GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[T. Peterson]

12 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

YES

I hope you are correct, but my cynical side says that bureaucracies suffer from an insatiable lust for power. Crises, issues and problems are the justification for the exercise of power as the bureaucrats come up with solutions for problems either real or imagined. To remove signs warning of the most fearful consequences is counter to the very DNA of a bureaucracy even if the underlying issue has been totally mitigated.
Our very wise forefathers recognized this frailty of the human condition and thus gave us our Constitution articulating a precise separation of powers. After  ratifying this document they were still troubled by this Leviathan they had unleashed against the American people. They thus decided to further pull the teeth of this monster by passing the first ten amendments which we used to revere as the “Bill of Rights”. In their mind, liberty was the pot of gold, and was available to everyone no matter where located on the economic spectrum, because if a man had liberty he could advance himself as far as his talents and drive would take him. 

Unfortunately it seems that our culture increasingly disdains the wisdom of our forefathers opting not for a government of limited powers, but rather one given broad powers to effect an outcome of sameness for all citizens. As one of our forefathers aptly warned, “Those who would trade their liberty for security deserve neither and will soon lose both.”

 I do not object to government oversight. I am happy for regulations that address real safety concerns. Maybe someone can enlighten me differently, but it seems to me that in our fuel issue the STC is nothing but the government wielding power just because they can. The only solution offered so far is “get used to it because something will eventually take you out of GA anyway,” or just flee certified airplane world and go experimental. Marvelous.

 

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

The cause of my angst is simple:

 I’m perfectly happy buying and flying with 100LL.

I do NOT want to be FORCED to pay more to accomplish the same thing!

Is that really so difficult to understand?

“I do NOT want to be FORCED to pay more to accomplish the same thing!”

Apparently a very difficult statement to understand. I understand it perfectly so there is obviously something wrong with me………maybe try posting it in Latin?

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I'm not up in arms over anything.  I am merely pointing out that the STC process was designed to allow the approval of individual make/models to be modified or operate outside the specifications in the TCDS.  What we have here is a situation where state and local governments have called for the wholesale abolition of the only approved fuel listed in the TCDS of every spark ignition certified aero-engine in existence.  The FAA has been calling for a "drop in" replacement. Forcing all operators to buy an STC or cease operating is not a drop in replacement.  If 100LL is banned, any operator that can't use mogas will be compelled to buy the STC if they wish to continue operations.  Has the FAA done anything like that in the past?  It's not about $300, it's about the principle. It's a very slippery slope to compel behavior for reasons that have no bearing on the safety of operations. Would it be OK if the STC cost $10,000?  Just because the cost is reasonable does not mean it sets a good precedent.  

Moreover, what if Swift gets approval in the coming months and begins distribution as well?  Are airports going to carry both? Will you need to have multiple STCs in order to by fuel at the various airports along your route?  

Articulated perfectly! Thank you!

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

The cause of my angst is simple:

 I’m perfectly happy buying and flying with 100LL.

I do NOT want to be FORCED to pay more to accomplish the same thing!

Is that really so difficult to understand?

GAMI and George and Tim are NOT forcing you into anything.

They are offering an answer to when/if 100LL is banned due to some other factors and other players.

[A64Pilot]

23 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

GAMI and George and Tim are NOT forcing you into anything.

They are offering an answer to when/if 100LL is banned due to some other factors and other players.

For twenty years that I’m sure of what’s kept LL from being banned is the lack of an UL replacement. The FAA is on record saying that multiple times.

The Gami guys aren’t stupid, they know what will most likely quickly follow the fielding of their fuel, and such a nice position to be in, being the source of the only available fuel. You can pretend that their fuel won’t hasten the demise of LL, but I think most know better. Just because a few airports in California have banned it doesn’t say anything about the rest of the US. I don’t think for example Fl will follow California’s lead.

We don’t know what it’s going to cost, just this 65c to 85c a gl more to produce and it will naturally follow the cost of oil, back when auto gas was under $2, but that isn’t what it will cost us, it’s someone who doesn’t refine fuel’s best guess as to cost to produce, and it’s in his best interest to downplay the cost.

I don’t fly behind a Conti but am sure glad they exist, they tend to keep Lycoming in line as does Ford, GM etc.

The more it costs, the quicker there will be competition, apparently there are more than one player that’s close just hasn’t been a priority including Shell which I’m nearly certain will have an ASTM fuel.

