Kalifornia

[MooneyMitch]

I apologize if someone already posted this. 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/california-lead-ban/

 

Don't forget, we are the national trend setter......................

[NickG]

As the State with the highest GDP in the Country (in fact would be the world's 5th largest economy if it were its own country) this is the sort of thing that will spur action nationally. Maybe we will see some accepted UL standard alignment amongst the engine manufacturers, Aircraft manufacturers and the FAA and finally a new, universally approved UL fuel for everyone.

Of course, then the NIMBY'S will have to find another excuse to shut down our GA airports... maybe we'll just come back to noise?

 

[dkkim73]

2 minutes ago, NickG said:

As the State with the highest GDP in the Country (in fact would be the world's 5th largest economy if it were its own country) this is the sort of thing that will spur action nationally.

I wonder how proportionate the distribution of GA is to CA, by either population, land area, or GDP. It might be another spur to out-migration of those who can still afford GA electively. The same people who can afford to leave and leave due to large total tax burden, etc. 

In terms of "working GA", I do sincerely wonder what they'll do... The elites will mostly be burning Jet A and probably don't give a rip, or can pay the nuisance taxes. Though the other NIMBY factors will continue to nip at their heels (noise as you say). 

 

[NickG]

I've always heard that Florida has the most GA?

[toto]

48 minutes ago, NickG said:

I've always heard that Florida has the most GA?

I suspect that Alaska has the highest GA participation per capita

[McMooney]

you know after 50 years of this being on the horizon, It's time. 

good for california

[Hank]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

I wonder how proportionate the distribution of GA is to CA, by either population, land area, or GDP. It might be another spur to out-migration of those who can still afford GA electively. The same people who can afford to leave and leave due to large total tax burden, etc. 

In terms of "working GA", I do sincerely wonder what they'll do... The elites will mostly be burning Jet A and probably don't give a rip, or can pay the nuisance taxes. Though the other NIMBY factors will continue to nip at their heels (noise as you say). 

I would suspect that there is significant crop dusting and other aerial crop & farming work in Kalifornia . . . Some will be burning kerosene, but likely not all.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out between the State, and the Federal Government which claims overriding authority on all matters aviation. 

[MooneyMitch]

Drone dusting seems to be moving forward rapidly.  Hmmm.  More power Scotty!!!!

[Joshua Blackh4t]

The End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative has been given until 2030 to come up with a drop-in replacement fuel that completely satisfies the fuel requirements for piston aircraft.

So .... if they can't find one, then what? How much funding do they have? Does the group work with Lycoming, continental, gami?

It sounds like an initiative to simply try to regulate the potentially impossible.

 

[GeeBee]

End the Eagle program. Give half the money it would have consumed to GAMI for universal public access to the G100UL STC. End of problem, less money, less meetings, less problems. 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Joshua Blackh4t said:

The End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative has been given until 2030 to come up with a drop-in replacement fuel that completely satisfies the fuel requirements for piston aircraft.

So .... if they can't find one, then what? How much funding do they have? Does the group work with Lycoming, continental, gami?

It sounds like an initiative to simply try to regulate the potentially impossible.

 

We may not be as accustomed to it here but, in most of the world, goods or services that can't be traded easily in the "official" economy still get traded in an ad hoc "unofficial" economy.  I wouldn't be surprised to see avgas being transported in the back of pickup trucks in 50-gallon drums until the forces opposed to G100UL are told to take a seat and STFU.  Some guy on BT has already posted the availability of drums of 100UL.  It's not a very economical way to buy it, but if it is the only way to fly, some will do it.

[bonal]

SB 1193 states that the ban will begin Jan first 2026 for “disadvantaged” communities and 2028 for “urban growth” communities.  And these definitions can be very subjective.  Once again we are forcing with mandates before the solution is completely ready for prime time.  2026 that’s less than two years from now.  I have spent my entire life in California and have seen so many regulations forced upon us by the air resources board.  It started many years ago with spare the air days making it illegal to have a fire in your fire place when they decided it was a bad day and not just in the summer but on winter days when the air was just fine.  Recommend no BBQ no operation of gas tools and as of last year many gas powered tools are now banned.  New homes for the most part must be all electric and if any of you haven’t experienced the cost of E service in CA you would be floored.  Be VERY careful what you wish for because these restrictions will be coming soon to your state especially if a certain former Cali senator becomes our next president.  Don’t believe a word she says.  I have lived it.  I can remember when the California summer blends came out for auto gas and quite a few retailers just stopped selling in the state.  Can’t remember the last time I saw a Texaco or union 76 or BP chevron is checking out and moving to Texas.  If the unleaded is still not ready we might not have any suppliers willing to sell in this state.  Yes unleaded worked well for auto and other vehicles but not until manufacturers updated their engines.  Just think of the log jam if all our cylinders have to be modified or replaced with hardened seats.  Just saying be careful what you wish for.

