GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[GeeBee]

Has anyone thought a G100UL pump is a target rich environment? Maybe more so than the light plane cargo ramp at LAX.

You pull up. Stick the nozzle in your tank. You have no STC. Out of nowhere appears an FAA guy. Ramp inspection.

Inspector: I see you have no tank labels for this fuel

You: Oh I forgot to put them on (Violation)

or;

You: Oh, I have the STC

Inspector: Show me your flight manual supplement (Violation)

You: Oh, I forgot to put it in

Inspector: OK, so if I go to OKC records I will find the 337 right?

You then are looking for a tree to hind behind, but even in a forest, none are big enough

[M20F]

1 minute ago, GeeBee said:

Has anyone thought a G100UL pump is a target rich environment? Maybe more so than the light plane cargo ramp at LAX.

Mostly what I have thought is how much a group of pilots can leap to conclusions in 72hrs of a one paragraph press release. 
 
I did get in early on buying stock for a few popcorn manufacturers.  Feel my ROI will be quick and extreme.  

[EricJ]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Has anyone thought a G100UL pump is a target rich environment? Maybe more so than the light plane cargo ramp at LAX.

You pull up. Stick the nozzle in your tank. You have no STC. Out of nowhere appears an FAA guy. Ramp inspection.

Inspector: I see you have no tank labels for this fuel

You: Oh I forgot to put them on (Violation)

or;

You: Oh, I have the STC

Inspector: Show me your flight manual supplement (Violation)

You: Oh, I forgot to put it in

Inspector: OK, so if I go to OKC records I will find the 337 right?

You then are looking for a tree to hind behind, but even in a forest, none are big enough

I don't think the FAA wants to create that situation for themselves.

[M20F]

Just now, EricJ said:

I don't think the FAA wants to create that situation for themselves.

Flying since 1988, number of ramp checks thus far is zero. 

[GeeBee]

45 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I don't think the FAA wants to create that situation for themselves.

You never know what event in the news sparks ramp checks. For instance some time back there was an accident where a 135 operator had loss of life due to lack of flotation near a coastal airport. I was ramp checked 3 times that week.

Equally so, last year we had a break in on our airport of a corporate jet. Within weeks TSA was there demanding (and getting) all kinds of changes including cipher controlled electric gates.

Never doubt the power of the red hot poker to a civil service.

 

 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

The TCDS is an interesting tact.

For the F:  Fuel 100LL or 100/130 octane min. grade aviation gasoline

So I guess the STC lists every airplane and model.

Correct.  Every airplane and model is listed on one AML and on a separate AML they list every engine.

General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (gami.com)

Microsoft Word - SA01967WI_AC AML_pages (gami.com)

Microsoft Word - SE01966WI_AML Amd2_pages (gami.com)

Edited September 4, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

When my airplane got its first annual after I bought it my IA discovered a couple missing STCs.   "No problem," he said, and just downloaded them and put them in my records.   It doesnt need to be a big hurdle.   The STC holder can certainly make it an issue if they want to, but it doesn't need to be.

 

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

I don't think the FAA wants to create that situation for themselves.

 

1 hour ago, M20F said:

Flying since 1988, number of ramp checks thus far is zero. 

 

31 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

You never know what event in the news sparks ramp checks.

The FAA Ramp check may be rare but it is really moot.  As EricJ said your AI will discover the missing STC at Annual if you have yellow or green colored fuel.  And if he is working on it and only has G100UL and you don't have the STC he cannot refill your tanks or fuel lines for testing.  This is not a situation for the FAA - it is a situation for Owners and their A&P/AI's.  GAMI has made it so easy to enforce.  First electronic fuel sales - no electronic certification no - no sale.  Second Annuals - no STC then not Airworthy if full of or comingled with G100UL and the color is easy to identify.

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

Mostly what I have thought is how much a group of pilots can leap to conclusions in 72hrs of a one paragraph press release. 

72 hours?....Ummm where have you and this other "group of pilots" been for the last year?!  GAMI was awarded the STC July 28, 2021. It was the headline story at AirVentrue 2021.

All they have done is add more (the high performance engines) engines and planes to the AML list on the STC.  Onwers, like Rumpelstiltskin, have just woken up from their 20 year “oh they will never ban 100LL” sleep and realized that G100UL is coming faster than they thought. - that both local regulations, federal regulations and just plain market forces will drive 100LL out faster than they thought.  

