GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[T. Peterson]

33 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

That shipped sailed in 1942 see Wickard v Filburn SCOTUS case

Thanks GeeBee, that was an interesting read. I had no idea of the impact of that decision on our society. From what I read it was also used for precedent in allowing Obamacare to force citizens to buy health insurance. As some noted, it certainly moved our country further from the notion that our federal government is one of “limited and enumerated powers.” I guess that’s okay when the government only gores your neighbor’s ox. But how certain are you that your ox is not next?

At any rate your observation that the ship has sailed may be entirely correct. The government can do anything they want to those who fall out of favor. I wonder with what favor does the government look upon folks wealthy enough to own and operate their own airplanes? Just food for thought.

[MikeOH]

8 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

The idea behind the stc is that it gives the holder exclusive rights to sell reclaim their investment. It’s intellectual property. It’s the only reason someone dumps money jnto proving something to the faa 

I'm not sure I agree with that for it implies the FAA is involved in protecting IP; it is NOT.  IMO, the FAA provides the STC process to maintain safety when non TCDS products are developed. Thing is, this instance is categorically different: the FAA in unprecedented fashion has granted approval for ALL piston engines, thus implying it is safe in all such applications.  That ruling/edict renders the whole concept of needing to issue an STC superfluous as there are no longer ANY safety concerns with ANY use of the fuel.  So, what's the point of the STC other than to protect George's "rights"...which, again, is NOT the purview of the FAA!

[RobertGary1]

11 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I'm not sure I agree with that for it implies the FAA is involved in protecting IP; it is NOT.  IMO, the FAA provides the STC process to maintain safety when non TCDS products are developed. Thing is, this instance is categorically different: the FAA in unprecedented fashion has granted approval for ALL piston engines, thus implying it is safe in all such applications.  That ruling/edict renders the whole concept of needing to issue an STC superfluous as there are no longer ANY safety concerns with ANY use of the fuel.  So, what's the point of the STC other than to protect George's "rights"...which, again, is NOT the purview of the FAA!

But the faa is literally protecting intellectual property. The mogas stc requires no modification. The faa enforces it be purchased to protect the IP. Without IP protection only a fool would spend 10 years getting an stc approved.  

[T. Peterson]

4 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

But the faa is literally protecting intellectual property. The mogas stc requires no modification. The faa enforces it be purchased to protect the IP. Without IP protection only a fool would spend 10 years getting an stc approved.  

Are we confusing an STC with a patent?

[RobertGary1]

8 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Are we confusing an STC with a patent?

Almost like the faa does. Hehe. In truth there are dozens of ways to protect IP

Once you are granted an stc it’s an asset. You can sell the STC. You can license it, etc. 

I run a3b6 engine with an stc. I could get in trouble from the faa for using that engine if I didn’t have the stc. The faa enforces that 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I see it similarly to downloading music.  Once you pay your fee, you can play the song as often as you want.  G100UL, like music, is intellectual property that you pay a licensing fee to use legally.

And recording artists would tell you that is a complete rip off of their unique "intellectual property" that benefits you and screws them.

Edited September 5, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[GeeBee]

If we don't protect IP, then we're China

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I see it similarly to downloading music.  Once you pay your fee, you can play the song as often as you want.  G100UL, like music, is intellectual property that you pay a licensing fee to use legally.

Back in the day software worked that way too. It was capex not opex. Not today. You almost can’t even buy Microsoft office anymore. They want to sell you the annual license.  The whole industry is moving towards opex pricing. Investors love the predictable income vs the erratic revenue of a sale. 
 

Its been 10 years since I bought a song. I pay a monthly fee to listen to as much as I want t. 

[MikeOH]

25 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

But the faa is literally protecting intellectual property. The mogas stc requires no modification. The faa enforces it be purchased to protect the IP. Without IP protection only a fool would spend 10 years getting an stc approved.  

