The Future of General Aviation with George Braly

jkgoblue

jkgoblue

Pre-takeoff checklist
PoA Supporter
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
346
Location
Sands Point, NY
Display Name
John K.
Home Airfield
Islip, NY
I think this is worth your time to listen to this. I really can't believe where we are headed here...

 
I've met George and watched him speak in public. To me he just whines. He wants no competition and gets angry anytime anyone criticizes his product. There has been a lot of issues with G1000UL including swelling in nitrile and Buna-N rubber seals. It has also been linked to leaking fuel bladders and degradation of older sealants. George wants everyone to believe this is a conspiracy with his company.
 
This reminds me of the ongoing battle at my CS department meetings....first programming language Python or Java and neither side is giving an inch. I keep suggesting FORTRAN. Oddly enough, Univ of Colorado Denver across the parking lot (3 schools on the same downtown campus) teaches C/C++ as the first language.
 
Does he whine? Yeah. Is his fuel the holy grail? No.

But the FAA system is very broken. Dynon has much more quietly alluded to this when they're trying to get autopilots certified.
 
IMO, the single most important reason GA is declining is that many pilots defend the entities that are allowing the GA decline by a 1000 cuts (the FAA bureaucracy, AOPA's ineffectiveness, and maybe others).
If all pilots had a unified voice against all unnecessary rules and barriers, we would be in a different situation. That is the way that successful associations behave.
 
Lowflynjack said:
George wants everyone to believe this is a conspiracy with his company.
Click to expand...
That's what I've heard as well. And its was a big reason why he went on his own with an STC. And if it was really that good, I would think Lycoming and TCM would have been a big supporter of it.

Racerx said:
But the FAA system is very broken.
Click to expand...
Not really. There's more politics involved than most realize which is outside the purview of the FAA. For example, Hjelmco Oil out of Sweden has been developing unleaded AVGAS since the early 80s and is on the Lycoming and TCM approved list for its use. But you can't buy it in the US. And as I recall, they even teamed with BP to make a case under the PAFI to bring their AVGAS to the US but were not accepted. So, while it might appear the FAA system is broken, its actually broke at a higher level that they have no control over. Plus the FAA is longer in the business of developing product standards. Hence all the drama.
 
MountainDude said:
IMO, the single most important reason GA is declining is that many pilots defend the entities that are allowing the GA decline by a 1000 cuts (the FAA bureaucracy, AOPA's ineffectiveness, and maybe others).
If all pilots had a unified voice against all unnecessary rules and barriers, we would be in a different situation. That is the way that successful associations behave.
Click to expand...

all together now class or we'll keep repeating: Pilot class solidarity is a myth.
 
murphey said:
This reminds me of the ongoing battle at my CS department meetings....first programming language Python or Java and neither side is giving an inch. I keep suggesting FORTRAN. Oddly enough, Univ of Colorado Denver across the parking lot (3 schools on the same downtown campus) teaches C/C++ as the first language.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but I kinda think C is a great choice for a first programming language. It's fun, and if somebody wants to something weird the instructor will know it right away. And it's fun.

First language to me should let people have some freedom and explore. It doesn't have to be the one you're going to use for hire...in fact I kinda think it's best if it isn't. All to be taken with a grain of salt, because I haven't written anything for a living in a long time.
 
Bell206 said:
That's what I've heard as well. And its was a big reason why he went on his own with an STC. And if it was really that good, I would think Lycoming and TCM would have been a big supporter of it.


Not really. There's more politics involved than most realize which is outside the purview of the FAA. For example, Hjelmco Oil out of Sweden has been developing unleaded AVGAS since the early 80s and is on the Lycoming and TCM approved list for its use. But you can't buy it in the US. And as I recall, they even teamed with BP to make a case under the PAFI to bring their AVGAS to the US but were not accepted. So, while it might appear the FAA system is broken, its actually broke at a higher level that they have no control over. Plus the FAA is longer in the business of developing product standards. Hence all the drama.
Click to expand...
Interesting about Hjelmco. How is the lack of approval or acceptance of their fuel into PAFI above the FAA and not indicative of the system being broken?
 
