tony

The AML does not ensure compatibility with a specific fuel system. To me this implies every fuel system needs to be testing to ensure compatibility. I think, I'll write Mr. Nguyen and ask for clarification.

Here is the STC. Read limitation number one. Where does one get that approve their model Mooney? g100UL STC.pdf

and they paid for a lot over overhauls

Well said! Because I don't feel supported. I feel Mooney is a hinderance.

George, I know this is not exactly a friendly environment for you, and I'm not a proponent of how we got here, but I do appreciate you logging in. It would be easier to just turn off the computer.

Andy it absolutely does deviate from the STC process. When you introduce a new product for an airframe, you have to show compliance to the part of the FAR at the amendment level it was certified to or better. Tell me how did GAMI find compliance to airframe specific requirement such as 23.961. That FAR states to find compliance you have to do an aircraft test. Every fuel system is different, that's why some aircraft are able to use mogas gas while others can't given the same engine. This isn't a GPS navigator which you show compliance to 23.1301 and 23.1309 that can utilize and AML. Someone in the FAA really needs to answer that question.

That's why there are STCs. To put something on your certified airplane, you need paper to say its OK.

Eric, what I have been trying to say and not so eloquently, is this is an airframe issue; not just and engine issue. How can the FAA issue an STC for an alternative fuel, to an airframe? Textron basically is saying the same thing in this letter. To certify an airplane, you take a certified propeller, a certified engine and then integrate that together which is all certified at the system level. That's a type cert. Saying here's a new fuel and it will work in your engine, doesn't say anything at the system level.

Finally someone who knows something about how an aircraft gets certified. SE-P-006.pdf

My point exactly. so how can the FAA issue an STC for the type design of an airframe?

The AOPA is not on the side of 100LL.

that's what I said before but I got jumped on by Lancecasper.....

I posted this in another string but how did GAMI show compliance to 23.961 for an entire fleet of aircraft?

I'd love to see the compliance checklist for the STC. Specifically how did GAMI show compliance to 23.961 for entire population of aircraft using an STC . I can't see how they could have. Which means it was pencil whipped by the FAA.

A recommended practice to deviate from the type design with no paper work to back up the change?