[GeeBee]

8 hours ago, bonal said:

SB 1193 states that the ban will begin Jan first 2026 for “disadvantaged” communities and 2028 for “urban growth” communities.  And these definitions can be very subjective.  Once again we are forcing with mandates before the solution is completely ready for prime time.  2026 that’s less than two years from now.  I have spent my entire life in California and have seen so many regulations forced upon us by the air resources board.  It started many years ago with spare the air days making it illegal to have a fire in your fire place when they decided it was a bad day and not just in the summer but on winter days when the air was just fine.  Recommend no BBQ no operation of gas tools and as of last year many gas powered tools are now banned.  New homes for the most part must be all electric and if any of you haven’t experienced the cost of E service in CA you would be floored.  Be VERY careful what you wish for because these restrictions will be coming soon to your state especially if a certain former Cali senator becomes our next president.  Don’t believe a word she says.  I have lived it.  I can remember when the California summer blends came out for auto gas and quite a few retailers just stopped selling in the state.  Can’t remember the last time I saw a Texaco or union 76 or BP chevron is checking out and moving to Texas.  If the unleaded is still not ready we might not have any suppliers willing to sell in this state.  Yes unleaded worked well for auto and other vehicles but not until manufacturers updated their engines.  Just think of the log jam if all our cylinders have to be modified or replaced with hardened seats.  Just saying be careful what you wish for.

One of the many reasons I left in 1990 after 40 years.

 

[Shadrach]

It’s going to pass. They have a veto proof 2/3rds majority. Vetoing it would be a useless protest vote with no political benefit to the governor (which is always his top priority). I lived in CA for many years and return annually to play in the mountains. I love the state but recognized early on that there were better alternatives for me. I think this will suck for Californians but their pain will benefit the rest of the country. There is currently no economic incentive to switch to a the only available alternative (G100UL). I have no faith that the EAGLE initiative will produce a solution in the next 6 years.  So California airports will likely have one option in the forseable future and that is to offer G100UL at existing pumps. California pilots will have to get the STC or tanker fuel from surrounding states, a hassle and expense that only a devoted ideologue would pursue.

So Californians will be early adopters by mandate. The rest of the country will see some economy from  that early adoption.

What’s interesting is that I have not seen much in the way of data that shows the damage from 100LL. We all know lead is bad to ingest but in terms of aeroengine exhaust, I’ve seen very little to suggest it’s causing a problem.

California pilots bought 12,382,902 gallons 100LL in 2023. That represents ~54,600lbs of lead disbursed into the atmosphere. Reads like a lot but it works out to .41 grams a day per square mile. That would likely amount to a rounding error in the days of leaded auto fuel. Furthermore, it’s also the lowest volume of Avgas sold in CA in the last 10 years which I’d bet is lower than the previous 10.

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

What’s interesting is that I have not seen much in the way of data that shows the damage from 100LL. We all know lead is bad to ingest but in terms of aeroengine exhaust, I’ve seen very little to suggest it’s causing a problem.

No one needs data anymore, that only comes from useless, overpriced studies that no one understands except maybe the authors. Avgas contains lead, and that's bad for the children, so it must go away!

Lead, plastic bags, (functional) plastic straws, even cars that burn gasoline--all must go away, so that everyone suffers the same inconveniences. If it's pleasant, fun or useful, it must be replaced with "stuff" that will only be invented under pressure, and brought hurriedly to market without useless studies that shows that the new alternatives work at all, or that they are any better for the environment, the children or the economy.

[bonal]

So SB 1193 was signed into law I looked for any revisions and did not see any changes nor did I see the accelerated timeline starting in 2026 for disadvantaged communities what ever the f that will mean so I’m not sure of the actual timeline.  In my search I discovered SB1505 which establishes a state aircraft registration fee which will have an initiation and subsequent annual fee to be established by the CA DMV.  the fee will be to pay for setting up the program so we will have to pay the state for the privilege of being charged a new fee plus, and get this a fee to be used to combat detrimental environmental impacts of aircraft emissions.  Remember in November how California leads the rest of the country especially as it pertains to environmental issues.  Government is such a wonderful thing.

just saying 

[UteM20F]

On Beechtalk, they are claiming that a semi load of G100UL was shipped to Reid Hillview (RHV) and that it will go on sale today.  I hope its true.  The aircraft owners out there need this option.

