Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Daleandee, Jul 16, 2022.
No. But you already know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A more opinionated article from Paul as well.
Interesting comments too ...
(Stolen from somewhere... some may suspect where...)
So did anyone attend the meeting today? Can you share what transpired?
I'm guessing that about covers it ...
Well, that’s more than I expected.....
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.
In the Federal lobbying space $50,000,000 annual is pocket lint.
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).
They don’t get in trouble for not making a decision.
Post # 12 above.
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.
Well, here’s a preview of coming attractions:
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?
Hasn't donated enough to the appropriate PACs?
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.
George has been invited to give testimony before the committee.
Oh, that oughta be good. Hope there's video.
I believe it is to be livestreamed here:
I assume there's some capital costs involved.
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.
No, but I think Congress is, and can thereby be pressured into pressuring the FAA, with funding threats if necessary.
He needs to find the funding for a good politician (or ottoman) as it's has advantages:
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
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.
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.
Except for all the planes that cannot run 94 octane fuel. Everyone can burn 100UL.
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.
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).
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.
“The slightly higher density of G100UL (~6.3 lbs/gal) vs. 100LL (~6.0 lbs/gal) is offset by slightly higher volumetric energy density. “
So, 15 pounds difference, for 50 gallons. As you mentioned, Gary, not a factor really in W&B.
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.