redbaron1982

Kind of a side question, what would be a large growing cumulus? One of the few times I flew solo IMC I was flying on and out of cumulus clouds extending to 10kft. I was flying at 8k and each time I transitioned through one of these cells I could feel and see how speed increased while the output was holding altitude. I didn't feel comfortable so I asked ATC to fly around the cells. But I'm still not sure what's big enough to warrant flying around and what's on to fly through.

The most ironic thing about G100UL is that most likely is much worse for health and public safety than 100LL

I just realized that the main photo on g100ul.com does not show proper refueling hygiene! What a concept, right?! I guess when they took the photo, it was not still a thing to have to protect your aircraft paint while refueling.

Yeah, I think the IA would be liable if he doesn't comply with the steps / modifications stated in the STC. But I don't know how he could be liable as long as the work associated with STC was correctly performed. I don't think the IA responsibility is to question and evaluate if an STC is safe or not, that is the responsibility of the FAA.

Don't California my Texas

I guess they are trying to kill G100UL without saying that they made a mistake in approving the STC... if 100LL is not banned, G100UL is death.

No, I meant on the ruling regarding the 100LL ban.

Any news on the court side?

Thanks, will do!

Hi all, a couple of months ago I received a letter from the Fort Bend central appraisal district regarding my Mooney, to fill Form 50-159. The way I understand the letter, as I'm using the aircraft for personal use / pleasure I don't have to fill the form, but just want to double check. What confuses me is that the letter starts with "Aircraft owners in Texas are legally required to file the .... form" but then it continues with "this form is designed for the declaration of aircraft property that is used for income-producing purposes and was owned or managed in a fiduciary capacaty as of January 1".

> G100UL has not been approved by the FAA’s Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (“PAFI”), which was created to review unleaded fuels. (Oppo at 4-5) There is no ASTM Standard for unleaded gas, so there is no industry standard against which G100UL can be measured to ensure that it is safe and appropriate. (Oppo at 5-6, 9-10, 15-16.) Several aircraft manufacturers have disapproved use of G100UL for various reasons, including that it degrades tank sealant. (Oppo at 7-9.) G100UL has not been subject to “peer review” because GAMI (its manufacturer) refuses to share information without a confidentiality agreement. (Oppo at 9.) This part mentions some safety concerns and mentions the GAMI refusal of peer review without a gag clause.

I love this part, too good to be true.

That's why I will cancel my membership if they don't stand up and side with us.

My main concern is that once 100LL is ban, there might be no way back. And then it could happen that whatever needs to fix will come with an AD, at our expense. Like "We found that this type of gasket are not compatible with G100UL, so any aircraft with G100UL need to replace the gaskets before X amount of hours"... That would be really screwing all of us, which is usually how it goes.

If the AD happens only after 100LL was banned and all distributors switched to G100UL, then we are going to be screwed and we will have to pay for whatever corrective action comes from the AD.

I have always found the "refueling hygiene" process that GAMI has put out quite funny. And they kind of saying in a way as "hey, this is what everyone should be doing already"... What a concept! Lol. Maybe I'm not doing it correctly, but I don't do anything apart from trying not to spill fuel over the paint. If I spill some, I don't do anything; it just dries in the paint, and the next time I clean the airplane, I take care of it. I've never had any issues. The GAMI process involves using an absorbent rag, with specific instructions not to wipe (underlined!) but instead let the rag absorb the fuel, clean the surface with an "approved" window cleaner, etc

Do anyone know what Mr Braly refers to when he said "a unique and inadequate" type of fuel tank? I guess he is not referring just to the wet wing concept, right? There are a lot of airplanes with wet wings, most airliners uses wet wings, Cirrus does too. I mean, if he is referring only to the wet wing concept, someone could argue that Mr Braly's statement is false testimony, no? What's unique about a design that all airliners use and also one of the most successful modern GA manufacturer, like Cirrus.

I think we are all on the same page here. At least, I was super excited about G100UL. But I don't want to repaint my airplane with G100UL-compatible paint and/or reseal my tanks or install a bladder.

In my opinion they should be stronger on pushing back here.

In case anyone is interested, I'm sending this letter to AOPA. I guess if enough people write to them, it could help push them to take a more active role here: " [Your Name] [Your Address] [City, State, ZIP Code] [Email Address] [Phone Number] [AOPA Member ID] [Date] Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 421 Aviation Way Frederick, MD 21701 Dear AOPA Leadership, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing debate over the use of 100LL aviation fuel in California. As a dedicated member of AOPA, I have always valued the association's commitment to advocating for the interests of pilots and aircraft owners. However, I am increasingly disheartened by AOPA's lack of a strong public stance against the ban on 100LL fuel in California. The recent push to replace 100LL with G100UL has raised significant concerns within the aviation community, particularly regarding material compatibility. Reports indicate that G100UL may cause structural damage to aircraft components, including paint degradation, seal degradation, and fuel leakage. These issues pose serious airworthiness concerns and could compromise the safety of our aircraft. While we are all on board with the transition to unleaded (UL) fuel, it is crucial that this transition is carried out in a reasonable manner that does not introduce airworthiness risks. The aviation community relies on AOPA to be a vocal advocate for our interests, and your silence on this matter is both troubling and unacceptable. Given these material compatibility concerns, it is imperative that AOPA takes a definitive stand against the premature banning of 100LL fuel. If AOPA does not publicly oppose the ban on 100LL fuel and advocate for a more measured approach that ensures the safety and reliability of alternative fuels, I will be left with no choice but to cancel my membership. I urge AOPA to step up and fulfill its role as a leader in the aviation community by addressing this critical issue. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to seeing AOPA take a strong and proactive stance in support of our community. Sincerely, [Your Name]"

What boils my blood the most is having fellow Mooney owners siding with George Braly.

what about it?

My only hope at this time, is that the FAA steps in and cancels the STC. I don't know if that has ever happened.

I think technically he didn't lie. If I remember correctly, he used fancy words to say that he would not support the ban, as long as there was no commercially available alternative. He has repeatedly said that G100UL is an alternative for all aircraft and is commercially available. So then he supports the ban.

This... imagine how things would have been different if nobody shared any issues with G100UL. By this time, we would most likely have 100LL banned in California. I'm grateful for having early adopters willing to share their experiences, as well as for @mluvara for doing so many tests and share the results with all of us.