[bonal]

53 minutes ago, UteM20F said:

On Beechtalk, they are claiming that a semi load of G100UL was shipped to Reid Hillview (RHV) and that it will go on sale today.  I hope its true.  The aircraft owners out there need this option.

That could be good news provided the airplane you need to fuel is permitted to do so.  Engine and airframe manufacturers have stated warranty will be voided and of course the STC issues will have to be resolved.  I guess it’s better than no fuel available but as I have stated before, our government is forcing a solution before it’s ready for general consumption.  Personally I don’t think our current fuel is a problem but that’s just my opinion.  When it becomes readily available  and I think my o360 is an engine that can run it then that will be that. But there is going to be a period of uncertainty about how it affects our engines long term that we still don’t know.  

[Pinecone]

How many Mooneys are still under warranty?  Or any GA piston aircraft?

And since the FAA approved the fuel, it would be interesting to see how the manufacturer voids the warranty without data showing that the failure is due to the fuel.

What STC issues?  There is no way for the FAA to waive a magic wand and make it legal without an STC.  You need to do an STC to modify the requirements in the TDCS.

[wombat]

23 hours ago, bonal said:

Engine and airframe manufacturers have stated warranty will be voided

This is close, but not completely accurate.    They have said that their warranty will not cover damage CAUSED BY the use of G100 fuel.     The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is clear that companies can't void your warranty or deny warranty coverage solely because you use a part made by another company or because you get repairs done or other services from someone not associated with the company. (Unless the company provides the part of service for free under their warranty).    This was litigated and then settled in 2022.   https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2022/07/ftc-says-companies-warranty-restrictions-were-illegal

 

 

From Lycoming directly:   "Lycoming’s Limited Warranty does not cover damage caused by operation outside of Lycoming’s published specifications or the use of non-approved fuels or lubricants."   

You can choose to run this fuel if you want to but if this fuel causes damage the damage is on you.     GAMI says it won't cause damage. (Naturally they say that!).

This is IMO pretty standard.   You can use your laptop as a plate to eat lunch off of, but if doing so causes damage to the laptop, that damage will not be covered by warranty.  But even if you do eat your lunch off of it if the manufacturer installed bad components and those fail they are still obligated to honor the warranty they provided. 

 

One tough part as a consumer is knowing that they all have a legal team and a strong motivation to avoid paying out on a warranty claim.  At most you are likely to get the cost of a repair, but if they pay out a warranty claim, there are likely hundreds or thousands of other claims they are much more likely to have to pay.   So even if the individual claim is a net loss to them (e.g. they paid $250,000 to defend successfully against a $25,000 repair) they will have a net positive by not having to perform another 9 repairs.  And determining the cause of engine damage can be tricky.   Did it get run outside of manufacturer's guidance?  Too hot?  Did you overspeed it?   Why did the cam spall?    Really hard to tell.

 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/reid-hillview-airport-launching-sales-of-g100ul/ 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/lycoming-clarifies-g100ul-warranty-impact/ 

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/june/19/cirrus-advises-g100ul-use-may-void-warranties  (Or more directly:  http://servicecenters.cirrusdesign.com/tech_pubs/SR2X/pdf/SA/AllAdvisories/2024ServiceAdvisories/SA24-14/SA24-14.pdf)

 

 

Also very interesting to note:

(From an email list with my co-workers) Michael S. wrote:   There's a decade-old consent decree where a number of California FBOs settled a lawsuit by saying that they will sell the lowest-lead avgas that is "commercially available". As long as 100LL was the only option, that was a no-op. There's later litigation about whether G100UL being available for sale at the refinery makes it "commercially available". Braly says that if RHV sells some to pilots tomorrow, as they intend, that pretty clearly meets the standard. This is overreaching in my opinion, since the settlement defines "Commercially Available" as being available "on a consistent and sustained basis at prices and on terms, in quantities and at times sufficient to meet demands of the customers of that Settling Defendant in California". But you can see where things are moving here. If G100UL is "Commercially Available", then the settling parties have 90 days to start distributing it.

Check the actual settlement for details; there's a lot of confusion about it, probably some in bad faith.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/judgments/2012-00204J2440.pdf 
 

[bonal]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

How many Mooneys are still under warranty?  Or any GA piston aircraft?

And since the FAA approved the fuel, it would be interesting to see how the manufacturer voids the warranty without data showing that the failure is due to the fuel.

What STC issues?  There is no way for the FAA to waive a magic wand and make it legal without an STC.  You need to do an STC to modify the requirements in the TDCS.