Racerx said:
Interesting about Hjelmco. How is the lack of approval or acceptance of their fuel into PAFI above the FAA and not indicative of the system being broken?
Click to expand...
One, Hjelmco submitted several fuel formulations to PAFI in their joint venture with BP. Their 100LL replacement fell short mainly due to consumption issues. However, all their submissions were declined even though they were already ASTM compliant, approved by all OEMs, and had been in use for decades overseas. Unfortunately, its takes more than one federal agency approval to allow a foreign producer to sell products in the US. As I stated theres more politics involved in this than just being a singular "broken" system.

Two, as mentioned the FAA does not develop fuel or oil standards/specifications. A fuel either meets those 3rd party standards or it doesnt. And if you look at the history of this topic, congress mandated the FAAs involvement in 1994 but didnt fund it initially until 2014 and additionally in 2022 I believe. So while the FAA is not perfect by any means theres usually internal influences involved that are not seen from the outside.
 
Last edited:
Can someone TL/DL summarize 70 minutes, and what is the big reveal we are all supposed to be scared of?
 
Barrett50 said:
Can someone TL/DL summarize 70 minutes, and what is the big reveal we are all supposed to be scared of?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't watch a 70 minute video, either, agree with you. So I'm just going to assume it's a long version of a common sense thing, and he's hoping that they'll be an unleaded fuel blend soon that's just published as an international standard.

Maybe somebody will just plug all the analysis of all the blends into AI, and then it'll come up with an open source blend. Not actually kidding on that one.

I just timed the above at about 15 seconds to read..and it's a little long. JFK's Berlin speech was under 10 minutes. Why somebody would think that they had anything to say that is worth 70 minutes of a stranger's time is an arrogance level that I can't understand.
 
Well, sometimes there's a lot of info to get out there. But I tend to agree that 60 min of podcast from various 'experts' in the field is rough. My college lectures ran 45-55 min and 10 min break. I could and did listen to Feynman for more than an hour, but he is a great lecturer.
 
Pro tip... Run it at 1.5. MB's cadence is like molasses.

There's a lot of interesting bits speckled in with the typical Braly whine. One thing he mentioned was innospec has quietly only guaranteed production through 2028 to industry insiders. Is there truth there, or is that fear mongering to sell product.
 
murphey said:
I keep suggesting FORTRAN. Oddly enough, Univ of Colorado Denver across the parking lot (3 schools on the same downtown campus) teaches C/C++ as the first language.
Click to expand...
Fortran IV on punch cards was my first exposure to the GIGO principle in Navy "A" school. Then its was Basic (GWBasic) and then C+ At National University (Nasty-U). That was a lotta years ago. And, it never went any further than that. My command found out I was taking "computer" classes in night school and made me the go-to for all things digital. That kinda ruined it for me.

Hang 4 said:
Lots of people run Mike Bush videos at 2X speed or more. That man can take a long time to make a simple point.
Click to expand...

Damn! My secret's out. Mike Bush is not the only Youtuber that expound a point to death.
 
I don't listen to these kinds of podcasts for rapid and concise delivery of information. I listen to it as on-demand talk radio where people are occasionally going to ramble. In MB's case in particular, I just accept that he talks grandpa-style and occasionally has a bad habit of talking over people. It's still entertaining enough, and I frequently learn something. That said, I've found a general sweet spot for podcasts is setting Pocketcast to 1.2x with moderate silence removal. I do this mostly in an effort to listen to my podcasts faster than they're stacking up. Haha!
 
Hang 4 said:
Lots of people run Mike Bush videos at 2X speed or more. That man can take a long time to make a simple point.
Click to expand...
I tried a few of his EAA webinars. They're intolerable. It takes an hour to cover fewer than 10 slides, and then he takes questions that are predominately answering the same things he just blathered on about for the last hour.
 
If you want to be in the know watch the damn videos, listen to the podcasts, and read the threads at Beechtalk. Speed up the video and podcast player speed like others said.

