mluvara

It seems like any prudent manufacturer would theorize development of a fuel, test its capabilities (internal R&D), apply for specifications like ASTM and enter the certification process. Swift appears to have been developing 100R for some time, and from what I can tell, an ASTM spec takes a couple of years. So, perhaps they only applied for an ASTM spec when they felt internal R&D (i.e. testing on engines in lab) showed they had a viable fuel. And now they are going through the STC process, which appears to be iterative. My point is that I feel like they know what the fuel’s capabilities are and have previously tested it. Now they are going after the formal certification process. Michael

The PAFI testing might be a good comparison for looking at what engines would be used to set the bar for the certification testing and then compare to engines you might be running. This is for VP/LyondellBasell's fuel (which appears to be similar to Swifts in many respects). https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZjg3Y2ExY2EtODY4ZC00ODA4LWEwOGQtMDAyNWJkOTViMTRmIiwidCI6IjRiYjdlYzcwLWJjOTAtNDI5Ni05NTUxLWQ4ZGY1MDg0MDllMyJ9

My understanding is that the fuel Swift was testing in the PAFI program during the 2018 timeframe was an entirely different composition than 100R. The PAFI program was suspended partly due to Shell and Swift's entrants at that time needing more work. So, it seems that Swift essentially started over and created 100R. 2018 article https://aviationconsumer.com/aircraft-ownership/whither-100ul-tested-fuels-fall-short/ I would surmise that Swift has tested other larger engines in their facility with 100R, but the certification process is different than lab testing. Thus, the smaller engines start first in the 'for credit' testing. Michael

Today, I came across an update that Swift had quietly added to their website recently. It describes their planned rollout and phases of engine STC additions as they expect it. https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/assets/users/general/Swift_Fuels_-_100R_Transition_Plan_-_09-30-2025.pdf

Swift Fuels granted me the opportunity to acquire some 100R to perform the same materials compatibility tests that I applied to G100UL. As part of this, I did expand some testing on fabric systems and compared that test with 4 different fuels. As I note in the video, I want to dispel any rumors and conspiracy theories that I am connected to any fuel companies or was put up to any of my past or future testing. The video is quite long (~30 min) and covers a lot of material.

At the following link, scroll down to item 8f below the video, which has the proof of loss statement https://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=16468&MinutesID=10778&Format=Minutes&MediaFileFormat=mp4

Actually, I'm not sure you understand this situation fully. If you read the FAA's part 16 director's determination, you will see that this specific case is different. The county took over all fueling under their so called 'proprietary exclusive right' in order to stop the sale and distribution of 100LL. They did not allow anyone else to sell 100LL because all others had to buy fuel from them and they only sold unleaded fuel. The FAA determined they could not do that. This is totally different than a private gas station that chooses what to sell. There are several FAA cases like this and in fact another one discusses this exact issue for mogas. An airport sponsor does not have to provide all fuels. It just cannot prevent others from providing those fuels if they are federally obligated.

In short, the county filed an appeal and a corrective action plan. The corrective action plan has not been published and they continually say that they are making good progress. The latest update talks about them putting the appeal into abeyance and are supposedly working in 'good faith'. The entire public docket for the Part 16 complaint is here. You'll find the latest update from the FAA where they grant the appeal being put into an abeyance and the 3rd document down is from AOPA questioning all the delays. During the commission meeting this past week that Gabe posted the video link to, county's counsel updated the commission on their status with nothing more than a basic report of 'they are having good discussions with the FAA'. Frustrating. To me, it just seems that the county likes to use delay tactics and excuses to drag things out. Michael

I would suggest a read of the FAA's Part 16 determination (link) that this whole situation is precipitated by. "The text of these Resolutions is unambiguous. In response to the Resolutions, the County took immediate steps without qualification or limitation to implement the specific intent to prohibit the sale or use of 100LL at County airports. Specifically, the County terminated all FBO 100LL fuel sale permits, purchased unused 100LL stocks from FBO-operated tanks, and transitioned all County-owned fuel tanks to the exclusive sale of 94UL, effective January 1, 2022." Aircraft owners were left with no choice but to fuel elsewhere or now fill up with the only 'drop in' replacement (see G12) that arrived just under 3 years later. And a significant number of those who filled up with the 'drop in' replacement have experienced unique and noteworthy issues with their aircraft. I would say that it did not 'enhance the flying experience' for many. Couple relevant airport newsletter links: Fall 2024 Winter 2024 Users were also provided with an incentive that had the following language: "You are each encouraged to buy some fuel and see for yourself that it operates no differently than the 100LL you are accustomed to, with the advantages of a cleaner engine, cleaner spark plugs, cleaner air, and reduced engine wear."

I caught Scott Perdue's livestream today with Juan Browne. Interesting comment (admission?) noted. "It has materials compatibility issues. That's real and needs to be addressed" - quoting Scott Perdue Video starts at the part of the live interview I quoted (live video won't preview here) https://www.youtube.com/live/g0082WHekIw?feature=shared&t=2995

Another update video. This one is a bit more technical, digging into some fuel history, and has updates on aircraft along with a new one in Mississippi.

Eagle sent out an email update today mentioning there is an interactive toolkit on their website now showing detailed progress for VP's fuel, including materials, paint, engines tested to date, etc. Interesting to see the details on each.

They used the same boiler plate language several times in this regard, even when they have one of the largest legal teams around for a County. During covid, they were ruthless.

Nothing is published as far as I can tell. I think it's private between them and the FAA till at least it is agreed upon. Below is the entire docket. The latest item is their appeal. https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FAA-2022-1385/document Michael

The County asked for an extension to respond (which they have done every time they are supposed to respond), filed an appeal at the 11th hour and also filed a corrective action plan. We’ll see what comes of it.

Thanks! I would recommend reading the recent Part 16 Director's Determination against Santa Clara County, as I think it spoke clearly on this topic. I'm not sure I agree with his assertion that he presented. Michael

The County's agenda and docket for the meeting is available here: Airport Commission Agenda There is a link at the top to what the County says is 'video', unfortunately it is only audio. I emailed the County today to confirm and they only provide audio from the meeting, even though it was live streamed. So, one has to scroll through the speaker's slides and try to correlate them with the audio. I have highlighted some of the items of interest in the attached image to help illustrate, but are also including links here to some of documents that you may download and view. There are some documents submitted by the presenters and public included in items 4 (a through l). As noted, in between our talks, both in person and online comments were allowed. Michael 4i. George's Slides 4i. My (Michael's) slides 6a. Airport Commission Presentation-2025-06-03 (McHenry and Rice)

Been awhile, but have an update on some aircraft (plus a new one), and interesting learnings from fuel selector bench testing.

I shared the SAIB with the owner. The FAA FSDO did visit the aircraft onsite with Cirrus, so they are aware. If you note carefully in the SAIB, the notice was for FSDOs to report what they had learned too.

Same Cirrus that I reported on previously. It went to a Cirrus service center near Juan for inspection and repairs

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.