 

[T. Peterson]

16 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

GAMI and George and Tim are NOT forcing you into anything.

They are offering an answer to when/if 100LL is banned due to some other factors and other players.

George and Tim are not the issue. God bless great American entrepreneurs! The warp and woof of our wonderful nation!
The issue is government overreach. If the government in their legitimate regulatory oversight says, “yep, this is good gas, safe to use in airplane engines, passes all our testing and is good to go.” Why in the world do I have to buy a special license to use that fuel? Especially if I have no other choice due to the regulatory power of that same government!
Of course some posters have other concerns about the long term effects and pricing of the fuel. I also sympathize with those concerns, but they are separate from my annoyance with nonsensical regulations. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and the nature of government is ever encroaching. When they finally demand something so stupid that even you naysayers can’t stand it, Mr G-man will look at you and feigning the utmost surprise say, “Well you accepted this, this and this, so how is this so different?” At that moment the dawn of realization will cross your face, but it will be too late.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

GAMI and George and Tim are NOT forcing you into anything.

They are offering an answer to when/if 100LL is banned due to some other factors and other players.

Where did I ever say GAMI, George, or whoever Tim is would be forcing me to buy G100UL?

[dominikos]

51 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Where did I ever say GAMI, George, or whoever Tim is would be forcing me to buy G100UL?

I guess the main point is that if the majority through political process decides that 100LL is no longer legal, this is a good way forward. Not perfect but good. 

We can argue whether it’s wrong or right but the end result is the same, 100LL is no longer available. and then our planes will loose their value… when that happens, then we will be more than willing to kiss any hand that allows them to fly…

Not a political statement, but in my other post on MS I expressed concern that soon we might find ourselves in situation when we can no longer purchase aviation fuel… only a few years later followed by not being able to buy gasoline and only option available being JetFuel (and that’s only till 2050 or so). 

 

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

GAMI and George and Tim are NOT forcing you into anything.

They are offering an answer to when/if 100LL is banned due to some other factors and other players.

I don’t think anybody has accused George and Tim of forcing anything on anyone. They are merely working within the government approval framework. 

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

 

 

Aviation fuel STC's have been around longer than most here on MS has been flying.  The Petersen Fuel STC was introduced in 1983 and claims over 39,000 purchased and issued. The Swift Fuel STC was introduced in 2015.  Petersen charges $1.50/HP and Swift started out at $400 but is now $100.  GAMI said they will follow typical fuel STC pricing.

Why all the angst, outrage and vitriol now over a measly one time maybe $300 for mid and short bodies, maybe about $450 for long bodies or maybe it will be $100.  We pay more than that for virtually anything on our planes or any annual subscription for data that expires.  The carping about the long established use of fuel STC's seems disingenuous. 

This is great day for GA.  This will extend the life of our fleet.  We have a superior fuel with higher energy content that will allow modern synthetic oil, higher compression, cleaner burning with less maintenance that may ultimately extend TBO. Braly/Roehl/GAMI are the classic American capitalistic success story.  They are the "Davids" that persevered with their own investment and successfully did what the "Giants" (Shell, Chevron, BP, Total,  FAA Coordinating Research Council ( CRC ) Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development 1992-2007, FAA PAFI, etc.)  couldn't do.  They created both a technical success and successfully navigated the regulatory process.  Their reward is well deserved.

I'm not up in arms about anything, either, but as others have pointed out, meeting a fleetwide (i.e., TOTAL fleet) change requirement with an STC seems like a very odd approach and I think would be unprecedented to the best of my knowledge.    I suspect the STC will be turned into a TC-compliant "grade" or something, or perhaps the STCs will be blanket licenses, or perhaps various manufacturers may add various grades to their TCDS.   Who knows what will happen, but I don't think anybody knows yet.

The technical data required for the STC seems to be similar, or perhaps the same, as that listed in the oft-references AC for independent specifications, so the change from an STC to an approved fuel that could be included on a TC may not be that difficult.   I suspect if an STC holder and the FAA and manufacturers wanted that to happen in order to simplify things and increase market acceptance, it could probably be accomplished.