No-Lead Avgas Steals the Show: AirVenture Oshkosh 2021 Review | Piper Owner Society

Avgas Breakthrough: GAMI Gets The STC - Aviation Consumer

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[GeeBee]

So a lot of people here are trying to cheap out for less than a month of hangar rent, risk a violation all because they don’t want to reward someone who has spent 12 years and huge amounts of capital. Do I have that right?

[EricJ]

2 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

So a lot of people here are trying to cheap out for less than a month of hangar rent, risk a violation all because they don’t want to reward someone who has spent 12 years and huge amounts of capital. Do I have that right?

No, you don't.

 

[GeeBee]

Ok, explain your reasoning for saying you don’t have to get an STC for this fuel and it is not because of your TCDS because if that were so, the FAA would not include your engine in the model list

[Fly Boomer]

13 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Nor is an AC regulatory. It is, wait for it …. advisory.

Made me laugh.  Thanks!

[GeeBee]

So if your work does not meet AC 43.13 you are good to go, right?

 

Ask yourself, advisory about what? 

[aviatoreb]

25 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

So a lot of people here are trying to cheap out for less than a month of hangar rent, risk a violation all because they don’t want to reward someone who has spent 12 years and huge amounts of capital. Do I have that right?

Sure seems like that to me.

Meh - it’s the regulatory mechanism they figured out to make it work.  I support that.  I think some people would be happier if they got a “free” stc but the fuel ended an extra 10 cents per gallon.

[EricJ]

36 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Ok, explain your reasoning for saying you don’t have to get an STC for this fuel and it is not because of your TCDS because if that were so, the FAA would not include your engine in the model list

There is a possible route where we may not need one, if the FAA says that G100L is approved as a 100 "octane" or "rating" so that it would be compliant via the TCDS.  It may not even be necessary for them to say that depending on how things get interpreted.   We don't know whether that will happen or not, or what of quite a few other possible outcomes may play out.   We may need an STC, we may not, the STC may be free if we need it, it may not.   Nobody knows yet.

You seem to have completely misunderstood the conversation as also evidenced by your suggestion that "a lot of people here are trying to cheap out".  

[GeeBee]

1 minute ago, EricJ said:

Where did I, or anybody, say we don't need an STC?   There is a possible route where we may not need one, if the FAA says that G100L is approved as a 100 "octane" or "rating" so that it would be compliant via the TCDS.   We don't know whether that will happen or not, or what of quite a few other possible outcomes may play out.

You seem to have completely misunderstood the conversation as also evidenced by your suggestion that "a lot of people here are trying to cheap out".  

But they did not. Nor is their any indication that will be the case in the future. GAMI has enough patents to insure that as well

[EricJ]

Just now, GeeBee said:

But they did not. Nor is their any indication that will be the case in the future. GAMI has enough patents to insure that as well

Where can you buy G100UL?   Where can you buy the STC?   How much does it cost?   It won't be fully known what we need or don't need to do unless and until the fuel is in production and being distributed and in pumps available for sale.   That may be a long time from now.

[1980Mooney]

16 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Where can you buy G100UL?   Where can you buy the STC?   How much does it cost?   It won't be fully known what we need or don't need to do unless and until the fuel is in production and being distributed and in pumps available for sale.   That may be a long time from now.

Or it may be a very short time.  The STC was approved over a year ago.  GAMI secured AvFuel as a distributor last year.  Do you really think that they have been sitting on their hands for the past year and not negotiating with suppliers/blenders?

[Pinecone]

17 hours ago, Will.iam said:

True but i also read an article that when the FAA came down and watched the detonation testing that once G100ul passed, that gami then turned up the boost to find where it would detonate and when they got to 100% full boost there was still no detonation so it’s proven better than 100LL on that test. I’ll see if i can find the article. 

I didn't say that it was an issue, except that it is not Grade 100 aviation fuel for a couple of reasons.

I would like to see that test.

[EricJ]

1 minute ago, 1980Mooney said:

Or it may be a very short time.  The STC was approved over a year ago.  GAMI secured AvFuel as a distributor last year.  Do you really think that they have been sitting on their hands for the past year and not negotiating with suppliers/blenders?

