GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[T. Peterson]

3 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Eventually, something is going to take you out of General Aviation, and you won't like it.  keep your powder dry.  Pick your battles.  Don't let your grievances overwhelm you.  More to come.

Hopefully old age and not government vendetta.

[carusoam]

Fwwwwew….. a lull in the action….  
 

Examples of Long term things that couldn’t be seen from the beginning….

All fuzzy memories….

1) Lycoming had valve stems that were too small in diameter and didn’t work well…. All were out of service by about Y2K…. 5/8” (?)

2) Lycoming selected a gear pump for pumping oil in our engines… one gear was steel, the other aluminum…. This allowed for preferential wear of the aluminum gear… poor choice, the aluminum gear wore at an elevated rate… another AD and all the gears were replaced just after Y2K…

3) Mooney under engineered some control rods for the ailerons… some gussets needed to be added… swapped out just after Y2K…

4) Continental lost track of a step in their camshaft manufacturing… causing some cams to need replacement….  AD a few years ago…

5) Mooney lost track of the assembly process of the LB’s tail… a dozen or so tail hinge parts were installed in reverse… requiring huck bolts to be R & R’d…

6) The Lycoming crankshaft was for the six cylinder engines… that thing costs a bundle…. And you find the need… during the already expensive OH…

7) Fuel sealant that didn’t last forever…. Some was worse than others….  No AD required… replace as needed…

 

These we’re things that looked right, at the beginning… but over the years we’re found out to not be so right….

This list is from memory and only covers about 25years of surprises….

 

Lead might not be good for the environment…

Being first to use the new fuels may come with unforeseen challenges….

Engine OHs are expensive…. Interrupted fuel systems can cause expensive issues….

Be ready to review the engine monitor data…. Looking for anomalies….

This is where the Savvy membership may make even more sense…

PP guesses only…

Putting the wrong gas in the 95 Firebird…. Causes engine knock…. The knock sensor starts cutting back on power to help deal with it…

Best regards,

-a-

[toto]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

Just like an annual they only ask for it after an accident. 

Yeah, I get it -- it just seems like we've spent a lot of this thread talking about G-man scenarios when we already have fuel STCs that haven't produced a lot of unusual interaction with authorities.

I was just curious whether anyone has actually been asked about a fuel STC. 

[RobertGary1]

59 minutes ago, toto said:

Yeah, I get it -- it just seems like we've spent a lot of this thread talking about G-man scenarios when we already have fuel STCs that haven't produced a lot of unusual interaction with authorities.

I was just curious whether anyone has actually been asked about a fuel STC. 

In the general pilots are usually looking for ways to follow the rules rather than try to skirt them. 

[carusoam]

1 hour ago, toto said:

Yeah, I get it -- it just seems like we've spent a lot of this thread talking about G-man scenarios when we already have fuel STCs that haven't produced a lot of unusual interaction with authorities.

I was just curious whether anyone has actually been asked about a fuel STC. 

The only wacky interaction with the FAA….  Around here…

One MSer took the route that was a tad too combative….

His plane had some hangar rash on the trailing edge of control surfaces and other bangs and bruises…

 

Find the thread ‘F the FAA…’

If you have a nonconforming plane… and you leave it outside in a tie down….

Don’t draw attention to yourself….

The written argument somewhat ignored the facts, and the standards, of what is airworthy, and what is not, by legal definition…

 
 

PP thoughts only,

-a-

[hais]

13 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

But is it approved for 100 LL or 100 octane or 98 octane 100 UL? You should probably buy the STC just to be safe in case you get ramp checked and the FAA starts draining your fuel tanks and tasting your fuel. 

Then I won't buy the STC so that I can witness 1st hand the poor enforcer tasting the fuel

[toto]

7 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

In the general pilots are usually looking for ways to follow the rules rather than try to skirt them. 

I guess I'll just take that at face value.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone should try to skirt rules, or that anyone here is not interested in following rules. 

I'm just saying that we've raised a lot of scenarios where someone is asking to see STC paperwork before fueling, either because they are looking for a potential violation or because they are looking to avoid liability. And it makes me curious how often this happens with other fuel STCs. 

[carusoam]

6 minutes ago, toto said:

I guess I'll just take that at face value.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone should try to skirt rules, or that anyone here is not interested in following rules. 

I'm just saying that we've raised a lot of scenarios where someone is asking to see STC paperwork before fueling, either because they are looking for a potential violation or because they are looking to avoid liability. And it makes me curious how often this happens with other fuel STCs. 

The challenge is….