Worst case, there are multiple competitive solutions and they all get deployed either regionally or scattered across the landscape.   STC fees are required for all.   If you travel much, you have to either plan your stops for the FBOs that carry the fuel(s) for which you have STC(s), or you have to pay for all the possible STCs that might exist in your travel sphere.    Perhaps the holders will explore the possibility of STC licenses that expire in order to generate recurring STC license revenue.    Swift already allows you to purchase a future license to an STC that doesn't exist yet, which smells a little on the bad side to me.

We don't know yet how this will play out, but some possibilities are definitely better than others.

[T. Peterson]

33 minutes ago, dominikos said:

I guess the main point is that if the majority through political process decides that 100LL is no longer legal, this is a good way forward. Not perfect but good. 

We can argue whether it’s wrong or right but the end result is the same, 100LL is no longer available. and then our planes will loose their value… when that happens, then we will be more than willing to kiss any hand that allows them to fly…

Not a political statement, but in my other post on MS I expressed concern that soon we might find ourselves in situation when we can no longer purchase aviation fuel… only a few years later followed by not being able to buy gasoline and only option available being JetFuel (and that’s only till 2050 or so). 

 

In our Republic, government is the servant of the people. The notion that we may have to kiss the hand of government to participate in any moral or legitimate activity is incomprehensible. If for some reason the majority of the people decide they want to shut down GA, then that process must be exercised through their duly elected representatives and absolutely not by fiat through a bunch of regulators! 

[Hank]

9 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

In our Republic, government is the servant of the people. The notion that we may have to kiss the hand of government to participate in any moral or legitimate activity is incomprehensible. If for some reason the majority of the people decide they want to shut down GA, then that process must be exercised through their duly elected representatives and absolutely not by fiat through a bunch of regulators! 

Tell that to the bureaucrats in DC. They seem to be in charge of aviation!

[dominikos]

18 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

In our Republic, government is the servant of the people. The notion that we may have to kiss the hand of government to participate in any moral or legitimate activity is incomprehensible. If for some reason the majority of the people decide they want to shut down GA, then that process must be exercised through their duly elected representatives and absolutely not by fiat through a bunch of regulators! 

Not sure I understand this point… do you suggest that elected officials cannot setup government institutions and everything is supposed to be controlled through popular vote? 
I never suggested to kiss government hand but appreciate initiative of people that had foresight to invest their personal resources to avoid grounding of our planes, even if it is just delaying the inevitable… 

… I do hope one day to do flight to Europe and not having avgas available in Europe would be a deal breaker…

is the solution perfect through STC? It’s not. Alternative is to get enough elected officials to change FAA and its regulations… given other problems we need to solve and size of GA community I don’t think it would be a popular political platform…

 

[T. Peterson]

22 minutes ago, dominikos said:

Not sure I understand this point… do you suggest that elected officials cannot setup government institutions and everything is supposed to be controlled through popular vote? 
I never suggested to kiss government hand but appreciate initiative of people that had foresight to invest their personal resources to avoid grounding of our planes, even if it is just delaying the inevitable… 

… I do hope one day to do flight to Europe and not having avgas available in Europe would be a deal breaker…

is the solution perfect through STC? It’s not. Alternative is to get enough elected officials to change FAA and its regulations… given other problems we need to solve and size of GA community I don’t think it would be a popular political platform…

 

Let me try to better explain. I too celebrate the work of entrepreneurs. You threw me off with the “kiss the hand” comment. You will never have to kiss the hand of an entrepreneur. They are not going to withhold their product. The whole reason they develop things is to sell them. Your post was all about the fear of aviation gas being taken away. If aviation gas goes away, it won’t be from the lack of entrepreneurs meeting the needs of the market, it will be from government prohibiting it. In my opinion such a draconian measure is way beyond the scope or authority of unelected bureaucrats. For years we have been drifting in this unhappy direction as bureaucrats have become more and more autocratic.

At least one reason for this is because our cowardly representatives want to insulate themselves from the messy consequences of real lawmaking. If they set up a bunch of unaccountable bureaucracies they can just deflect the blame to a faceless agency when the citizens complain of intrusive or overbearing regulation. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse made a brilliant speech from the floor on this very issue a couple of years ago. I am no fan of his at all, but on this issue he was outstanding.

Therefore, if you are correct and the government eliminates all means of powering our airplanes thus destroying a viable section of the economy, I think that decision should be made by the lawmakers not their proxy regulators. Is that a little more clear?

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Tell that to the bureaucrats in DC. They seem to be in charge of aviation!

