MikeOH

Thanks. Silly me, I thought that's what an appeal was for: to contest the outcome. Or, is that what happens after the 'final' ruling? What a mess!

WTH?? So yesterday's 'ruling' wasn't a ruling? Only in LA LA LAwyer land...what was the point? Another two weeks of 'sweating it out', I guess. I am glad to hear the judge is concerned with the 'process' for the STC in this case. Never seemed proper to me; who ever heard of a blanket STC for ALL models of anything (except helicopters)???

WOW! That seems a total hassle and, frankly, really lame

WHEW! Big sigh of (temporary) relief from this Kalifornia pilot. I found it fascinating that his justifications did NOT even touch upon damage or safety concerns despite the filed briefs covering those issues. I am concerned whether his reasoning on what 'commercially available' really means will hold up on appeal (basically the argument that the CEH attorneys brought). I.e. that they are correct that precedent (case law) does not allow for 'feasibility'. Time (hopefully, a lot of it) will tell. But the land developers are going to have to build elsewhere for a while longer

I'd have to double check the STC for my STEC-30 but I believe it is registration/serial-number specific to my M20F. So, yes, to be legal you'd have to pay for the re-certification, I'm afraid.

Given the wording in the logbook, wouldn’t that be sufficient ‘in writing’ evidence?

Yikes! I see what you mean. That was not a proper etch and fill by any means. Also, engraving is not the same thing as etch and fill which is the most expensive method.

I've been an AOPA member since 1978 and I am considering non-renewal, as well. I've always taken the view that my money is going to a PAC that supports MY best interests. NOT taking a stand is NOT going to cut it; they appear to be trying to 'walk a line'...NOT acceptable.

Always have an out; even on a CAVU day for a $200 burger; the airport may unexpectedly close. It's happened to me; guy geared up on the only runway just before we arrived. Extra time is one of the best 'outs' available; carry plenty of fuel

Has AOPA actually endorsed it???

Not to worry; Aaviationist is just the local curmudgeon. Don't pay him any attention

You may have more resolution with silk screening, but nothing is going to beat etch and fill on an anodized panel for longevity.

Glad to see that GAMA is taking a stand. Where the heck is AOPA?

Yeah, they are shockingly tiny, IMHO.

My takeaway from this thread: Do NOT screw up your shoulder!

I don't disagree. My point is that if this judge rules to uphold the decree, then he has, de facto, said it G100UL is 'safe'! Proving it unsafe is going to be difficult even if/when accidents happen. It is going to take a while to PROVE G100UL is the proximate cause. Meanwhile???

Here's an interesting thought experiment Suppose the ruling goes the wrong way and all of Kalifornia must use G100UL. Of course, this can't happen overnight as GAMI isn't going to have enough G100UL nor the distribution system in place to switch immediately. All of the defendants, however, could decide to just STOP selling any and all 100LL IMMEDIATELY. After all, they could claim they would be in violation of the consent decree and would not want the penalty exposure. I'd bet that would get this reviewed at the appellate level (State) pretty damn quick. Obviously, they'd lose a ton of money so it'll never happen. But, I'd bet it would be rather effective in settling this quickly. Sadly, I suspect the reality is that Kalifornia will begin to be forced to use G100UL one airport at a time over the next 12 months. If more issues arise (I suspect they will) there will be multiple engine failures due to G100UL (clogged injectors, my guess) which will be initially ignored (i.e. can't PROVE it was G100UL). After enough of them, the FAA will finally get involved and we will see relief; namely, dropping of the mandate and allowing operators to choose which fuel to use. As a Kalifornia aircraft owner my plan is to use ONLY 100LL as long as it is available. When the only choice is G100UL, I will ground my plane and wait for the failures and a lifting of the mandate. If, after a year, the mandate is not lifted, I'll re-evaluate selling vs. my own 'tankering' from Arizona (pick-up truck with large tank)

Yes, that is the fear; I posted earlier the judge's background. Not encouraging, IMHO. This lawsuit is a civil action brought by CEH which, to my knowledge, is NOT a government entity. Their cause of action was actually for Prop 65 violations (which is a California State law). I'm not a lawyer but I've always wondered how a private entity like CEH can bring what is really a violation of State law??? I would have thought the Kalifornia attorney general would have needed to pursue; BWTHDIK? The problem I see is that this needs to be raised to the Federal level and that could prove difficult and time consuming for two reasons. First, and most important, is the politics of lead and pollution is a VERY polarizing political issue that is NOT on the side of lead. Federal judges are likely to be very reluctant to rule to allow the continued use of lead especially in light of the 2031 no-lead mandate (I believe that's a Federal mandate). Second, what is going to be the cause of action? It would seem to me that it must hinge on Federal authority over air transportation in order to be valid and controlling over State law. My fervent hope (not much of a plan, I'm afraid) is that there are enough commercial operators using piston aircraft which provide much needed services to the public that will be able to join forces (i.e. funding; they don't have standing) with the present defendants to appeal this case if it goes the wrong way. "May you live interesting times" ... ancient Chinese curse.

Assuming it's not postponed again, the 'fork in the road' is going to occur this Wednesday, 3/5, when the judge rules on the CEH consent decree. If he's unbiased and rational, he will stay the order, in effect ruling that G100UL is NOT truly commercially available. OTOH, if he is a liberal environut, and ignores the evidence we Kalifornia aviators will be the first to be screwed.

@Butch I, too, have never changed mine myself. But, step 2 looks like a potential pitfall: "DO NOT REMOVE the filter element from inside its frame". Your description of how "it will not install" is what raises my concern that may be the issue.

Yes. I turn it vertical and lock the screen to keep it from rotating.

BINGO! As @Marc_B related, the Mooney tank 'system' is just an engineering trade-off between various fuel tank solutions. They ALL require periodic maintenance. This wasn't an issue until GAMI needed to defend G100UL in the marketplace.

A little background on the judge in this case. Draw your own conclusions about his possible bias:

Thanks. Where did you find that? I didn't see it on the website.

It looks like the hearing in the CEH case was held today, but the court's website doesn't have the document available yet. So, no idea what happened. Anyone know?