Technology out in the sun at remote fuel stations…. Is guaranteed not to work… often…

 

My favorite fuel station has the credit card system on it fail every other year… for extend periods of time…

Entering the details into the old computer system…. Is near impossible if you didn’t  grow up in the computer age….

Oddly, I look forward to the failure… when self service goes down… I get full service at the discounted price… 

 

Best regards,

-a-

[MooneyMitch]

13 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Oddly, I look forward to the failure… when self service goes down… I get full service at the discounted price… 

May I wash your windows, check your oil, coolant and tire air pressure sir? ..................ha, remember those days?

[Pinecone]

14 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Can you link where you read that? According to GAMI’s website and this Avweb interview with George and Tim, G100UL was more resistant to detonation than ASTM D90 100LL. 

 

 

More resistant does not meen they actually test the octane to that level.

I could make a 110/150 fuel, but only if you officially test the fuel, using the required test protocol to 99.  The fuel is rated at 99.  But it might actually perform better, but is not tested/certified to the higher level.

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

In the general pilots are usually looking for ways to follow the rules rather than try to skirt them. 

EXACTLY! This is an excellent reason to stand against bad rules.

[corn_flake]

On 9/4/2022 at 2:46 PM, Cruiser said:

First, he was not granted a MONOPOLY, he was granted an STC and if Shell or any other entity wants to submit its product for FAA approval they are free to do so. 
Until 100LL is banned, your concerns are .... well, concerns. 

In the meantime, the aviation high-performance fleet is going to continue to be supported .

 

Actually, FAA did grant GAMI Monopoly if no other alternatives are available.  That's how Bell company was broken up.  Microsoft was almost down the same path.

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, Pinecone said:

More resistant does not meen they actually test the octane to that level.

I could make a 110/150 fuel, but only if you officially test the fuel, using the required test protocol to 99.  The fuel is rated at 99.  But it might actually perform better, but is not tested/certified to the higher level.

I have a basic understanding of the intricacies of octane (a chemical component of gasoline) vs Octane rating (any number of standards used to denote the measured detonation resistance of a fuel under compression). You said that from what you’ve read “G100UL is 98 octane or grade.  Or something like 98/140 with lean/rich rating.” I would like to see who made those claims and how they arrived at such a conclusion. Perhaps it was George himself, either way, I’d like to read it first hand.

[Hank]

6 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

May I wash your windows, check your oil, coolant and tire air pressure sir? ..................ha, remember those days?

Nooo . . . . .

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, Will.iam said:

Question, gami et all keep saying that with lead removed, our oil can be synthetic blend and have longer oil change intervals because there would not be any lead to sludge up in our engine. But what about the other blow-by products like carbon? Will that not still require an oil change sooner than when the oil is degrading?  Or can synthetic oil handle the blow-by of carbon it was just lead that it could not handle?

A 100hr interval is still a short oil change interval it’s just long relative to 50. 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

A 100hr interval is still a short oil change interval it’s just long relative to 50. 

100 hrs x 150 knots = 15,000 miles

To me, this is not a short oil change interval; I change my car's oil every 5000 miles.

[GeeBee]

11 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I think you are conflating issues: Legal vs. easy.  My point is that ACs are NOT mandatory, i.e. not the ONLY LEGAL path.

I will give you no argument that many times, even most, trying to "roll your own" vs. going with the "guidance" in an AC might just be a nightmare with the FAA!

If you watched the video I posted you will note that Braly talks about a "Quality Control Manual" for G100UL. Now what FAR requires a quality control manual for fuel? Answer is none. However, if you read the FAA Orders for Inspectors, you will find it, but of course you're not aware of those orders, but the Inspector cannot over look those orders. Advisory Circulars are not regulatory in the sense they are FAR's but they are regulatory in the sense that they prepare you for the inspector's regulations also known as "Orders" and the inspector does have to comply with those. No inspector is going along with a plan that goes against Orders unless he gets a waiver from the highest level. If you go back to paragraph 8 e of the AC I posted you will note a requirement for a Quality Control Manual for a non ASTM or Mil-G fuel. In order to get an STC you have more than just the FAR's to fulfill. You must fulfill the Inspectors Orders to get his signature or get a waiver of the Orders from the Administrator. So when you say, AC's are not the only legal path, you are looking at from only the regulations upon you. When you are trying to get a certification, that is a bad way to go.

[Shadrach]

28 minutes ago, Hank said:

100 hrs x 150 knots = 15,000 miles

To me, this is not a short oil change interval; I change my car's oil every 5000 miles.

This has to be engineer humor because it certainly isn’t a relevant comparison.

[A64Pilot]

OCI interval is a valid point, it’s not just lead that drives OCI, for example my OCI for my C-85 is 25 hours, because I don’t have a filter.