Sadly, this is becoming true in every area of our lives. Wonder when I will be taxed for breathing out carbon dioxide. Lol!

Maybe I will have to get a breathing STC!

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

In our Republic, government is the servant of the people. The notion that we may have to kiss the hand of government to participate in any moral or legitimate activity is incomprehensible. If for some reason the majority of the people decide they want to shut down GA, then that process must be exercised through their duly elected representatives and absolutely not by fiat through a bunch of regulators! 

I suspect that the majority of Americans are disinterested, apathetic or against supporting our right and privileges to fly Mooney's.  I suspect we're seen as prima donnas and JFK Jr wannabes, and that most Americans believe they receive no direct benefit from having an airport in their locality.  I suspect we're seen as manifestations of the 1%'ers, because most of us, in fact, are, to be able to afford to own and operate aircraft.

If put to a truly democratic vote or referendum, our privileges would have been voted out decades ago.  If government were simply, as you put it, the "servant of the people," we wouldn't be here in the first place talking about Mooney's.  MS would have ended up being a forum of some other financially ruinous activity

Somehow, that government and those regulators have got it in their heads that GA should be supported rather than shut down despite popular opinion.  I, for one, am thankful for that, even if there are pockets of antipathy towards GA.

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

I suspect that the majority of Americans are disinterested, apathetic or against supporting our right and privileges to fly Mooney's.  I suspect we're seen as prima donnas and JFK Jr wannabes, and that most Americans believe they receive no direct benefit from having an airport in their locality.  I suspect we're seen as manifestations of the 1%'ers, because most of us, in fact, are, to be able to afford to own and operate aircraft.

If put to a truly democratic vote or referendum, our privileges would have been voted out decades ago.  If government were simply, as you put it, the "servant of the people," we wouldn't be here in the first place talking about Mooney's.  MS would have ended up being a forum of some other financially ruinous activity

Somehow, that government and those regulators have got it in their heads that GA should be supported rather than shut down despite popular opinion.  I, for one, am thankful for that, even if there are pockets of antipathy towards GA.

You make some very good points although unhappy ones. I really can’t disagree though I think we are in this reality because of a decaying culture. It is sad when we have to be grateful that the government is not really the servant of the people because those people would rather use the power of citizenry to destroy the lifestyle of other citizens whom they envy, than to use that liberty to advance themselves. 
Unfortunately popular politics trades on this very thing.

 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, dominikos said:

is the solution perfect through STC? It’s not. Alternative is to get enough elected officials to change FAA and its regulations… given other problems we need to solve and size of GA community I don’t think it would be a popular political platform…

On the other hand, things of small import that are not politically polarizing (as I'd hope this topic qualifies) tend to get passed as riders on other legislation, or passed as low-hanging fruit for examples of bipartisan progress.   So if legislation is required, which I'm not sure it would be, it might turn out to not be a huge hurdle.

[jaylw314]

16 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

You make some very good points although unhappy ones. I really can’t disagree though I think we are in this reality because of a decaying culture. It is sad when we have to be grateful that the government is not really the servant of the people because those people would rather use the power of citizenry to destroy the lifestyle of other citizens whom they envy, than to use that liberty to advance themselves. 
Unfortunately popular politics trades on this very thing.

Some of you have been blessed to own airplanes for years and even decades. I am 63 years old and was only able to achieve this milestone 6 months ago. Should I be envious and bitter over the success of others or just gloriously grateful that the dream finally materialized? I am indescribably grateful, but fear that my government is going to strip it from me before I hardly get started.

You know that phrase "like there's no tomorrow", as in fly like there's no tomorrow?  That's a bunch of BS, it just makes you afraid of losing what you have.  Instead, you need to fly like there's ONLY today, so you don't have any regrets whatever tomorrow brings.  I mean, heck, we get to fly these amazing machines, how many people get to say that??

On the other hand, Yoda probably was more eloquent  

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"

Edited September 9, 2022 by jaylw314

[RobertGary1]

11 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I got a couple of grade V Titanium bolts for my motorcycle the other day, came in a heat sealed plastic bag that had the California warning about cancer sticker.

Lord I hope not, both my knees are largely grade V Titanium, think the warning was for the little bag?

You can’t make this stuff up.

But if you Google aromatics in auto fuel, there sure seem to be a whole lot of folks up in arms over aromatics and health concerns.

Didn't have the suffocation sticker too?

