G100UL - fuel leak

[ragedracer1977]

6 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I contacted Scott Dyer and am posting the following with his permission.

"

The Consent Decree states as initially put into effect in 2014, that the Settling Defendants (e.g., the distributors and the FBOs) could still sell avgas with lead content of not more than 0.56g/l. This is the maximum lead content of 100LL.

The Consent Decree, at Section 2.3.1(d), specifically contemplates the Court, on motion, lowering the lead content allowed to be sold:
---------------------------------
At any time after 100VLL or any other lower lead alternative to 100LL Avgas that is
approved for aviation use becomes Commercially Available for the California market, any
Party may file a motion to modify the terms of Section 2.3.1(a) on the basis that either:
. . .
(b) Avgas with a lead concentration at a level of 0.45 is more than 10 percent over the lead concentration level in fuel that is approved for aviation and that is Commercially Available such that the level should be adjusted downward. The Party seeking a modification pursuant to this Section shall provide written notice to all affected Parties and shall meet and confer with all interested parties for a period of not less than 30 days before filing any such motion. The Party bringing a motion to modify this consent judgment shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the concentration limit in Section 2.3.1(a) should be modified pursuant to this Section 2.3.1(d).
-----------------------------------

G100UL as a maximum lead concentration of 0.013g/l (edited to proper value as per George Braly), and the 0.013g/l (edited) lead concentration of G100UL is more than 10% less than the 0.45g/l concentration specified in the Consent Decree. Thus, as a matter of contract given G100UL’s commercial availability, the court is empowered by all the settling parties to reduce the lead concentration of any avgas that may be sold by the settling distributors and the settling FBOs, and the court is giving effect to the parties’ settlement terms from 2014. It's the deal that the distributors and FBOs in the case made 10 years ago, assuming commercial availability.

The court enforcing the terms of the Consent Decree will ultimately be a judgment, I think you are imbuing the term with a meaning it doesn’t have."

 After reading the consent decree, I don’t believe G100UL is ‘commercially available’ per the wording the CEH themselves crafted.

See this snippet about mogas and explain how G100UL is different.

“The Parties acknowledge that certain aircraft that have obtained Supplemental Type Certificates from the FAA are permitted by law to use high octane automotive gasoline that does not contain lead ("Mogas"). Although some aircraft are capable of using Mogas, some are not. As a result, FBOs cannot offer Mogas in lieu of Avgas but only in addition to Avgas.”

 Since 90+% of the fleet is not currently capable of using G100UL, and 100% of piston helicopters would be grounded - how is different from mogas or UL94 in terms of the decree?

i tried to have this question answered on BT, but it was deflected and or I was just being a troll.

 

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Can you cite the SB, please?

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SL270%20Extended%20Maintenance%20Intervals%20for%20%20Engines%20Operated%20on%20Unleaded%20Fuels_0.pdf

 

[Pinecone]

5 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

  Since 90+% of the fleet is not currently capable of using G100UL, and 100% of piston helicopters would be grounded - how is different from mogas or UL94 in terms of the decree?

i tried to have this question answered on BT, but it was deflected and or I was just being a troll.

 

The difference is that many engines CANNOT run MOGAS with or without an STC.

G100UL can be used in ALL piston aircraft with an STC.

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

And, if their factory 'burns down' it's not like how to make TEL is as secret as the formula for Coca-Cola!  Another manufacturer would fill the void.

Unlikely. Certainly not before an entire supply disruption of 100LL would occur. The environmental permits dealing with lead an leaded products is huge. That is why in large part there are only a few battery manufacturers. 

[varlajo]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Then GAMI should sue for slander/libel if there is NO truth to Swift's statements.

Observations by two members are literally evidence in support of Swift's statement )))

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, varlajo said:

Observations by two members are literally evidence in support of Swift's statement )))

Exactly!

[redbaron1982]

4 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

The difference is that many engines CANNOT run MOGAS with or without an STC.

G100UL can be used in ALL piston aircraft with an STC.

As long as your fuel tanks were recently sealed and the paint is brand new, it seems. 

G100UL doesn't seem to behave well with old seals and paint, which otherwise are fine with 100LL. 

[Pinecone]

There is not enough data to determine that.

We have one or two reports on Mooneys.  How many have been flying on G100UL since RHV started pumping it?

[MikeOH]

6 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Unlikely. Certainly not before an entire supply disruption of 100LL would occur. The environmental permits dealing with lead a leaded products is huge. That is why in large part there are only a few battery manufacturers. 

As normal practice, I'd agree 100%.  Thing is, the government, as much as it wants to ban lead, would 'expedite' those environmental permits at pace no one has ever seen should the ability to produce 100LL be endangered by the loss of the ONE TEL factory.  No way the economy would survive the instant grounding of all piston aircraft. There'd be the mother of all exceptions to the permit process

[MikeOH]

14 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SL270%20Extended%20Maintenance%20Intervals%20for%20%20Engines%20Operated%20on%20Unleaded%20Fuels_0.pdf

 

Mark_B beat you to it a couple of hours back

[varlajo]

6 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

There is not enough data to determine that.

