IvanP

The pucks are the cheapest part here.The middle gear doors alone are $1,800 each side for this mod. I just had to replace one on my plane recently. PLus new disks, calipers, master cylinders, etc.

I hope that the shop will own up to the fact that the damage ocurred while the aircraft was in their custody and the repair will be on ther dime.

I do not think this happened in flight. Would be hard not to notice when you exited the aircraft. It seems more liklet that a tool or clothing got caught under the skin that may have been somewhat previouly comromised and the tear is the result.

Also add substantial wait time for OH on TIO540 engine.

I think that the lack of transparency was significant factor in the decision as well as the interpretation of the term "commercially available". I am not surprised that the judge did not go deep into the safety issues at this time. He did not need to.

I think this would be sweet in any long body Mooney. It would also solve the impending demise of 100LL problem we are currently facing. If the price of mod would be similar to overhaul of a big bore piston engine, I think many owners would go for it. Unfortunately, the certification challenges would likely make such mod prohibitively expensive for most Mooney owners. If the price for experimental is around 100k, we could probably expect double that or more for certified aircraft.

The AOPA video about Baron test seems quite in line with GAMI's conclusion that any issues with the fuel are to be blamed on the age and/or maintenance history of the aircraft without any further inquiry into material incompatibility issues. Dave glossed over the issue by making a quick remark that teh bladders were old and were replaced. Of course, it is easy to do when they are spedning other people's money on fixing the plane. Most pilots will be spening their own money fixing damage caused by G100UL. I woud be curious to see how the new bladders will hold up with G100UL use, but it is my understanding that the experiment was terminated at this point so we may never learn.

Quote from AOPA's recent article on Jan 23rd. "Our experience with General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s G100UL has been widely reported and was quite positive overall." No mention of the leaks on the Baron that AOPA used to demonstrate the safety of G100UL. In my view, this is as close as one gets to a one-sided endorsement that conceals a known safety issue.

Right behind GAMI pushing for fast adoption of their witches brew

The damage to the Cirrus could be the most persuasive argument against "safe" G100UL. Having more planes affected in similar way, i.e., rendered unairworthy, could be probative enought to halt distribution on the basis of lack of safety.

I think that the cause of action would have to be based on lack of safety of G100UL and damage caused by it, rather than arguing in favor of 100LL. Leaded fuel is going away whether we like it or not, but the question is what will it be replaced with. Arguing in favor of lead is a non-starter, but arguing for safety of flight may get some traction. In my opinion, this product is not ready for fleetwide deployment under govt mandate. If a product is unsafe to use, argument could be made to enjoin distribution, or at least defer the mandate until thorough testing is conducted.

I think we all know the genaral leaning of CA judges. Litigation against G100UL needs to be filed in federal court outside of CA to avoid the inherent bias of CA judiciary.

As Mr. Luvara pointed out, GAMI and Mr. Braley dropped all pretenses of civility and transparency and switched to liigation as a strategy to mandate the use of G100UL. The attempts to shift blame for damage to aircraft to "poor design and maintenance" of the affected aircraft is particularly concerning. Perhaps it is time for pilots to do the same and deploy litigation to stop this insanity. The evidence of damage caused by G100UL seems to be coming in and soon there may be enough to suport class action products liability suit seeking both monetary and injunctive relief. As someone noted earlierr, AOPA is probably going to be useless in such endeavor as they seem to collectively subscribe to the enviro madness of getting 100LL banned at any cost and willing to sacrifice flight safety for political reasons. Finding evidence that GAMI had knowledge of the design defect (material incompatibilities) yet decided to push the fuel into general distribution would be particualry damaging to GAMI.

Lasar used to have the cap assembly listed for cool $965. https://lasar.com/switches/switch-cap-assy-cwsap-disconnect-trim-088-01091-0004 I restored a cracked onel last year. Lasar currently indicates sold out, but if you reach out to the parts dept, Heather may be able to point you in the right direction. I hope you will be able to find it for a better price. It is a really flimsy piece of plastic that I cannot see would justify 1 AMU price tag.

It would be a rare occurrence for government bureaucrats to admit that they screwed up.

I do not think that we have 10 yeasr of 100LL avgas left. More like 3 years, if that. I love my Bravo, but the prospect of not having good fuel available is pretty scary.

I am curious about what fuel does he put in his Cardinal since he appears to be a great supporter of G100UL.

Yet somehow these "full-time professional pilots" somehow manage to do some incredibly dumb things, e.g., - recent runway incursion at Midway by FlexJet - recent flip-landing in Toronto, etc.

How many new fuels were STC's and "approved" for safe use during Mr. Braly's 29 years of FAA certification experience? The best argunent here is potentially adverse impact on safety of flight. I have to agree that the OEM's recommendations against this fuel may not carry water, but is someoce can demonstrate adverse effect on safety, it is toast. All what is needed is one plane that crashes as a result of damage to teh fuel system that could be sufficiently linked to use of G100UL. If enough planes are affected to the point of becoming unairworthy, the next thing would be a class action lawsuit to put GAMI out of existence. I do not wish anything bad to Gearge or his company, but I slo do not want his fuel in my plane.

Sadly, you are probably right. They repeatedly voiced support for G100UL. In thier opinion, it seem sto be the next best thing since sliced bread. Curious if any "donations" to AOPA were made by GAMI recently

Maybe AOPA could file amicus brief with teh court and raise the safety issues ralted to damage to aircraft and the fact that airframe manufacturers advise against usng G100UL in aircraft they manufature.

Did he have anything to say about Cirrus and the "inadequate" design and construction of its wings? It would seem that the "inadequate" label would be better suited for G100UL than to the fleet of aircraft that did not experience any issues with the currently used fuel.

Well, when someone who stands to make profit from 100LL ban states that he does not support the ban I would probably not take this statement at face value.

No, the aviation department of HD will not have this connector. It woudl have to be rigged at home.

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity" (Albert Einstein). Nanny-tech may be great as a concept, but it can also create complacency and overreliance on such. Technology alone is probably not the answer to prevention of human errors. Training and situational awareness are irreplaceable in aviation.