Again, I disagree.  The FAA does NOT have the legal authority to protect IP.  For a normal STC that is issued after the applicant provides engineering/testing data it does provide that protection, but only incidentaly for it is illegal to operate that aircraft without the STC as proof that it is safe.

In the case of GAMI, the FAA by providing a blanket approval for ALL piston engines has rendered the safety need for an STC moot.  I'm not saying this as fact, only that it is a cogent basis and argument for bringing legal action to dissolve the need for the GAMI STC.  To claim otherwise is tantamount to saying the FAA does have authority over IP.

[MikeOH]

35 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Are we confusing an STC with a patent?

We sure are!

[MikeOH]

18 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

If we don't protect IP, then we're China

Oh, puuhhleeease!

Not giving Braly a monopoly = not protecting IP=China  Prone to hyperbole, much?

GMAB

[RobertGary1]

13 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Again, I disagree.  The FAA does NOT have the legal authority to protect IP.  For a normal STC that is issued after the applicant provides engineering/testing data it does provide that protection, but only incidentaly for it is illegal to operate that aircraft without the STC as proof that it is safe.

Sounds semantic. The result is the same. I could show the faa my neighbors stc for the same application proving mine is safe. The faa would still violate  me for not having it 

 

also I could sell my Lasar gap seals to another F model owner. It’s not legal unless Lasar approves the stc transfer. 

[Yetti]

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Of course there is cleaning of the refining/blending facilities at and after the point that TEL (lead) was added.  If the feedstocks for 100LL are in an aromatics tank prior to addition of TEL then that is not a problem.  But once the TEL is added and resides in tanks, pipes and valves, they want and need to demonstrate that theose tanks, pipelines, valves, etc. were cleaned of Lead (TEL).  They will also remediate that concrete and soil around those facilities.  They will want a clean line (date) of demarcation that TEL (lead) was no longer used in their plant.  Otherwise their liability goes on forever because they can't demonstrate to anyone when (or if they even made an effort) they cleaned their facility up.  If there are lawsuits in the future, they are the deep pockets that everyone will go after. Beleive me - they want that TEL liability gone. 

The distribution facilities and tank truck transfer stations will also need the same cleaning and remediation.

Once it is done they (the refiners/blenders/shippers/distributors) are never going back to 100LL.

Um have you ever seen the coking and coke handling facilities of a refinery?   Pretty sure they are not worried about a little lead in the pipes.  I did not check the terminal piping, but I doubt they have dedicated piping system to get it to the truck.  Most of the fuel additives that you see at the pumps are added to the distribution truck tank.  Those trucks service multiple brand stations the only difference it the additive thrown in the tank.   Next up you will find that the mid grade fuel is just blended at the pump with the regular unleaded and premium grade.

[carusoam]

There are so many issues to keep track of…

Development is easy, production is hard… - E Musk…

We are still in the early innings…

1) Where are we with the flight schools burning this stuff in their planes?

2) Where are we with the ability to know what tests as 100 octane aviation fuel in the lab… works like 100 octane aviation fuel in an IO550?

3) where are we with the ability to know this stuff is as stable as the 100LL variety….

4) what government entity would claim the 100LL battle is over because the first step in this commercial mountain climb has been accomplished…

5) How does CA give one company a monopoly by banning 100LL…. ? Doesn’t that interrupt something even more important like interstate trade…

6) How do we know George’s fuel isn’t a different viscosity, nullifying the value of existing Gami injectors?

7) mixing our own fuel as an additive is a nice idea… if you are a chemical engineer and understand mixing at the molecular level…  goof this up once, the piston damage happens shortly after the throttle gets pushed in….

important things to have added to your checklist…. 
 

8) when is the EPA allowed to ban an important legal fuel?  The boss at the EPA would have to talk to the boss at the FAA to discuss the details… 

Its not like anyone wants to use lead…

How long did it take for the EPA to get off their duff to put an end to DDT… or PCBs… or mercury…

9) Some things get used no matter how dangerous they are….

we have to use lead….  