We have one or two reports on Mooneys.  How many have been flying on G100UL since RHV started pumping it?

Enough evidence to determine? No, of course not, I never implied that.

[GeeBee]

16 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

As normal practice, I'd agree 100%.  Thing is, the government, as much as it wants to ban lead, would 'expedite' those environmental permits at pace no one has ever seen should the ability to produce 100LL be endangered by the loss of the ONE TEL factory.  No way the economy would survive the instant grounding of all piston aircraft. There'd be the mother of all exceptions to the permit process

TEL is not even produced here.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 minute ago, GeeBee said:

TEL is not even produced here.

I looked it up a while back, I think there are three company’s making TEL. One in Russia, one in China and one in the UK.

[PT20J]

15 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I looked it up a while back, I think there are three company’s making TEL. One in Russia, one in China and one in the UK.

I read somewhere that the one in the UK was the only supplier for avgas. Maybe that was wrong, or maybe on one wants to deal with the other two.

[N201MKTurbo]

24 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I read somewhere that the one in the UK was the only supplier for avgas. Maybe that was wrong, or maybe on one wants to deal with the other two.

It is very hard to find this info. I spent a whole night searching for it. Google is worthless anymore.

[MikeOH]

44 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

TEL is not even produced here.

I realize that.  But, it would be should the UK source dry up...or another country.  One way or another 100LL would get produced.

[MikeOH]

Just now, N201MKTurbo said:

 Google is worthless anymore.

THAT is the truth!

[McMooney]

19 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Good to hear!  I hope it's FEDERAL grant money so that the locals can't shut it down!

Meigs field

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, McMooney said:

Meigs field

UGH!  Yeah, I can see that happening again.  IIRC the fine was a pittance...RHV land developers would just consider that a cost of doing business

[McMooney]

40 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I realize that.  But, it would be should the UK source dry up...or another country.  One way or another 100LL would get produced.

I'd take that bet,  if it made any reasonable sense, they'd already be producing it.  stuff is nasty, would take an act of trump to get a plant cleared

[MikeOH]

Just now, McMooney said:

I'd take that bet,  if it made any reasonable sense, they'd already be producing it.  stuff is nasty, would take an act of trump to get a plant cleared

Which is why, in all likelihood, a plant in another country would just open up.  One way or another, however, the US (regardless of political slant) would not allow the US piston fleet to be grounded over the lack of fuel.

It also sounds like there may well be other TEL plants already in existence...I'd take the bet that, if so, we would suddenly be getting the TEL from them.

[GeeBee]

47 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I realize that.  But, it would be should the UK source dry up...or another country.  One way or another 100LL would get produced.

I think in an age where the average age of the airline’s airplanes have increased by 1.5 years due to supply chain issues for parts, Russia is embargoed, China is on the precipice of inciting a Pacific war that idea is on the order of FBO’s carrying two lines of Avgas. PFF. 

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I think in an age where the average age of the airline’s airplanes have increased by 1.5 years due to supply chain issues for parts, Russia is embargoed, China is on the precipice of inciting a Pacific war that idea is on the order of FBO’s carrying two lines of Avgas. PFF. It

Not sure what logic you're using there (airliner age, Russia, China,...) but you can't possibly believe the US government would allow the entire piston aircraft fleet to be grounded over lack of TEL? PFF. That.

[T. Peterson]

20 hours ago, PT20J said:

The trucks are loaded from the larger storage tanks. 

I get it. You don't want the government to force you to pay more for an environmentally superior product when there is a cheaper alternative. That's OK. A lot of people will agree with you. But we should remember that one role of government is to moderate market forces which if left unchecked will tend to concentrate wealth to the detriment of the greater good. 

I must respectfully disagree. The role of government is not to moderate market forces. The mess we have is precisely because of such notions. The role of government is to punish those who cheat and to ensure a level playing field. Who gets rich and who doesn’t should be of no concern to the government as long as profit was earned honestly. Instead, what we have today is government rewarding those in their favor.

[GeeBee]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

Not sure what logic you're using there (airliner age, Russia, China,...) but you can't possibly believe the US government would allow the entire piston aircraft fleet to be grounded over lack of TEL? PFF. That.

How much of the piston fleet is actually involved in air carrier operations. Very little. We are an ant on the butt of an elephant. 
 

My point about the airlines is even if you fast tracked TEL production getting a plant up and running with all the labor, material and manufacturing shortages it is unlikely anything would happen fast. Look up when the last new refinery was built. A friend of mine cannot find titanium right now at any pricr. All prodois committed. Airlined rigjt now have brand new airplanes sitting around for lack of spares and are pulling old airplanes out of the desert