 

-Robert

[carusoam]

Sufffffferrring….  -yoda.  

 

+1 in the column for it’s an opportunity…

-1 in the column if it’s mandatory…

+1 in the column if it’s really as good as described…

 

This is soooo good… the entire population of Kalifornia would want us to use it….

So… let’s say the STC is going to cost $400….

Wouldn’t the CA government want to issue you a credit equal to that cost?

A tax holiday for your annual ownership fees…. For eliminating your use of LL… on your time schedule… at your decision…

 

It looks like MS just solved the problem of the added costs for the STCs….   
 

 

Next up…

we still have the challenge of running out of fuel….

Looks like we add to this challenge when the fuel you want isn’t everywhere…

pushing the limit of the fuel tanks to get to an airport further than the closest one… sounds like another problem brewing…

Humans are known to be pretty crummy with actual fuel levels and distance to a good airport…

 

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

[dominikos]

9 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

For twenty years that I’m sure of what’s kept LL from being banned is the lack of an UL replacement. The FAA is on record saying that multiple times.

The Gami guys aren’t stupid, they know what will most likely quickly follow the fielding of their fuel, and such a nice position to be in, being the source of the only available fuel. You can pretend that their fuel won’t hasten the demise of LL, but I think most know better. Just because a few airports in California have banned it doesn’t say anything about the rest of the US. I don’t think for example Fl will follow California’s lead.

We don’t know what it’s going to cost, just this 65c to 85c a gl more to produce and it will naturally follow the cost of oil, back when auto gas was under $2, but that isn’t what it will cost us, it’s someone who doesn’t refine fuel’s best guess as to cost to produce, and it’s in his best interest to downplay the cost.

I don’t fly behind a Conti but am sure glad they exist, they tend to keep Lycoming in line as does Ford, GM etc.

The more it costs, the quicker there will be competition, apparently there are more than one player that’s close just hasn’t been a priority including Shell which I’m nearly certain will have an ASTM fuel.

 

Wouldn’t ability to send it through pipelines instead of trucking potentially offset some of the increase?

[carusoam]

There are so many opportunities to save costs with going lead free…

Each step still gets to be proven….

We have lived a long time containing the lead while distributing avgas…

It isn’t likely we will be welcomed into the big kid’s pool very quickly…

Best regards,

-a-

[Pinecone]

12 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

The issue is government overreach. If the government in their legitimate regulatory oversight says, “yep, this is good gas, safe to use in airplane engines, passes all our testing and is good to go.” Why in the world do I have to buy a special license to use that fuel? Especially if I have no other choice due to the regulatory power of that same government!

Because of the way the rules are written.

You cannot use common sense, you have to follow the rules.  And the rules are meeting the ASTM standard, creating an new standard (not FAA) and getting it accepted, or the STC process.

Where in the laws or regulations does it allow the FAA to ad hoc change the fuel rules for all aircraft?

And the engine and aircraft manufacturers (those that are still in business) would not want the responsibility (liability) of approving the fuel.

[A64Pilot]

I think it’s pretty simple, but these are all speculations.

The Gami fuel either can’t or would be too expensive to meet ASTM specs, by expensive I mean to pay for the Certification. But I suspicion it can’t meet specs, doesn’t mean it’s not good, just may have some differences.

Car gas can’t meet specs either as car gas is manufactured to its own, looser specs, it’s composition changes during the year and by location, but it was recognized that the old little motors that were Certified on 73 Octane fuel could easily and safely burn the stuff.

So it is allowed under an STC, some mostly newer aircraft do require modifications to burn it, these mods are mostly concerned with preventing vapor lock, but it’s not necessarily a drop in as some aircraft require additional fuel pumps, cooling ducts etc.

So there is a precedent of allowing fuel under an STC, and the FAA is big about allowing a level playing field, example one manufacturer of a Restricted category aircraft designs pre-dated FAR 23, a newer manufacture came into being, but had to comply with FAR 23 as FAR 23 was accepted prior to the aircraft being designed, they petitioned the FAA that it’s not an equal playing field if they have to comply and the other guy didn’t, the FAA agreed and relaxed many of the FAR 23 rules for the new guy.

So the new fuel meets or exceeds whatever company tests were done and the FAA has allowed its use under an STC because I’m sure that they had done so before.

Gami hopefully has some form of quality control over the production of its fuel, the car gas STC’s of course don’t and can’t.