There are also AI video summarizers, even built into Youtube

Note Detail

notegpt.io notegpt.io

Summary of Key Conclusions​

  • Aging aircraft require updated maintenance practices, including replacing old seals and gaskets with superior materials like FKM to prevent fuel leaks and fires.
  • The FAA’s current draft fuel transition plan is overly focused on modifying aircraft to fit lower octane fuels, which is impractical and threatens fleet readiness.
  • A true drop-in unleaded fuel like G100UL exists and should be prioritized to avoid costly and risky aircraft modifications.
  • FAA organizational changes have reduced efficiency in certification and parts approval, exacerbating delays that threaten the aging fleet.
  • Increased delegation to qualified DERs and streamlined FAA processes are criticalto maintaining fleet safety and availability.
  • Legal concerns around liability discourage OEM involvement in new fuel approvals; legislative clarification is needed.
  • Industry collaboration and education programs for mechanics on aging component replacement and fuel system maintenance are urgently needed.

Recommendations and Next Steps​

  • Submission of public comments opposing mandatory fleet modifications in favor of drop-in fuels during FAA’s comment period.
  • Development of targeted training modules for mechanics on aging aircraft fuel system component replacement and use of improved materials.
  • Advocacy for FAA policy reforms to restore delegation authority and reduce certification backlogs.
  • Engagement with industry groups like AOPA to raise awareness of legal and technical challenges in the fuel transition.
  • Exploration of legislative fixes to protect manufacturers from liability related to FAA-approved unleaded fuels.
 
See, that wasnt too hard. Good find on that note summary deal. Now I can make a opinion based comment. Says the FAA is working on mods to curent fleet to accept a lower octane. If I own a Piper turbo Arrow, or maybe any turbo engine my aiframe just lost half its value. There is a way to change an engine like this for lower octane, but no way to retain the current HP and torque curve.
 
Is chatbot summary point #2 true on the part of the FAA though? Is it really their stated position they want the transition to focus on [de facto] UL94 power rating compatibility? I don't really follow this stuff since I sold my engineless husk, but that doesn't strike me as the advertised position of the regulator when they started the whole Eagle thing again.

chatbot point #6 again sounds like the speakers opinion, and that's fine. Mine only differs in that I don't think it's liability, it's just bone stock rent-seeking because they don't have to do a damned thing until they arrive at a regulatory cliff. Lyconti will keep collecting checks for those overpriced legacy spec dinosaur production until the regulator shuts it all down. Piston 135/121 will be all but gone (replaced/retrofit/shuttered as the case may be) by then.

As to losing half your trade-a-plane summer-of-2022-hopium-asking-price-denominated "value" because a power downrate turns the TCDS of your (n) seat airplane into a gutless (n)-2 / solo seater? Tough cookies. You have no pricing power as recreational small fry, the only thing you can control is the entry/exit point. The regulator certainly doesn't give af about recreational property value preservation. I mean it's supposed to be a hobby right? Losing money that would cripple a median household wasn't a bug, it was the feature, right?
1773000348489.png
:biggrin:
 
What frosts my buns is the whole political driven process behind getting rid of 100LL or any leaded fuel. It's the Reid Hillview airport haterade writ large. Unlike an NPRM for an AD that shows clear danger to the flying public, this leaded fuel angst is all driven by an unvetted presumption that 100LL is causing ACTUAL damage to humans at a quantifiable level. I don't question the damage a level of lead in the blood can do. It's been known since the days of 'mad(mentally challenged) as a hatter' as a result of hat makers forming using lead Mercury and getting poisoned. Also, children showing worse development in the areas of lead in the water, or lead in the paint used on homes. Those facts are well supported, documented, and addressed.

However, as in the Reid Hillview case, there is zero direct or even indirect evidence that the airport emissions have decisively or even empirically lead to lower test scores, or other medical deficiencies. The 'study' that was paid for by the county is now locked up behind the county doors. A followup test was performed and the lead levels were similar to the same in surrounding counties without any relationship to the RH airport environment. But - the county was successful in getting 100LL banned even without a specific finding of fact.