I was simply posing this as a question because I don’t know all the answers to this issue. I have been reading all that I can find about this as IMO it’s kind of important and can have a real impact on our ability to fly.  If I am going to be required to obtain an STC to use UL is it poweplant or airframe, I don’t know.  What I have read indicates that not all piston aircraft will be able to use the fuel.  I think the o360 in my D will be ok but I don’t know that for certain.  Granted, there has been and are still tests being done but the valve recession issue is still not resolved.  I’m not looking forward to beta testing how my particular engine is going to handle the unleaded gas.  How many different cylinder and valve manufacturers are there. Best case nothing negative happens medium case I have to replace my cylinders all four plus labor well that’s at least 10AMU’s worst case my engine fails in flight and am forced into an off field landing. I know the prospects for the fuel look good but I don’t think my concerns are unreasonable.  How many actual flight hours using the UL have been logged.  I hope the new fuels will be successful because it will take away one item that the anti aviation politics can use to restrict our ability to fly.  As I am from California there are many that would love nothing more than to ban GA completely our Air resources board has an almost unchecked authority to make policy.  

[MikeOH]

@bonal

I think you raise very valid points.  Sadly, while UL fuel will take away 'one item' it will only be a small bump in the road for the faction that wants to chase GA out of existence.  And, to your last sentence, you should see the Taj Mahal the SCAQMD built for themselves a few miles from my house; I retch at the money spent on it and the hundreds of minions that swarm its halls exercising their unchecked authority.

[Pinecone]

5 hours ago, bonal said:

I was simply posing this as a question because I don’t know all the answers to this issue. I have been reading all that I can find about this as IMO it’s kind of important and can have a real impact on our ability to fly.  If I am going to be required to obtain an STC to use UL is it poweplant or airframe, I don’t know.  What I have read indicates that not all piston aircraft will be able to use the fuel.  I think the o360 in my D will be ok but I don’t know that for certain.  Granted, there has been and are still tests being done but the valve recession issue is still not resolved.  I’m not looking forward to beta testing how my particular engine is going to handle the unleaded gas.  How many different cylinder and valve manufacturers are there. Best case nothing negative happens medium case I have to replace my cylinders all four plus labor well that’s at least 10AMU’s worst case my engine fails in flight and am forced into an off field landing. I know the prospects for the fuel look good but I don’t think my concerns are unreasonable.  How many actual flight hours using the UL have been logged.  I hope the new fuels will be successful because it will take away one item that the anti aviation politics can use to restrict our ability to fly.  As I am from California there are many that would love nothing more than to ban GA completely our Air resources board has an almost unchecked authority to make policy.  

G100UL STC is for both the engine and the airframe.  It two parts.   It is approved for ALL piston aircraft engines and ALL fixed wing airframes.  Helicopters are not yet approved.  They were supposed to be over the past summer, but as usual, some paperwork/bureaucracy issues slowed things down.

Some of the potential competing products may not work in all aircraft/engines.

Valve recession was with Swift UL94, NOT GAMI G100UL.   GAMI did some testing of some theories and were able to duplicate a similar issue with 94 octane fuel.  UND was running their engines at around 75% at peak EGT, so about the worse operating for your engine.

GAMI has done a LOT of testing in aircraft and their test stand.  Lots of different engines.  Over many years of flying.   You are not a beta tester.  

[bonal]

The beta tester was just a joke, jeez. So as i have never had to purchase an STC how does one go about it.  As for the other concerns i guess time will tell as real world conditions may not be the same as has been found with the limited conditions and hours  accumulated by GAMI and the AOPA Beech twin.  Also i have bladders and im not convinced the fuel isn’t detrimental to their health based on what happened to the beech twins tank.  There was definitely an issue with the 94UL was that because of the lower octane or the lack of cushioning on the seats. Those were real concerns when the unleaded gas rolled out years ago to keep the catalytic converters on our autos from failing.  Again I'm not trying to argue I'm just trying to get the truth and facts.  We spend countless hours discussing all things related to the safe operation and maintenance of all aviation so please don't miss understand my concern. As for GAMI testing how many hours how many years compared to the millions that are flown in real life aviation.  I wish I shared your confidence call me skeptical I’m ok with that. 

Edited October 31 by bonal

[Z W]

You can go to www.g100ul.com, input your airframe and engine information, input your credit card information, click a button, and download your STC to use unleaded fuel.  It takes just a few minutes and costs $450.00 for a Mooney.

@bonal all of your concerns have been discussed at great length in threads on Beechtalk.com, with active participation by the owners of GAMI.  There are videos on Youtube of them addressing them at forums at Oshkosh as well.  I have followed along for years now and do not have any concerns about the new fuel.  Your opinion may vary.