Aviation Fuel--It took me by surprise, but where I live shouldn't have

[jaylw314]

It is surprising that it's taken this long for this sort of thing to happen where land is expensive, after the playbooks that Santa Monica and Meigs laid out for city councils.

I will say, though, that fuel at your home airport should not be a major factor for an individual owner.  I routinely fly around the area to find the cheapest fuel, since I try to fly regularly anyway, but it's nice to be able to top off before or after a big trip.

In the long run, of course, lack of fuel at a major airport is more of an economic strangle-hold by the local government.  I'd also point out that prioritizing local governance over federal governance is typically a conservative rather than liberal value.

[donkaye]

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I'd also point out that prioritizing local governance over federal governance is typically a conservative rather than liberal value.

Not in California, and your state may be even worse.

[philip_g]

Wonder why the ul94 can be used in the o360 but not io360. I'm already paying 8 bucks a gallon. What's another buck.

Edited December 8, 2021 by philip_g

[GeeBee]

The takeover of fuel dispensing by the county may in fact be your opportunity. We went around this at KSJC when the city ran the fuel concession and refused to allow others on the field. It turns out, you can't do that at a Federally funded airport. So you can very easily dispense your own 100LL and there is nothing the county can do about it. 

"While the airport sponsor may exercise its proprietary exclusive to provide fueling services, aircraft owners may still assert the right to obtain their own fuel and bring it onto the airport to service their own aircraft, but only with their own employees and equipment and in conformance with reasonable airport rules, regulations, and minimum standards."

https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/media/5190_6b_chap8.pdf

[jaylw314]

5 hours ago, donkaye said:

Not in California, and your state may be even worse.

It's not--my home airport is a pretty sleepy untowered airport other than the flight school.  Some but not much exec jet traffic considering the state university in town.  I was a little shocked last year when the city decided to do a major renovation project on the crosswind runway and it looks like they're building another bunch of hangar pads.  I'm not sure where the money's coming from or what the motivation is, but it's a little weird, considering there's a towered regional airport 30 miles away.

Oh wait, are you talking about politically?  That wasn't really a point of debate, was it?

[rahill]

Wonder why the ul94 can be used in the o360 but not io360. I'm already paying 8 bucks a gallon. What's another buck.

I think it has to do with compression ratios, although that may be a bit simplistic. Even some of the lower horsepower IO-540s are able to use UL94 and it turns out they have slightly lower compression ratios too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FoxMike]

Thirty years ago I used RHV a few times.  The manager and staff were a pain in the butt back then.  If the stated reason for not allowing 100LL to be sold is to lower the lead in the air I doubt they will reach that goal.  Both based and visiting aircraft owners are still going to operate with 100LL although they may be inconvenienced by needing to travel to get it.  Bottom line is the  same amount of lead will be drifting down on land below.    

The real reason they want to quit selling 100LL is to encourage pilots to move elsewhere.  I doubt this will work as the bay area is under supplied with airports.  

[Niko182]

I wish 94UL was available for the IO550. Its the same price as 100LL compared to 100UL which is an extra dollar.

[rahill]

23 minutes ago, FoxMike said:

Thirty years ago I used RHV a few times.  The manager and staff were a pain in the butt back then.  If the stated reason for not allowing 100LL to be sold is to lower the lead in the air I doubt they will reach that goal.  Both based and visiting aircraft owners are still going to operate with 100LL although they may be inconvenienced by needing to travel to get it.  Bottom line is the  same amount of lead will be drifting down on land below.    

The real reason they want to quit selling 100LL is to encourage pilots to move elsewhere.  I doubt this will work as the bay area is under supplied with airports.  

The real reason they did the lead study is to prove the airport is unsafe and therefore close it.  It's just the latest approach, and it seems to be working. It has nothing to do with encouraging pilots to move, they're not trying to prove the airport is underutilized (it's not!), they just want it gone. The fact that there's now an alternative to 100LL for the majority of the aircraft (and by Q2 2022, all aircraft), especially the training aircraft which make up a huge percentage of the use, didn't really occur as an option to the anti-airport crowd when they glommed onto the lead issue - and it probably doesn't matter.  Hopefully transitioning as many aircraft as possible to UL94 (same cost as 100LL) now may ease some of the "close it now" calls.  

[Hank]

They want to close the airport because often someone in power is toed to a realtor or developer who will make lots of money from construction and sales, plus a tiny bit of property tax revenue to the city. Mostly it's a one-time thing from the sale, but politicians are chronically unable to resist a small source of tax revenue. It's a big number thenfirst year, that dwarfs the ongoing receipts in business and sales taxes plus rental income, but often drops below that figure.

[0TreeLemur]

Just got an e-mail about fuels from our friends at Savvy Aviation.   Mike Busch writes about the fuel crisis in CA and what to do about it.   He points out that Lycoming has a very useful service instruction about the compatibility of their engines and different grades of fuel.   See table 3 here: https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070AB Specified Fuels.pdf

According to that table the O-360 in my C can use a wide variety of fuels, including three grades of unleaded automotive fuel- which means those without ethanol.  Those grades are: 

91 AKI

93 AKI

Super Plus

Anybody ever use these?  How do you identify them at an auto gas pump?