An NPRM for aircraft AD due to safety must by law take into account the cost of implementation on the fleet. So, the FAA does this, and in theory they are supposed to care that the cost to the fleet is related to the safety improvement accomplished. Knowing what I know about the fiasco surrounding the Navion fuel selector valve AD, this cost concern has never made the FAA change its process on demand that an AD be performed.

We are supposed to get rid of 100LL because - it damages humans, and causes shorter life span, and worse development in kids. Well, ok, where is the data? linking specifically 100LL, to the exclusion of other factors? I think, if the FAA wants to get into the game of removing a HUGE supply chain that is required for a significant slice of the GA fleet, then I don't feel bad demanding some meat around the "it will kill you!" political posturing.

I would start with a careful study of GA line workers who handle the supply chain of 100LL every day. This wouldn't be a difficult thing to do, and I'm at a loss wondering why isn't this already being studied? 100LL fuel producers, storage workers, suppliers, delivery, line staff all working with and around 100LL should be taking blood tests every 180 days to develop trends, and compare to others in similar industry without 100LL. We can go in with a bias assumption that those who handle the fuel all the time will show elevated levels of lead, and then it can be attributed to the 100LL, and after we have that data the bias can be confirmed or rejected. But no - that's not what the FAA/govt wants to do. They want to ban first and ask questions - well, never. Yeah - that's good science, not.
 
Last edited:
Actually, hatmakers were being poisoned by mercury vapors. However, your points remain valid.
 
robin ardoin said:
Actually, hatmakers were being poisoned by mercury vapors. However, your points remain valid.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Also the case of the 'Radium girls' which killed young women who painted the dials of instruments and watches.
 
I listened to these podcasts in my car on Spotify at 1.4 speed. I tend to watch YouTube at 2x speed, and I tend to skip the first minute or so and tap the +15> fwd button frequently.

On one of the aircraft I fly has an older low compression C90. I am not opposed to unleaded but the C90 heads load up from the 100LL. I will not run ethanol in it period.

The more I follow these discussions, the more likely I am to buy auto pump gas and add distilled water, causing the ethanol to bond with the water and separate from the fuel. Add roughly 2% water (e.g., 12 oz per 5 gallons) to a container of gas, shake well, and let it settle; the water-ethanol mixture will sink to the bottom
 
rockyfatcat said:
The more I follow these discussions, the more likely I am to buy auto pump gas and add distilled water, causing the ethanol to bond with the water and separate from the fuel. Add roughly 2% water (e.g., 12 oz per 5 gallons) to a container of gas, shake well, and let it settle; the water-ethanol mixture will sink to the bottom
Click to expand...
Just gotta make sure that the resultant ethanol-free fuel still has sufficient octane. I know the older Continentals required 73 octane minimum but the C-90 and O-200 are higher compression so they may need 87 min?
 
Back to the original post....
I watched the video, at normal speed without AI interpretation. I don't see any whining by George Braley. He's a bit frustrated, but justifiably so. Most of the criticism he receives comes from people who have done the square root of nothing to provide an unleaded fuel. Do something, or sit back and watch.
I'd love to see 100LL be available for the indefinite future, but that's not going to happen.
My best guess it that the next 4 years will result in a fuel supply interruption for the most octane-sensitive users.
I may be wrong, but ask your non-flying neighbors how worried they are about the avgas supply.
Do a search of the avgas usage per year vs. the automobile consumption. We think we are a big deal, but we're not.
 
Dana said:
Just gotta make sure that the resultant ethanol-free fuel still has sufficient octane. I know the older Continentals required 73 octane minimum but the C-90 and O-200 are higher compression so they may need 87 min?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the latest revision of the TCDS for the C-90 variants and the O-200 dated 9/2022 require a 91 octane unleaded fuel:

Fuel (min. grade aviation gasoline)
80/87, ASTM D7547 - - - - - - (UL91), ASTM D7547 (UL94)

So I don't know what Conti is doing here, but if it has NO LEAD, it has to be 91 octane (R+M)/2 I suppose. Thankfully all my planes are rated by STC for mogas without Eth. It's gotten easier to find no Eth gas but this has become a real CF all due to zero engineering requirement to 'get rid' of leaded fuel. No one has shown one iota of actual physical harm from 100LL being burned by planes. And, there is also no science behind the supposed risks by fuel blenders, handlers, suppliers either. This is the kind of goofball mandate that chaps my azz.
 
