mluvara

He said on Beechtalk that he did submit it as part of the SAIB request.

Paul shared this link of an updated report based on your inputs and those who have read earlier versions and thanks everyone for the input. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-BAdrBUFKZNaVIoJ6sFFXuu2GG9rr1Cp/view

I reached out to Paul and conveyed your feedback to him. Thanks for the comments. I appreciate it. Michael

His original intent of this document was to share it with the two airports that carry G100UL (RHV & WVI). I believe his point was that he exclusively filled up any time in the bay area with G100UL, but obviously needed 100LL to fly home. The aircraft's flight history is here, with obvious stops for border crossing. He quantified that the D-Shannon tip tanks hold 40 gallons in this post.

This ruling is about upholding existing rules and regulations and the situation goes back over three years. Those of us who require 100 octane have suffered since the draconian ban went into effect on Jan 1,2022. Then the County finally brought G100UL in last Nov after promising for three years that it was 'coming soon'. Note: I am a complainant in the Part 16 complaint and people have misattributed my motives in the situation.

That is my understanding and I pointed it out in that video (if you haven't watched it). This link goes right to the references and questions of some possible connections.

That's the same one I referenced previously that was sitting in Hollister. See here for direct part of video.

From what I can tell, the judge has not issued a final ruling yet. It appears that the CEH sent a survey out about G100UL interest at FBO's after the Mar 5 hearing in order to show 'demand' for G100UL. A request was submitted on Mar 18th (11th hour?) to add it as new evidence (Ex Parte). CEH Ex Parte Application Declaration Settling Defendants Response Opposition Declaration Excerpts attached CEH: Settling Defendants:

Yes. Agree. I was trying to relate the point of a non fully seated primer (whether lock pin, o ring/debris, etc) causing the effect.

FAA issued this notice last week seeking primer failure reports, which is of a related situation. “The FAA is investigating a report of a worn fuel primer pump that may be installed in general aviation aircraft following a non-fatal accident on a Champion 7EC Traveler. During the initial takeoff climb, the pilot noticed a significant decrease in the engine rpm and lost full engine power shortly after. It was determined that the fuel primer pump in the accident was worn and unable to lock properly causing an overly rich fuel mixture. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and the fuselage.” https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/noticeView.aspx?nid=14328 FAA_ACS_-_7EC_Fuel_Primer_Pump.pdf

Keep in context the fact that they relied on a report and a narrative from GAMI. The current CEO of AOPA was not part of the previous testing. My read of Eagle Fuel Cell's report doesn't align completely with GAMI's conclusion. https://flyeagle.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AOPA-Baron-Fuel-Cells-Report.pdf https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/aopa-baron-wing-stain-traced-to-leaking-bladder-patch/ https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/november/pilot/unleaded-fuel-what-we-have-learned

The following post in January was the most recent statement on their position. "First, AOPA does not support one unleaded fuel over another. The marketplace (pilots) will ultimately determine which fuels are successful and which are not. Second, AOPA has been a strong proponent of a “burn and learn” approach to new FAA-approved unleaded fuels to help accelerate a transition to an unleaded future. As we did with our Beechcraft Baron last year, AOPA will continue to demonstrate new unleaded fuels as they become available, and we’ll provide full transparency on our results." https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/january/23/presidents-position-on-unleaded-fuel

Part 4.

>130" at 3400 RPM. Highest I ever saw was 145" on one of the P-51 racers that I crewed on.

I have a bit of experience in this area, as I spent 2003-2015 crewing on numerous aircraft at Reno (including several that won Unlimited Gold) and supplying telemetry systems to them. I also worked as a party to the NTSB investigation to the 2011 Galloping Ghost crash because I built the telemetry system. That aside, ADI was a system adopted for the high power race engines. On the Merlins, the after cooler was removed in favor of a tube induction system after the supercharger. It usually had an automatic system that would come on with a manifold pressure switch and feed the ADI fluid into an area of the supercharger (if I recall correctly). Failure of this at 130” MAP for a carbureted system would result in a pretty instant catastrophic result if not caught quickly. On the other hand, a fuel injected 3350 on a Sea Fury actually would not suffer the same instant fate if the ADI failed and induction temp resultingly increased. I remember we ran a good portion of a lap when the ADI system failed at high power on the Sea Fury. The real time telemetry saved numerous engines because of system failures. I just feel the extra complexity could be an issue for GA because it’s another system to maintain, care, and feed. One needs to carry methanol to mix with water, or have a supply at airports. It’s another preflight item.