Airplanes tolerances are so loose due to being air cooled and no matter what we can’t let one seize that there is a lot of blow by which means the oil gets dirty fast. Without much better filters we need to change oil frequently.

Our oil I’m certain is no where near being broken down at 50 hours, it’s just full of carbon etc

 

[Will.iam]

I remember someone that used mobile fully synthetic oil but still kept to the 25 hour oil change and did not have any problems in their engine. Was not the sales pitch synthetic is more expensive than conventional oil but you can go longer before oil changes so the costs evens out? I know that’s AMSoil rational with their product. And wasn’t that the bigger issue that pilots were going longer intervals and the combination that synthetics could not hold the lead, carbon and other blow-by products in suspension so over time sludge developed?  Modern cars have tight tolerances compared to air cooled aviation engines so the fully synthetic oils have way less blow-by crap to deal with in auto engines compared to aviation engines. Just because we get the lead out of our fuel still does not fix the higher blow-by crap the oil deals with. I just don’t see how this new fuel will allow us to go to fully synthetic and a longer oil change interval. Maybe conventional oil can be extended because it’s better at handling keeping blow-by in suspension but not synthetic unless the lead really was the majority of sludge buildup, I don’t know. 

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I have a basic understanding of the intricacies of octane (a chemical component of gasoline) vs Octane rating (any number of standards used to denote the measured detonation resistance of a fuel under compression). You said that from what you’ve read “G100UL is 98 octane or grade.  Or something like 98/140 with lean/rich rating.” I would like to see who made those claims and how they arrived at such a conclusion. Perhaps it was George himself, either way, I’d like to read it first hand.

Sorry I can't remember where I read it.

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

100 hrs x 150 knots = 15,000 miles

To me, this is not a short oil change interval; I change my car's oil every 5000 miles.

My one car requires oil changes every 8,000 miles.  I average a bit over 35 MPH.  So around 200 hours.

Interestingly, many years ago BMW had a complex algorithm for dynamically alter the oil change mileage interval.  They looked at gold starts, time at various RPMs and throttle positions.  And after a while, found that they could get virtually the same results by just measuring fuel used.  I am not sure how specific it was to the various models, but I recall the number for BMW 6 cylinders on full synthetic oil was 600 gallons.  Drive hard, burn more fuel, change your oil more often.

[EricJ]

13 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

The FAA won’t violate you for a disagreement about the regulations, they will only violate you if you were intentionally trying to violate the regulations. They don’t have time to mess with GA, they barely  have time to harass the airlines.

This is one of many reasons why I don't think STC fees to use the proposed unleaded fuels are practical.   Nobody is going to want to enforce it, enforcement adds cost to whoever is asked to enforce it, many of the potential enforcers would be placed in a conflict of interest to do so, etc., etc.

License fees to the production and distribution systems added to the fuel cost (like essentially everything else we buy in life) compensates the developers for their time and intellectual property.   No enforcement required, no hassles administering user permissions, etc., etc.  If fees for IP and other licenses were passed down to users on something like a cell phone, you'd be under a mountain of separate fees and use arrangements for all of the different incarnations of various included hardware, software, patents, copyrights, operator licenses, etc., etc.   Every other industry has figured out long ago that it is counter-productive to pass those down to the users.   I guess it is not surprising that general aviation is a place that may still be proposing to do so.

[A64Pilot]

To use something in an aircraft it has to have a basis of approval.

For whatever reason Gami chose not to go the route to Certify the fuel met existing standards, like for instance all the oil you buy does, so instead they went the STC route.

As it’s an STC’d product, you have no choice.

I’m not trying to be argumentative, but for those that the rules rub the wrong way, there is a class of aircraft just for you, Experimental, used to be pretty much just lawnmower powered rag wing toys, but it’s not been that way for a while, there are aircraft with similar or better performance than most of our Mooney’s, and they are exempt from most rules

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

This is one of many reasons why I don't think STC fees to use the proposed unleaded fuels are practical.   Nobody is going to want to enforce it, enforcement adds cost to whoever is asked to enforce it, many of the potential enforcers would be placed in a conflict of interest to do so, etc., etc.

There are plenty of other examples where rules =/= cost of enforcement.  For example, safety belt laws don't require additional enforcement, since they are generally only enforced at the time of another violation.   IIRC, some states only allow seat belt violations to be enforced during other violations, so that PD's don't use it as a pretext for unjustified stops.

As such, my speculation would be the STC issue would only ever result in action if you were in some other type of incident that warranted action.  FBO's and fuelers might take it upon themselves to have a policy of asking, or just have a check box saying you've purchased it on the invoice.  They have no way to actually enforce it anyways.