I took a look at the TCDS for those engines and I think 80 octane is still fine, with the exception of the O-200D. Apparently they bumped the compression ratio from 7:1 up to 8.5:1.
The ASTM specification for avgas lists only the maximum allowable lead content. There is no minimum.
80 octane, when it was in widespread use, may have been unleaded! No way to know for sure, but we didn't have plug fouling problems in my dad's C-140 when we were using 80/87. 100LL caused problems, so we started using unleaded 87 mogas.
 
Whelp, use what ya like. All I did was find the newest TCDS and it says without lead, needs to be 91. With lead can be 87.
 
It's gonna be wild when they have to start recertifying affected TCs incapable of making certified power on 94UL or the 100 half-baked replacement. oof. I've seen some airplanes with derating tables, but most of these lawnmower TCDS are basically married to the power rating they were flight tested for.

I shudder to think what kind of TLAR'd decreases in gross weight and adjustment to takeoff and climb tables that mess would engender. In fairness, the marketing pamphlet that passes for tech docs on these things, especially prior to part 23, wasn't much to hang your hat on to begin with. I'll never forget the TSIO-360 power tables as published by Piper for the fixed-gate turbo arrow. And I thought religious texts were the stretch on the "article of faith" business lol....
 
Barrett50 said:
Whelp, use what ya like. All I did was find the newest TCDS and it says without lead, needs to be 91. With lead can be 87.
Click to expand...
While I’m sure that is what it says, that makes no sense. The only function of lead is to increase octane. Also be careful which octane measurement is used, there’s more than one.

Here’s an excerpt of an article from Shell on the difference. It’s a British article so to confuse things further, Europe uses RON the US, MON.

The article:
However, to confuse things further, there are four principal ways to measure Octane rating, RON, MON, Lean Mixture and Rich Mixture ratings.

Road fuels tend to be measured on a RON scale, for which unleaded fuels tend to be 95 - 98 RON but are only 85 - 87 MON. Avgas is measured on Lean Mixture (similar to MON) but also has a Rich Mixture Octane rating.

The Lean Mixture rating is 100 octane (15 octane higher than the comparable 85 MON for unleaded Mogas) but Avgas also has a Rich Mixture rating of 130 which allows higher supercharger boost pressures to be used without detonation occurring. This is particularly a problem when using high power settings at low altitude, for example during take off.

As you can see TEL in Avgas makes a significant difference to the octane rating and without it Octane ratings would be back down to 80 - 85 Lean Mixture - the level for road fuels - instead of 100 / 130. This is not a problem for most typical modern normally aspirated engines as their compression ratios are quite modest and detonation would not be a problem with 80 - 85 Lean Mixture Octane fuel.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago, I took a military class called the SAC Instrument Flight Course in order to be able to teach our annual instrument refresher.
The instructors frequently referred to the "70% Rule".
They showed us numerous errors on charted approach and departure procedures. Explanation? You only needed to score a 70 on the test to be a TERPS designer in the FAA.
I suspect performance charts will be just a reasonable approximation. That looks about right.
In the grand scheme of things, I don't have a problem with it. It would be impossible to take all the variables into account in the real world. I just want to have fuel with good availability and reasonable cost.
 
hindsight2020 said:
It's gonna be wild when they have to start recertifying affected TCs incapable of making certified power on 94UL or the 100 half-baked replacement. oof. I've seen some airplanes with derating tables, but most of these lawnmower TCDS are basically married to the power rating they were flight tested for.

