ragedracer1977

I realized that’s an L. Porsche Mooney. Wonder if it’s converted to an io-550

I bet was exciting. All I know is pilot reported engine failure and landed safely.

I think the 'commercially available' argument was correct - In terms of the case at hand. You have to read the original agreement. Commercially available was defined in the agreement. The dictionary definition is meaningless, and the judge addressed this at length. I've argued here an on Beechtalk that the judge would find exactly as he did. And I was told I was nuts. (I mean.. they're not wrong there, but...) The decree defines it as " on a consistent and sustained basis at prices and on terms, in quantities and at times sufficient to meet demands of the customers of that Settling Defendant in California (“Commercially Available”), " Simply having a fuel that has lower or no lead available for people to buy does not alone meet the tests presented by the agreement.

This was the entirety of the argument CEH's lead attorney used to contest the ruling: The unleaded fuel at issue, G100UL, has been approved for aviation use by FAA pursuant to the only approval method explicitly referenced in the Consent Judgment. That fuel is also "Commercially Available" as that term is defined in the Consent Judgment. The undefined term "commercially available" has a very specific dictionary definition which has been confirmed in case law and does not include feasibility.

I'm reading the tentative ruling right now. I think the Judge and I think alike. Defendants read “Commercially Available” as meaning both “Commercially Available” and commercially feasible, which means that the defendants must not only be able to acquire the Commercially Available lower lead fuel but also be able to store it and to sell it to customers in sufficient volumes to be profitable. There must be “demands of the customers.” This reading is broader and more reasonable because the consent judgment states that the defendants must acquire lower lead fuel “to meet demands of the customers.” If there is little to no demand for the fuel at the prices that defendants would need to charge to sell the lower lead fuel at a break-even basis, then defendants could arguably purchase none of the lower lead fuel and meet the demands of the customers. The phrase “sufficient to meet demands of the customers” is where “Commercially Available” incorporates “commercially feasible.” The Court is concerned that the Consent Judgment turned a case about warnings into a case about forcing a fundamental industry shift through the means of a consent decree, particularly here where regulatory bodies and industry groups are currently addressing the same issue— transitioning to the broad-based use of Avgas with lower levels of lead... The Court as a matter of contract interpretation reads the word “approved” as meaning approved by the FAA for general use and reads the phrase “commercially available” as meaning both commercially available and commercially feasible. This broad interpretation of those terms is appropriate to ensure that the application of the Consent Judgment (1) is consistent with California and federal legislation and regulation regarding aviation fuel, (2) is lawful, reasonable, and consistent with its evident object, and (3) does not undercut a complex regulatory process that accounts for a wider range of stakeholders and issues than those evident here. G100UL low lead fuel is not “Approved for aviation use.” Plaintiff has demonstrated that G100UL low lead fuel has been approved for certain aircraft with a Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”). STC approval concerns a modification from the original design rather than a general approval. Plaintiff has not demonstrated general approval as would be the situation if there were approval under the FAA’s PAFI or EAGLE programs.

I'm hearing the consent judgement was denied!

I figured just stick it under the seat. Right now it’s about 8x5x3 (mostly because that was the size of box I already had), but I think I can get it down to about 4x4x2.5 - would fit about anywhere

I was thinking along the lines of the USB-C 100W PD.

I know a lot of us have inflatable door seals, most with hand pump bulbs. I’ve got an idea for an automatic pump. Actually more than an idea. I built one. I know there was an AD and now they have non-AD pumps. But it seems they’re $1200 or so. Can’t seem to find an actual price. I can come in way below that. i built a system that can be controlled by a micro switch on the door handle or whatever you decide. Or it could be manually switched off and on. Powered by a cigarette lighter. Might try to figure out USB power. Stand alone, wouldn’t need an STC. If microswitch controlled, it inflates the seal automatically when power is applied and the door is closed; and when the power is cut the air dumps immediately when the handle is moved. Preventing a passenger from opening the door on an inflated seal. Also maintains pressure. If you have a small leak, the pump would periodically run to keep your seal inflated. Built in overheat protection to prevent fire. If the motor starts running continuously and/or overheats, a thermal fuse blows cutting power to the unit. And it’s not resettable, the fuse would have to be replaced, “forcing” you to fix the issue. I’ve tested it, but need to run it in the plane for a while. Thinking about maybe offering for sale if it works out. Would anyone be interested in it if it does? This is what it looks like. At least for now. I have a gauge on this one just for testing purposes. Box could be quite a bit smaller without the plumbing for the gauge.

Personally I think the leaks are a bs avoidance tactic. EVERY SINGLE AIRPLANE on the planet will at one time or another, leak. It just happens. Could G100UL be advancing that? Sure it could, probably is, even. But… I don’t care. Up until now, a fuel spill or leak just gave you an opportunity to get your rag wet with fuel and clean some oil off the belly. Now? You have to repaint your plane if a lineman is sloppy. And we haven’t even talked about the rubber issues…

I can’t believe he threw in that Mooney’s have inadequately designed fuel tanks. As if wet wings aren’t the most common fuel tank design in common use

Your planes are pieces of junk. Paraphrased.

Where can find a copy of Brady’s declaration?

This was posted by a pilot who got buzzed by the lancair on his previous go-around. Adsb data backs it up if you want to see for yourself, and shows the Lancair at 140-150kts over the centerline at maybe 200agl almost to the departure end.

According to a poster on a blancolirio video (he gives the tail number so you can verify yourself - on flight radar I think) the Lancair did the same thing to him on the first go around. Overflew him at 1-200’, maintained that altitude down the centerline and climbed well down the runway. Same guy also said he heard the Lancair guy on the radio say “going around. AGAIN”. Sounds like some poor decision making and exasperation killed his passenger - and fortunately no other innocents.