T. Peterson

I’m not one bit mad. I completely respect your opinion. I just hope 100LL is here until replaced by a fuel I want, meaning offered, not forced. I further expect it to be completely vetted by time and experience. In other words, let the market drive it, not dubious science and cowardly bureaucrats.

Ahhh….. understand. Your point is that all things being equal, folks will not pay a premium for G100 if 100LL is available. I completely agree.

Many years ago when flying part 135 I always carried an empty “Snapple” bottle. Now I use the “Travel John” but they weren’t available back in the horse and carriage days!

I suspect that even some of the most ardent defenders of G100UL would not, if given a choice, put it into their airplane until there is a full resolution of the recent issues. Even if the price was the same!

“ I am saying that just offering it will not result in wide range availability.” You may be right especially regarding the east and west coasts. But I have a hopeful notion that 100LL will be available for a long time in flyover country. No proof of course, just a notion. Absent that happy outcome, I hope that whatever the Feds force on me won’t damage my airplane!

That was quite an education. Thank you!

I think I am wrestling with that commandment about coveting!! Beautiful airplane!!

Good afternoon Andy and Happy New Year! First Mr. Braly responded to a post of mine and now you! I certainly have wandered into a branch of intellectual prowess which far exceeds my own! Therefore believe me when I say I proceed with the utmost humility and respect for all those who have expressed disagreement with my point of view. In a normal context, Andy, I would say that your rebuttal is iron clad, and I would have no argument. However as we say in theological circles, “Context is King”, and I think context is critical to this discussion. I believe the intent of an STC is to provide a safe method to modify an airplane for some user desired objective. The key is “user desired”. The user wants his airplane to use a more powerful engine, use cheaper fuel, use a better wastegate and etc. Because it’s an airplane with huge safety ramifications Bubba and Otis can’t just go hang a Corvette engine on the front and say let’s see how this works! There is careful engineering and extensive testing which is presented to the FAA and if they deem it sound an STC is granted to that developer. But the bottom line is it is driven by demand. The developer anticipates a demand and provides the product for a fee. It’s a win win for everybody. The STC holder makes a profit and I get the coveted GAMI injectors, Merlyn wastegate, authorization to use Mogas or a Rocket engine etc. Now if a modification needs to be made due to a safety concern, the FAA doesn’t issue an STC, they issue an Airworthiness Directive. That’s a horse of a different color. It is also where I think the FAA has stepped into the quagmire. In their hurry to accommodate political pressure they issued a blanket approval for a particular fuel for which there is virtually no demand! But neither is there justification to issue an AD against 100LL. They don’t need an AD against it, if the government just removes it. What is effectively being done is to masquerade an AD as an STC! Furthermore, since the FAA are the rule-makers, can the argument not be made that if they issue a blanket approval then that automatically would adjust the Type Certificate to also include G100UL? It seems as if the FAA wants to eat their cake and have it too. It also seems to me that if I am wrong about all this and the STC is justified due to the language of the Type Certificate, then no fuel can ever be justified without an STC and any language referencing “drop-in-fuel” is simply disingenuous.

Thank you for your response. It’s an honor. No one believes that you folks are forcing a fuel upon us, but the government of California is already so doing. As far as the STC route, I certainly understand why you had to go that way, but I don’t think it was the best way. It feels as though the Avgas side of General Aviation has been stampeded into something that may have some real pitfalls. Philosophically, I personally think that it is not in keeping with the spirit of the STC protocol when the only thing that is done to the airplane is to attach a sticker. Especially not a four hundred dollar sticker. Just because there may be past precedent does not make it right. Please let me be perfectly clear, my beef is not with you. I can only imagine the obstacles you’ve had to overcome to get this far, and the FAA obviously forced you down this path. However no matter how I sympathize, I think it was a bad path. I think the FAA has compromised the intent of the STC process. I wish you well and am sincerely grateful for your incredible contributions to aviation. In the long run G100UL may prove to be wonderful and all our fears allayed. Time will tell.

I initially opposed this fuel because of the fundamental unfairness of the way it is being forced. I had no understanding of the technical concepts involved in development of a product like this. You gentlemen on both sides are obviously very knowledgeable with a professional understanding that I deeply admire and respect! But after reading all the posts on both sides of the issue, it seems to me that the way this fuel is coming to market is not only philosophically unsound, but also leaves much to be desired from the technical aspect. Having said that, I have no criticism of Mr. Braly at all. I am grateful for great American entrepreneurs of which I believe him to be one. I understand he has blessed us with many wonderful innovations. My coming engine will be equipped with GAMI injectors. However in my opinion, the best policy toward G100UL is twofold: 1) DO NOT jam this down my throat. 2) WAIT until it can be examined as part of a “consensus development” as thoughtfully described by @EricJ.

My wife has never had to use a travel Jane, but I posed the same question to a friend of mine. He said his wife would get on her knees in the seat and was able to successfully use the travel Jane.

Call Jimmy Garrison at Gmax aircraft sales. That probably isn’t the exact name but Rabbi Google will get you there.

Imagine that!

San Marcos is KHYI.

Gafford Aviation at San Marcos.

Excellent point. Folks may very well avoid these airports. I do my best to avoid high fee airports. I love the little mom and pop places.

I’m pretty sure I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but the statement as it stands is a bit broad. Privatization is already here and that’s fine. All the fuel is handled by some private company or other. We would not want a fleet of government trucks handling the fuel. Many extrapolate this principle to the fee collection process. While the principle behind it may be sound, it is an unnecessary middleman that is taking advantage of their position. It’s always messy when mixing private with public. Some we have to put up with, but not this.

I live in Texas and most of my flying destinations are MO, AR, AL, KS and IN. I am currently paying less than 5.00 for most of my fuel.

That gives you quite a margin! Outstanding! My margin is a bit less. I’m not exactly sure where I would draw the line, but it would probably be somewhere around twice the price of auto fuel. Exceeding 7.00 a gallon on a routine basis would probably get me thinking real hard about selling out.

“And for those that think GA pilots pay their "fair" share of FAA and ATC costs through AVGAS fuel tax - it is laughable.” If this is indeed the case then what is the problem with user fees? If user fees will indeed make it fair for all concerned then that is how it ought to be. If the costs drive me out of aviation which I suspect it might, so be it. I don’t want to sell my airplane, but it is even less appealing for me to suck on the government teat as so many seem to think they are entitled. There may also be an aside that paying our own way would actually lower our costs. I am not hopeful, but per chance it would be an unforeseen consequence of doing the right thing.

It seems there might be a real “Tsunami” brewing against G100UL.

Outstanding! Well said!!

I don’t trust myself to wait till 80 kts. That would mean that I am on relatively short final. I can easily see a “gear up” in my future doing that. My gear comes down abeam the upwind numbers on a visual or FAF on an instrument approach. 100 to 120 knots depending. Maybe a little harder on the gear but not as hard as a gear up landing. I simply have a profound respect for my ability to forget a crucial step. I attempt to mitigate that with unwavering procedural compliance. This is totally personal. I understand that other folks may have completely different procedures that may be superior to mine.

All your good living has caught up with you!

What all was required practically and legally to allow using car gas?