We have to use X-rays as well…

we have to use non-organic fertilizers…

We have to use paved roads… lots of asphalt spread all over the place…

We have to use oils and lubes… lots of old dinosaurs dripped on roads even in CA…

 

Sssoooo many more innings to go…

Keep your thoughts flowing to AOPA… they have the strength and knowledge to handle the legal aspects of this debacle…

I’m looking forward to the LL free future…but not at the cost of no proper Aviation fuel being available… for my plane…

I don’t use enough for anyone in CA to measure the LL my plane leaves behind…. 
 

If this is serious… we will want to be ready…

PP thoughts only, not a seer of the future…  writing after dark, in the middle of a holiday weekend…

Best regards,

-a-

[GeeBee]

Answers to your numbered questions.

1. Embry Riddle has been burning it under an exemption and it works fine

2. GAMI has been testing it in a TIO-550 both in the lab and flying it in a Cirrus

3. Stability tests have shown it to be superior

4. EPA

5. ICC gives the CARB (California Air Resources Board) via an act of Congress authority (That ship has sailed)

6. As above George has been testing it in his own Cirrus with GAMI injectors

8. The Obama Administration removed emission oversight of aircraft engines and fuel from the FAA to the EPA (That ship has sailed too)

 

[MikeOH]

19 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Sounds semantic. The result is the same. I could show the faa my neighbors stc for the same application proving mine is safe. The faa would still violate  me for not having it 

 

also I could sell my Lasar gap seals to another F model owner. It’s not legal unless Lasar approves the stc transfer. 

IMO, legal arguments often come down to semantics!

In practice the reason you need your 'own' STC is again, safety, the gap seals must be installed per your STC on YOUR airplane to 'prove' it's safe.

That is NOT the case with the FAA's universal approval for ALL piston engine planes; they have, by edict, approved ALL are safe to use G100UL.  No longer any point to an STC.

[RobertGary1]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

IMO, legal arguments often come down to semantics!

In practice the reason you need your 'own' STC is again, safety, the gap seals must be installed per your STC on YOUR airplane to 'prove' it's safe.

That is NOT the case with the FAA's universal approval for ALL piston engine planes; they have, by edict, approved ALL are safe to use G100UL.  No longer any point to an STC.

But I could put my neighbors stc in a copy machine and install it 100% from the stc instructions. If I buy it from  Lasar they’ll make me a copy of the stc. Only difference between the two copy machines is who owns it.   

[T. Peterson]

16 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Answers to your numbered questions.

1. Embry Riddle has been burning it under an exemption and it works fine

2. GAMI has been testing it in a TIO-550 both in the lab and flying it in a Cirrus

3. Stability tests have shown it to be superior

4. EPA

5. ICC gives the CARB (California Air Resources Board) via an act of Congress authority (That ship has sailed)

6. As above George has been testing it in his own Cirrus with GAMI injectors

8. The Obama Administration removed emission oversight of aircraft engines and fuel from the FAA to the EPA (That ship has sailed too)

 

Yep, the fist of government squeezes a little tighter every year. One day that ship will sail with our last vestige of freedom.

[GeeBee]

Not exactly. Many STC documents require authentication. For instance F. Atlee Dodge states right on the STC document it is not authentic without an embossed seal, A/C S/N and N number. Others use watermarks. My PA-18 SuperCub had 38 STC's on it. Everything from the "baby bush wheel" tailwheel to the conversion to an O-320-A1A to a O-320-B2B.  I spend the first 6 months of ownership straightening out bad paperwork including some done by CubCrafters themselves with their own STC's who acknowledged their boo-boos. 

 

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, RobertGary1 said:

But I could put my neighbors stc in a copy machine and install it 100% from the stc instructions. If I buy it from  Lasar they’ll make me a copy of the stc. Only difference between the two copy machines is who owns it.   