I shudder to think what kind of TLAR'd decreases in gross weight and adjustment to takeoff and climb tables that mess would engender. In fairness, the marketing pamphlet that passes for tech docs on these things, especially prior to part 23, wasn't much to hang your hat on to begin with. I'll never forget the TSIO-360 power tables as published by Piper for the fixed-gate turbo arrow. And I thought religious texts were the stretch on the "article of faith" business lol....
Click to expand...
:) Lots of people seem to have faith in those charts, and seem to have aircraft that will meet those numbers. My limited experience, only flying about 8 different kinds of PA-28's, says that while the chart says a PA-28-140 will clear a 50' obstacle at 2500' with room to spare at a 3000' DA and max gross...but I'm pretty sure I can't do it. As they say, your mileage may vary, and perhaps my skills are way lower than the guy that wrote the manual in 1970.

But here on the east coast there is a simple solution. Just move to an airport with a longer runway, go on a diet, or only fly when it's cold. If I owned an Arrow or Dakota or whatever with the restriction, I'd probably much prefer that than to stop flying.
 
FWIW: The performance requirements listed in the TCDS or approved AFM/POH sections are certification based under specific conditions: standard day, level, paved runway, etc. At the time the aircraft is produced it must meet those performance numbers as stated in the OEM's certification procedures or it will not receive an AWC. Once the aircraft is released from the OEM, it falls to the owner/operator to operate the aircraft within those same performance figures corrected for flight conditions, aircraft wear and tear, and other contributing factors. This is no different than it falls to the owner to mechanically maintain the aircraft in a similar fashion since new.

However, anyone that thinks they will "recertify" these existing engines and aircraft to use one of the newer fuels does not understand how the system works. But keep in mind, both Lycoming and TCM, and to an extent the legacy airframe OEMs, have been integrally involved with the PAFI and EAGLE initiatives. And given there is a baked in extension to 2032 for AK, my SWAG is there will either be an OEM accepted ASTM level 100 octane fuel available requiring a simple paperwork exercise by the OEMs, or the 2030 date will be extended to 2032 at a minimum until there is one. And for those specific aircraft where a new ASTM or STC 100 fuel will not provide the required certification performance, they will be issued an AD/SFAR or similar document to restrict their operation, or they will be parked. For example, the same happened to a number of turbojet aircraft when they could no longer meet the Part 36 noise requirements even though most of those affected aircraft were certified well before Part 36 went into effect.
 
MountainDude said:
IMO, the single most important reason GA is declining is that many pilots defend the entities that are allowing the GA decline by a 1000 cuts (the FAA bureaucracy, AOPA's ineffectiveness, and maybe others).
If all pilots had a unified voice against all unnecessary rules and barriers, we would be in a different situation. That is the way that successful associations behave.
Click to expand...
I agree. we learned a lot how faa considers GA a hassle while working on our STC....the old adage, the faa wants to kill GA, is true. They don't want to fund it or have the money allocated to do it.

AOPA is worthless as they dont want to get on FAA's bad side or the legacy entrenched manufacturers that support it, so nothing meaningful or that cost faa $ gets done.

I don't have any experience with George but can understand if he may seem disgruntled with cert process. He's likely got a lot of money and time into it and going nowhere fast.
 
Albany Tom said:
But here on the east coast there is a simple solution. Just move to an airport with a longer runway, go on a diet, or only fly when it's cold. If I owned an Arrow or Dakota or whatever with the restriction, I'd probably much prefer that than to stop flying.
Click to expand...
I hear ya, but the entire resale value as perceived by those who resemble the remark, is underpinned by the rated power. For instance, as a former arrow 200 owner (and remember, even within that subgroup the 180 arrow is unaffected, the 200 is screwed), I'd prob would eat the power reduction until I could have sold the airplane at a loss, but no way I would crack the case to eat the modification costs just to turn it into an 180hp mill. Effectively it would have grounded me just the same. The economies just don't pencil out. It gets hella wor$$$e for the TSIO-550 critters, real fast.

Finally, the old tired argument of "well, 20% burn 80% so 100LL will be alright" about high-consumption revenue players floating 100LL sales, is just hopium and not gonna work imo. Piston Part 135/121 is not going to save 100LL. Those players may performatively opine about it on occassion, but are largely unconcerned. They'll keep whistling past the graveyard, cashing their rent-seek just like the engine OEMs, until they get forced to go turbine/diesel. And they'll do it the next day and yawn about it, and not a single day earlier.

Once again, hope's not a plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top