No, I don't, but often things don't move very quickly especially when it involves changing so much operation and infrastructure.   I also do not expect it to be deployed, or accepted, quickly since it will take time to see how it actually behaves in the field in order to get confidence in operation and safety.   Even if distribution started tomorrow, it's not going to be broad for some time.   Even if distribution starts with an STC, it may evolve into something else as acceptance and distribution increases.

I expect at some point, which will be difficult to predict, there will be test deployments that will lead to limited distribution, that may ultimately expand.   This will take some time, and during that time it is possible that other competitors may appear with solutions.    As has been previously mentioned, FBOs are unlikely to maintain multiple piston-fuel pumps, so if another competitor appears (perhaps an industry insider that has fewer barriers to deployment), availability may be regional, where G100UL may appear in some regions, and other, compatible, solutions in other regions.  Will we need a separate STC for each deployed solution?   Will only G100UL need an STC and competing solutions meet the TCDS initially?   If deployments ultimately wind up being regional, people who don't travel far would only need whatever is required for the fuel that is distributed in their region, which may or may not be G100UL.   So nobody can say whether a particular pilot will need an STC for G100UL or not until all of these things, and more, plays out.

If other competing solutions appear it might lead to an unleaded aviation fuel standard comparable to the ASTM leaded fuel standards.   If that happens it could, if it hadn't happened already, lead to reclassification of compatible fuels as compliant to the TCDS requirements.

So, yeah, there are lots of things that could potentially happen, even if G100UL becomes available tomorrow.   Nobody knows, we're all handwaving, but it is certainly not a slam dunk that G100UL is in everybody's future as an STC.

There is potential for things to go very well, or not, and it will be interesting to see how it goes.   I do think we'll ultimately have unleaded fuel for piston GA, which will be wonderful, but we're not there yet, and how we finally get there is not yet clear.    

[Pinecone]

16 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Reading all these posts makes me feel like a yo-yo. I don’t know anything about how this will play out and if we will have to buy an STC, pay a hundred bucks a gallon or argue till we go blind, but I do know this: If a government bureaucracy in charge of aviation safety grants approval to a particular fuel, endorsing the safety of that fuel to the extent of denying access to the previous fuel, and that same government then not only mandates an STC for the consumer of that fuel, but grants a monopoly to the fuel supplier, that government is logically incoherent and morally repugnant. 

They did not approve a specific fuel over all others.  They granted the STC that allows a particular fuel to be used in all piston aircraft.

They did not grant a monopoly, the approved the STC.  You, and anyone else, can do out, develop a fuel, do the testing and also get an STC.   Should the government withhold an STC because nobody else is offering that same thing?  So Rocket cannot put TSIO-520s in K models because they would have a monopoly since no one else does it????

FAA is not denying you access to the previous fuel.  EPA might, but that is a different world.

The STC mandates the STC.  Just like you cannot just installed a TSIO-520 in a Mooney and make your own Rocket.

[Pinecone]

And I have pointed this out, you do not need to be refinery to make G100UL.  You only need a blending tank.  So possibly more sources of this fuel.  Which means competition.

Also, refineries will be happy to see this.  As now, they need to have separate facilities to handle leaded fuel, or do expensive decontamination and testing before using those facilities for unleaded fuels to prevent contamination.  And who do you think pays for those separate facilities or for the cleaning, decontamination, and testing???

[A64Pilot]

Anyone know what the base stock is? Is it 94UL?

Anyone have any idea about what the mix ratio is? by that I mean x gallons of base stock + x gallons of the Gami “stuff”

[GeeBee]

The base stock is the current avgas, with a proprietary blend added.

Adoption will come quickly if the EPA makes their endangerment finding.

 

[Yetti]

28 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

And I have pointed this out, you do not need to be refinery to make G100UL.  You only need a blending tank.  So possibly more sources of this fuel.  Which means competition.

Also, refineries will be happy to see this.  As now, they need to have separate facilities to handle leaded fuel, or do expensive decontamination and testing before using those facilities for unleaded fuels to prevent contamination.  And who do you think pays for those separate facilities or for the cleaning, decontamination, and testing???

so one day we were at a refinery redoing their tank management system.   I told the guy to see if he could find the 100LL storage tanks in the refined products tanks.  Apparently there were two of say 60 tanks.   So it really is just another refined product.  From the refinery point of view I would think they would be the ones to decide if it makes economical sense to change over the tanks from 100LL to this new fuel.   I think you are talking more about the trucks and stuff that deliver it.  They just have dedicated trucks so there is really no cleaning or such.