I thought STCs had your N number on them?  Taking your neighbor's and altering it to show your N number would be fraud.

I'm really not sure what we are debating here. I believe in STCs and they should be purchased for YOUR aircraft.

My arguments are solely directed at this unprecedented blanket approval for G100UL still requiring individual STCs.  If an STC is required to prove your plane has been safely modified that's one thing, but if the FAA has already ordained ALL piston planes are safe to use it there is no point to individual STCs.  Unless the FAA is in the IP biz now!

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Not exactly. Many STC documents require authentication. For instance F. Atlee Dodge states right on the STC document it is not authentic without an embossed seal, A/C S/N and N number. Others use watermarks. My PA-18 SuperCub had 38 STC's on it. Everything from the "baby bush wheel" tailwheel to the conversion to an O-320-A1A to a O-320-B2B.  I spend the first 6 months of ownership straightening out bad paperwork including some done by CubCrafters themselves with their own STC's who acknowledged their boo-boos. 

 

So, did you EVER fly it during those 6 months?  If so, you intentionally violated the FARs with bad paperwork.  Gawd, if you'd had an accident your insurance would surely have denied any claims!

[RobertGary1]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I thought STCs had your N number on them?  Taking your neighbor's and altering it to show your N number would be fraud.

 

Yes that was my point. Lasar has to approve that n number transfer because the faa has given them exclusive control of that IP. 
 

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Yes that was my point. Lasar has to approve that n number transfer because the faa has given them exclusive control of that IP. 
 

The FAA did not give them IP protection.  The FAA is concerned with safety, the 'protection' for IP is entirely incidental. To look at it another way, when the FAA is evaluating data and determining whether to issue an STC protecting the applicants IP has ZERO to do with it.

Call it semantics, but it is a very relevant distinction if challenging the blanket GAMI "STC."

[RobertGary1]

24 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

The FAA did not give them IP protection.  The FAA is concerned with safety, the 'protection' for IP is entirely incidental. To look at it another way, when the FAA is evaluating data and determining whether to issue an STC protecting the applicants IP has ZERO to do with it.

Call it semantics, but it is a very relevant distinction if challenging the blanket GAMI "STC."

The stc is the IP. It’s a govt granted exclusive right to its use. 

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, 201Mooniac said:

 In addition to the G100UL, Swift Fuels says they will be submitting their 100UL for STC approval in Q1 2023. 

 

5 hours ago, MikeOH said:

That is VERY good news; Q1 2023 would be excellent!  I think two competitors in our small market will provide a fair price based on real cost and a profit margin that is tenable. 

Chris D'Acosta of Swift a little over a month ago at AirVenture said:

• Their Unleaded 100 octane Avgas "effort is built around the STC process"
• Swift is building an “enriched STC process that will stand up [to scrutiny] and not get knocked down,”

Currently with their UL94 fuel they note

• "Why does Swift Fuels insist on using the FAA’s Form 337 and FAA-authorized fuel placards for your unleaded fuel program?

  • Yes, we do insist -  Pilots know that alternations (including a change to an STC-approved fuel) requires an FAA sign-off and the application of a fuelplacard. Swift Fuels values the role of the FAA-authorized signers – typically an A&P Mechanic and in IA (Inspection Authorized mechanic) to approve the form. Other FAA-authorized signers may also certify the “alteration”. "

Swift is following the same STC approach as GAMI.  That is what Swift is calling the "drop-in replacement" approach.  Swift has said that they currently plan to charge $100 up front for the STC.  Of course this is predicated on Swift actually having a fuel that works.  

So now we have 2 companies following the same STC route to supply unleaded aviation fuel.  No blanket approval, no implied STC - only formal STC's with signed 337's.  Both require payment up front to license the STC and then the payment of ongoing royalties or mark-ups that will be hidden in the cost of every gallon.

https://www.kitplanes.com/swift-fuel-drop-in-100ll-replacement-in-2023/

https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/faq