T. Peterson

Thank you for posting this link. I am 43 minutes into it and am both learning and enjoying.

I don’t discount any of your speculations. It would be foolish to do so as I could only provide speculations of my own or other’s. I don’t know what will happen, but I am thoroughly convinced of what OUGHT to happen. I stated those convictions in my last post and many former, so I will not go over them again now. It doesn’t matter to me one whit that conventional wisdom, as you have summarized it quite nicely, is against the handful of us that have our heels dug in against this abusive mandate. History is replete with conventional wisdom that was discovered to be flawed. History is also filled with a plethora of examples where abject lies were foisted on a culture and became accepted as truth because no one stood against them. In the present case, I will continue to point out that the honest and fair way to implement any product is through free market principles and not government intervention. I well understand you think that is a lost cause, but I am writing this to hopefully influence those that may be open to a different perspective. If one more pilot will raise his or her voice or pen to rally against this assault on liberty, I will be gratified. Many think we will fail and I don’t resent them for that, but I have till 2030 to fight, and I have zero inclination to surrender 5 years prior. I urge my fellow pilots to stand against this government over-reach. You all know the whole premise that GA is poisoning the public is ridiculous. If you truly believe that deception, it must be awfully awkward to rail against lead spewing machines while flying one. I want to reiterate that I do not disparage or belittle in any way those who disagree. I also admire and respect George Braly. I am not against G100UL. I don’t care if the Angel Gabriel submitted a fuel. It needs to be a free market choice.

The reason this debate is so emotionally charged is not because G100UL is good or bad, but because it appears that this is going to be forced on the consumer by government fiat. The fact that some have a serious concern with the fuel certainly exacerbates the issue, but if no one felt they would be forced into it, most of the heat would dissipate. People would not be fuming on Mooneyspace, they just wouldn’t buy the fuel. @GeeBee mentioned that it is probably time to field test this new fuel, and I agree. The FAA has anointed it and so let the market forces test it. Let the FBO’s decide what they want to sell. They don’t have to offer two choices. If they only have one tank or simply just want to deal with one fuel, their choice. If they think G100UL is their path to better profitability than so be it. If the next FBO at a neighboring airport feels different and sticks with 100LL, that’s their business choice. Let the market decide. Much heat has been leveled against GAMI which I think is misdirected. The real culprit is a weak government that bowed to a special interest using junk science. I utterly reject the notion that we must bow and genuflect to the inevitable “Tsunami” coming our way. Especially with the coming change of administration, there may be a real window of opportunity to roll back some of this government overreach. Even if nothing changes, there is yet 5 years (if I correctly understand the mandate) to field test this fuel. If it proves to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, we will all race to buy our STC. But if the only place it sells is where state governments have prematurely banned 100LL, is that not in itself a pretty good indicator of where the field testing is going? And if the fuel proves to be a disaster that would certainly spark a further movement to delay the mandate. Per chance by that time there would be a real drop-in fuel or even some adult leadership at the EPA. I do understand there is a real sense of urgency on the part of California owners as it certainly appears the steamroller is gearing up. I am very sorry for that and I can only encourage you to enlist the help of any sympathetic voices that may remain in your government.

Maybe @MikeOH is wrong. But he’s the guy I would want in my foxhole.

Well said!! I read an article yesterday reporting that the state government of Vermont is trying to sue the oil companies for contributing to negative climate changes that have impacted Vermont. They are looking for such evidence going all the way back to 1995. Apparently the recent storms which ravaged Vermont are attributable to the nefarious activities of the oil companies dating back to the 90’s. This is exactly what we can expect when lunacy in government goes unchecked. Those who prefer to bow when they could fight, will soon find a time when they can neither bow low enough or fight hard enough to stem the tyranny which has ravished so many of our state governments.

50 years……..doesn’t seem to be a lot of angst over the fate of the little children!

I am hoping that with the seeming cultural shift as evidenced in the recent election, there will be a pushback from at least most of the flyover states. I am not asking that 100LL be anointed, only that any potential alternative be subject to free market forces. The ultimate 3rd party testing will be by customers.

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.