to be a difference for at least 8 years ... if I understood any of that correctly.
     
  17. jsstevens

    jsstevens Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    6,312

    Display name:
    jsstevens
    In the Federal lobbying space $50,000,000 annual is pocket lint.
     
    TCABM likes this.
  18. Jeff Oslick

    Jeff Oslick En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,592
    Location:
    Fullerton, CA

    Display name:
    Jeff Oslick
    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).
     
    TomF and mcdewey like this.
  19. mcdewey

    mcdewey Pre-takeoff checklist PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    451
    Location:
    Annapolis

    Display name:
    Mike
    They don’t get in trouble for not making a decision.
     
  20. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast
    :yes:

    Post # 12 above. ;)
     
  21. bflynn

    bflynn Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    8,550
    Location:
    KTTA

    Display name:
    Brian Flynn
    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.
     
    mcdewey likes this.
  22. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast
    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?
     
    clear_prop and Daleandee like this.
  23. Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

    Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    14,455
    Location:
    DXO124009

    Display name:
    Light and Sporty Guy
    Hasn't donated enough to the appropriate PACs?
     
    TCABM, DaleB and Half Fast like this.
  24. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast
    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.
     
  25. SCCutler

    SCCutler Administrator Management Council Member PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    17,184
    Location:
    Dallas

    Display name:
    Spike Cutler
    George has been invited to give testimony before the committee.
     
    Palmpilot, Daleandee and Half Fast like this.
  26. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast

    Oh, that oughta be good. Hope there's video.
     
    Daleandee likes this.
  27. JOhnH

    JOhnH Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,371
    Location:
    Florida

    Display name:
    Right Seater
    I believe it is to be livestreamed here:
     
  28. Lindberg

    Lindberg Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    5,112
    Location:
    North Texas

    Display name:
    Lindberg
    I assume there's some capital costs involved.
     
  29. schmookeeg

    schmookeeg En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,336
    Location:
    Alameda, CA

    Display name:
    Mike Brannigan
    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.
     
  30. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast

    No, but I think Congress is, and can thereby be pressured into pressuring the FAA, with funding threats if necessary.
     
  31. Daleandee

    Daleandee En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2020
    Messages:
    3,542

    Display name:
    Dale Andee
    He needs to find the funding for a good politician (or ottoman) as it's has advantages:

     
    schmookeeg and Half Fast like this.
  32. bflynn

    bflynn Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    8,550
    Location:
    KTTA

    Display name:
    Brian Flynn
    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
     
  33. Half Fast

    Half Fast Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 7, 2016
    Messages:
    8,986
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Display name:
    Half Fast

    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.
     
  34. Jeff Oslick

    Jeff Oslick En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,592
    Location:
    Fullerton, CA

    Display name:
    Jeff Oslick
    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.
     
    Palmpilot and Half Fast like this.
  35. Pinecone

    Pinecone Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 24, 2022
    Messages:
    402

    Display name:
    Pinecone
    Except for all the planes that cannot run 94 octane fuel. Everyone can burn 100UL.
     
  36. ateamer

    ateamer Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Port St. Lucie, FL

    Display name:
    ateamer
    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.
     
  37. Jeff Oslick

    Jeff Oslick En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,592
    Location:
    Fullerton, CA

    Display name:
    Jeff Oslick
    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).
     
  38. GaryM

    GaryM Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,627
    Location:
    New Jersey (KMMU)

    Display name:
    Gary M
    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.
     
  39. NoHeat

    NoHeat En-Route

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,672
    Location:
    Iowa City, IA

    Display name:
    17
    “The slightly higher density of G100UL (~6.3 lbs/gal) vs. 100LL (~6.0 lbs/gal) is offset by slightly higher volumetric energy density. “

    https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative-Fuels/Unleaded-Avgas

    So, 15 pounds difference, for 50 gallons. As you mentioned, Gary, not a factor really in W&B.
     
  40. Jeff Oslick

    Jeff Oslick En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,592
    Location:
    Fullerton, CA

    Display name:
    Jeff Oslick
    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.