 

[N201MKTurbo]

24 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

Just got an e-mail about fuels from our friends at Savvy Aviation.   Mike Busch writes about the fuel crisis in CA and what to do about it.   He points out that Lycoming has a very useful service instruction about the compatibility of their engines and different grades of fuel.   See table 3 here: https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070AB Specified Fuels.pdf

According to that table the O-360 in my C can use a wide variety of fuels, including three grades of unleaded automotive fuel- which means those without ethanol.  Those grades are: 

91 AKI

93 AKI

Super Plus

Anybody ever use these?  How do you identify them at an auto gas pump?

 

I doubt they would be available at a gas pump. Since the ethanol mandate, it is almost impossible to get pump gas without some ethanol. You would need to order it from the distributor. The ethanol is mixed at the tank farm before delivery to the gas stations. The tank farms have the base stocks which are what is listed above. You would probably need to buy a truck load to get it. Then there are the taxes....

[Hank]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I doubt they would be available at a gas pump. Since the ethanol mandate, it is almost impossible to get pump gas without some ethanol. You would need to order it from the distributor. The ethanol is mixed at the tank farm before delivery to the gas stations. The tank farms have the base stocks which are what is listed above. You would probably need to buy a truck load to get it. Then there are the taxes....

It's available at pumps here, look for signs that say "100% gas" or "non-ethanol gas". It helps if there is a big lake nearby, lots of boating, etc.

[Ron McBride]

45 minutes ago, Hank said:

It's available at pumps here, look for signs that say "100% gas" or "non-ethanol gas". It helps if there is a big lake nearby, lots of boating, etc.

Here in Oklahoma I have several choices for auto fuel. 87 octane with ethanol, 87 octane without ethanol for another 30 cents, and premium 91 octane without ethanol.  I am so glad to be out of California. 
 

 

[Will.iam]

Every buckee's gas station in Texas that I have gone to have Non-ethanol gas 93 octane for about $1 more than that 87 octane ethanol gas sells for. I use the non-ethanol gas in my boat especially when I winterize it. 

[tmo]

Don't you also need the airframe to be approved for a specific type of gasoline? I seem to recall the Petersen Auto Gas STC not covering some planes due to airframe issues, while they had an engine that Lyco said would work on car gas.

[Jerry 5TJ]

2 hours ago, tmo said:

Don't you also need the airframe to be approved for a specific type of gasoline?

Yes, the POH or AFM specifies the approved fuel type(s). An STC may add another fuel type.  

[Jerry 5TJ]

One reason I sold my E model in 2000 was I expected the supply of 100LL to be interrupted soon.  The EPA was clear in its intent to reduce airborne lead, the state (California) was looking at exercising its own considerable authority over air pollution, there was only a single volume supplier of TEL in the world and the possibility of legal class action against some part of the chain seemed likely. Taken all together it felt like a risky gamble to assume leaded avgas would be available for very long.

I was wrong.  

Or, at least, my estimate of the timeline was way off.  The signs that 100LL will be phased out have been clear enough for three decades.  

[aviatoreb]

I wonder/hope that if this action cascades across the country, if the availability of 100GL or whatever that new unleaded alternative is called, will become accelerated both in certification to our many airframes, and also to the supply chain issues of getting it to our pumps.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

When I first started flying, almost all airports sold two grades of fuel, green 100/130 octane and red 80/87 octane. 

It would be nice to see that come back with 94UL in place of the red gas. It will work in most airplanes. And G100UL in place of 100LL. They could still sell 100LL and replace it with G100UL as it became available.

Although both are almost pure alkylate, they still require special handling to meet the avgas quality standards, so they will never be competitive with car gas.

[PeteMc]

On 12/7/2021 at 9:28 PM, donkaye said:

California and in particular Santa Clara County

I should have, but didn't connect that it was the County pulling the strings on removing the 100LL. 

When I read the news the other day I sent off an email on how I would not be stopping there on my next trip in that area (granted, it may be a while) due to the lack of proper fuel.  Realize now I was probably justpreaching to the choir....

[NotarPilot]

Have they closed any airports or pulled any of these shenanigans in Texas or Florida recently? and by “recently” I mean, ever.

[ilovecornfields]

In case anyone wants to sign the petition:

https://www.change.org/p/support-reid-hillview-airport-and-improve-a-vital-community-asset?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_13988809_en-US%3Av10&recruiter=703298624&recruited_by_id=57a99d70-1683-11e7-88ef-ad5fbcefcdd9&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-13988809-en-US&share_bandit_var=v2

Just don’t accidentally sign the one from the airport trying to ban 100LL nationally.

On an unrelated note, anyone have experience with GAMI’s 100UL?

[Bravoman]

Hate to break it to you partner but this thread started as inherently political. To deny that is like sticking the head in the sand. 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Bravoman said:

Hate to break it to you partner but this thread started as inherently political. To deny that is like sticking the head in the sand. 

That was included in my point.