Kalifornia

[Fly Boomer]

17 hours ago, bonal said:

What I have read indicates that not all piston aircraft will be able to use the fuel.

Crank up your browser.  The STC covers “every spark ignition piston engine and every airframe using a spark ignition piston engine in the FAA’s Type Certificate database.”

https://generalaviationnews.com/2022/09/03/gami-unleaded-fuel-approved-for-all-general-aviation-aircraft/

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Crank up your browser.  The STC covers “every spark ignition piston engine and every airframe using a spark ignition piston engine in the FAA’s Type Certificate database.”

https://generalaviationnews.com/2022/09/03/gami-unleaded-fuel-approved-for-all-general-aviation-aircraft/

I think the lingering questions are not whether the STC covers everything, but whether it is actually a sufficient drop-in substitute.    That won't be known until there is an awful lot more field data.

[wombat]

If the positions were swapped and we were being forced to switch from G100UL to 100LL right now, the whole pilot community would be up in arms, not even counting the TEL's health effects.

Lead fowling in plugs?   100LL is a non-starter!

100LL's performance per volume?   100LL is a non-starter!

Can't use modern oils?   100LL is a non-starter!

 

Sure, G100UL isn't perfect and by switching we are trading some flaws for other flaws. (I don't want my paint stained!)    But overall I think G100UL is a better solution than continuing to use 100LL.  Mostly because of the perception of the health effects of the TEL in airplane exhaust.

 

And we are unlikely to ever have as much data on G100UL as we do on 100LL in terms of engine performance and longevity.   Piston powered aviation has passed its peak; even if we magically switched everybody to G100UL now, there will never be as much avgas burned in the future as there has already been burned.   Unless someone can state a specific testing metric and threshold that would be sufficient that we have not met, and why the current testing is insufficient, I am not going believe any arguments that 'more testing' or 'more time' is needed.   I think this is just resistance to any change.

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/20/the-nirvana-fallacy-an-imperfect-solution-is-often-better-than-no-solution/

[bonal]

 

A California Superior Court judge will hear arguments Jan. 28 that could result in 100LL becoming unavailable in California and replaced by GAMI's G100UL unleaded avgas. The court will also be asked to require the four major fuel distributors serving California airports to carry G100UL. 

The Center for Environmental Health says it's bringing the action because the distributors have not accepted the fuel in contravention to a consent agreement they and 26 FBOs signed to settle a lawsuit with CEH in 2014. Nine of the FBOs have since gone out of business or been bought out. Under that agreement, the defendants agreed to distribute and sell any new fuel that used less lead than 100LL when it became commercially available.

In this latest action, the environmental group says G100UL meets all the requirements for the lower lead fuel described in the consent agreement in that it's approved (via STC) for use in "nearly all" aircraft and has a specification determined by the FAA to be as safe as 100LL for distribution and use. 

CEH also notes that G100UL is being distributed to and sold at two airports in California and the producer of the fuel, Vitol Aviation, has pledged to make the fuel reliably available to any and all aviation fuel sellers in the state. In the action, CEH claims the defendants have recently come up with numerous excuses to justify not handling the fuel, none of which are valid under the consent agreement.

CEH has upped the ante by also asking the court to vary the consent agreement to compel the FBOs to sell only aviation gasoline that has the same negligible levels of lead or less than G100UL. That would effectively ban the sale of 100LL by any of the distributors or their FBOs and make G100UL the only saleable high-octane avgas available at those FBOs, at least until another one meets the consent agreement conditions.

 

Posted on Avweb today  looks like they are pushing the end game.  I guess most will see this as a positive.  since we mostly fly to smaller uncontrolled airports including home I just hope there isn’t any interruptions in av gas availability at our smaller fields.  The company that supplies home is literally just down the road from the airport and as far as I know they make the LL blend themselves but most likely mistaken about that cause I usually get those kind of assumptions wrong (ha ha).  I expect to get the STC at some point but would be nice if things would just settle down with the other brands developing their product.  What would happen if I landed and the only fuel available was the G100 and I took on fuel without the STC.  I’m not asking because I want to cheat GAMI out of deserving royalties but would there be any penalty for this action 

[EricJ]

Having the government force-pick a winner is never a good idea.   GAMI seems desparate here, I suspect because they feel they won't win otherwise.

[MikeOH]

30 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Having the government force-pick a winner is never a good idea.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

But, it is Kalifornia where freedom is antithetical to the government's need to tell you how to live  Not sure why I keep living here?

[GeeBee]

5 hours ago, MikeOH said:

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

But, it is Kalifornia where freedom is antithetical to the government's need to tell you how to live  Not sure why I keep living here?

I fixed that in 1990 and never looked back. What scared me out of CA is the fact that the public employees pensions system is light anywhere from 100 to 500 billion dollars (low and high number, no one really knows) and if it comes up light taxpayers have to make up the difference because the state constitution prohibits reduction in benefits.

 

[GeeBee]

17 hours ago, EricJ said:

Having the government force-pick a winner is never a good idea.   GAMI seems desparate here, I suspect because they feel they won't win otherwise.

Government picks winners all the time. It is called patent law. It is written direct and to the point into the Constitution of the United States. GAMI has the patents, and nobody else can figure a way a way around those patents. Time to pay the man for his inovation.

 

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Government picks winners all the time. It is called patent law. It is written direct and to the point into the Constitution of the United States. GAMI has the patents, and nobody else can figure a way a way around those patents. Time to pay the man for his inovation.

I'm very familiar with patents.   Our patent lawyers used to say, "It's not a patent until a judge says it's a patent."  Patents have to be defended when challenged, and claims and entire patents get invalidated all the time.

A patent just teaches one way to do something.   If there are other ways, aka 'workarounds' that don't infringe, then those are legit and completely protectable and marketable.

Patents are also public, so the other players can know what's there and what they need to workaround if they want to.   This is pretty common, although there are other strategies as well to avoid contamination of research.

And the government doesn't pick winners via patents, the government just grants patent applications if the material isn't already patented (that's all the patent office does, check that there isn't prior protected art and a very low threshold of "obviousness").

Patents don't stifle competition, they just protect a particular way to do something.   They don't pick winners by a long shot.   VHS and Beta were both patented.

 

[AJ88V]

On 10/31/2024 at 7:11 AM, Z W said:

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.

First off, hats off to GAMI who at least developed a reasonable (and well tested) alternative.  For that I'm grateful. 

It would be nice if Kalifornica would let us aircraft owners take a deduction for the cost of the STC off our taxes, since they are requiring it and, from a practical sense, there is little-to-no benefit to the user.  Ahhh, the Feds didn't do that for ADS-B either, but at least with ADS-B-In we got a hugely valuable service.

[GeeBee]

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

I'm very familiar with patents.   Our patent lawyers used to say, "It's not a patent until a judge says it's a patent."  Patents have to be defended when challenged, and claims and entire patents get invalidated all the time.

A patent just teaches one way to do something.   If there are other ways, aka 'workarounds' that don't infringe, then those are legit and completely protectable and marketable.

Patents are also public, so the other players can know what's there and what they need to workaround if they want to.   This is pretty common, although there are other strategies as well to avoid contamination of research.

And the government doesn't pick winners via patents, the government just grants patent applications if the material isn't already patented (that's all the patent office does, check that there isn't prior protected art and a very low threshold of "obviousness").

Patents don't stifle competition, they just protect a particular way to do something.   They don't pick winners by a long shot.   VHS and Beta were both patented.

 

Well has someone came up with a way around or a different way to produce universal 100/130 other than GAMI...even with the public knowledge?

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Well has someone came up with a way around or a different way to produce universal 100/130 other than GAMI...even with the public knowledge?

VP and Swift both have candidates headed toward ASTM.    I suspect GAMI's actions in CA are just trying to get ahead of that.   It's not an unusual strategy, especially if there isn't confidence they'd be able to compete otherwise.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

VP and Swift both have candidates headed toward ASTM.    I suspect GAMI's actions in CA are just trying to get ahead of that.   It's not an unusual strategy, especially if there isn't confidence they'd be able to compete otherwise.

Well as the old saying goes, "I'll believe it when It is parked on the ramp with the white, not pink registration visible.".

[EricJ]

24 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Well as the old saying goes, "I'll believe it when It is parked on the ramp with the white, not pink registration visible.".

It was just answering your question of whether there are alternatives to GAMI's fuel considering the presence of a patent.   I've not heard any mention of either of the mentioned players seeking a license from GAMI, which suggests that they may think they don't need one.   Previously published deep-dive discussions suggest that they're both taking approaches different to GAMI's, perhaps to avoid material compatability issues or to address other concerns, or for whatever reason.    Both have far more experience formulating and distributing fuel than GAMI does, so I'd guess that they know their way around the issues.

[GeeBee]

Time will tell, but so far VP has suggested theirs will not be able to perform without engine hp downgrades. Swift ASTM balloted their fuel in August 24 and came up empty. So far only STC available like G100UL and only for 172s unlike G100UL which is fleet wide STC. So far there is only one fuel with a fleet wide acceptance without any change in engine certification. I'm not seeing it all as rosy as some of you because so far, no one has delivered except GAMI. IOW it is out on the ramp with the white registration in it.