G100UL - fuel leak

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

So an STC that allows a gross weight increase with no modifications to the airplane is abusing the STC system? Is the STC that allows the removal of the 7th seat from a Cherokee Six so it can be flown under basic med abusing the system?

That is apples to oranges. In the case of a gross weight increase you are physically allowing more weight on the airplane which affects every part of the airframe on every landing. Landing gear, brakes and tires are physically affected. Aerodynamically, take-off and landing numbers are affected.

As far as the Cherokee, you are physically changing the airplane, though requiring an STC to take out one seat may very well be an appropriate definition of “silly”.

[George Braly]

14 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Regulatory answers probably found in FAA/USDOT Directive 8110.4C

I suspect that STC was the most direct avenue for GAMI to pursue outside of PAFI/EAGLE--does anyone know what the end result of PAFI was designed to result in??  (i.e. "minor change by Administrator," STC, a blanket Amended Type Certificate from the FAA, or something else?)

STC issued when a modification is made to an already certified aircraft, essentially approving the change without altering the original type certificate itself.  (Vs. Amended Type Certificate that amends the original).

As previous alternative fuels have used the STC process for fuel change (even in the absence of equipment change) this process has precedent.  The big question is if the FAA rules a sweeping change in fuel spec (when 100LL eliminated) as a major change...or a minor change made by the Administrator??  (see below)

   . . . 

Marc, 

About six months or a year after the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act was passed, with some PAFI related language, a very senior person in the FAA / PAFI  management told me that the FAA had decided that in order to NOT have to do STCs,  the FAA would have to go to "rule making"  and amend the FARs.  That is normally a two year process, or longer.   The FAA management has failed to seriously undertake any effort to do that.  

At various times, the PAFI / EAGLE management has suggested in public statements that the PAFI program would allow the FAA to define a "Fleet Eligibility List" for a new fuel.  Then the owner could have his mechanic  verify that the owner's plane was on that specific "Fleet Eligibility List" and then the owner could order placards from GAMA or some other organization and the mechanic could then sign off a form 337 and send it to OKC and get the placards installed and then the owner of the "fleet eligible" aircraft could legally fly.   

There was never any guarantee that the "Fleet Eligibility List" would include all of the airplanes, or even any specific fraction of the fleet.   The FAA has failed for over six years to provide any definitive "guidance" or to issue a Policy Statement   or to issue an amended ORDER that would implement that "Fleet Eligibility"  process. 

The basic problem with the concept is that it directly conflicts with the regulatory language you cited WRT  "Major changes"  and "Minor Chnages".

Regards,

George  

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

No, I am paying very close attention. Everyone is making the point that you can't transport these chemical compounds unless they are ASTM certified. If you really believe that, then do you think they are going to load 10,000 gallons on a container ship then transport it to a blending facility? If ASTM compliant is indeed a barrier to transport for G100UL then it is for TEL. You all are creating a circular firing squad here.

Secondly, I am old enough to remember the ATC strike in 1981. The government didn't give a flip about GA then (if you tried to get an IFR slot you remember) and they care even less now. 

It's not about paying attention.  It's what would happen, practically speaking, should the present single APPROVED TEL source suddenly dry up.  Piston GA would be completely (all requiring 100LL, anyway) grounded; the government would quickly break its own rules!

Bad analogy with the ATC strike in 1981...I was both old enough and a pilot when that happened.  Piston GA was NOT grounded over it; equating getting an "IFR slot" with the catastrophe that would happen if 100LL suddenly 'went away' is silly.

[GeeBee]

2 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Bad analogy with the ATC strike in 1981...I was both old enough and a pilot when that happened.  Piston GA was NOT grounded over it; equating getting an "IFR slot" with the catastrophe that would happen if 100LL suddenly 'went away' is silly.

Until you could not get a slot.

[MikeOH]

Just now, GeeBee said:

Until you could not get a slot.

Again, the idea that SOMETIMES a flight needing an IFR clearance was unable to fly EXACTLY when they wanted is NOT any where close to an analogous situation with grounding the entire piston GA fleet!  Do you really want to keep debating such a ridiculous comparison??

[GeeBee]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Again, the idea that SOMETIMES a flight needing an IFR clearance was unable to fly EXACTLY when they wanted is NOT any where close to an analogous situation with grounding the entire piston GA fleet!  Do you really want to keep debating such a ridiculous comparison??

Not really. It would make little difference in the outcome of what is coming down the road that you refuse to accept.

[MikeOH]

IMHO, the abuse of the STC system in the G100UL case is that of its UNIVERSAL issuance!  I'd bet that such a blanket approval, without individual testing of ALL engine/airframe combinations is completely unprecedented by the FAA!  Please provide another example if you know of one.

IIRC, there are STCs for Mooneys that only apply to some (e.g. J, K, etc.) but are NOT available to earlier models (E, F) because the manufacturer did not see enough of a market to pay for the needed testing!  Yet GAMI gets a BLANKET approval???

[Justin Schmidt]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

You're missing the point.  IF the current TEL plant shut down tomorrow there is NO WAY the US would not find a way to keep 100LL flowing.  It's patently absurd to think all piston GA requiring 100LL would be grounded as long as TEL was available SOMEWHERE.

Governments in the US along with airlines have been trying for a very long time to get rid of GA short of out right banning

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, GeeBee said:

Not really. It would make little difference in the outcome of what is coming down the road that you refuse to accept.

You're not even making a cogent argument. Of course I "accept" what's coming...thanks to government overreach it will be crammed down my throat whether I like it, or not, and at a much higher cost.  I'm pointing out that 100LL could continue to be supplied indefinitely and is not really at risk of TEL drying up.

More to the point: 100LL should continue to be offered ALONGSIDE whatever unleaded fuel is/becomes approved UNTIL all the downsides are revealed, understood, and compensated for.  With the further advantage that both 100LL and more than ONE unleaded fuel in the market will provide COMPETITION, rather than a de facto government supplied MONOPOLY!  Saying this "Can't be done" because of made-up non-viability of multiple tanks, or trucks, or whatever is just deliberate impediment to a proper transition.  Airports handle Jet-A, 100LL, 94UL and used to provide even more grades.

[MikeOH]

10 minutes ago, Justin Schmidt said:

Governments in the US along with airlines have been trying for a very long time to get rid of GA short of out right banning

Oh, I believe they'd love to get rid of us "hobby" pilots.  The airlines, and the government, have certainly been trying get GA to pay more, but I seriously doubt they wish to ban GA.  That covers emergency medical flights, AG flying, package/cargo, remote access/bush operations, corporate, should I go on?

[Fly Boomer]

7 hours ago, PT20J said:

The Petersen autogas STC varies by engine make/model and is anywhere from less than $100 to more than $300. The Swift 94UL STC is $100. The GAMI G100UL STC is $400 for an M20J.

Does Swift "manufacture" the fuel?  If they are involved in that process with an opportunity for compensation, it makes sense their STC would cost less.  Or, perhaps it costs less just because they have a more limited market.  Or it could be just differing price elasticity calculations.

[T. Peterson]

53 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

You're not even making a cogent argument. Of course I "accept" what's coming...thanks to government overreach it will be crammed down my throat whether I like it, or not, and at a much higher cost.  I'm pointing out that 100LL could continue to be supplied indefinitely and is not really at risk of TEL drying up.

More to the point: 100LL should continue to be offered ALONGSIDE whatever unleaded fuel is/becomes approved UNTIL all the downsides are revealed, understood, and compensated for.  With the further advantage that both 100LL and more than ONE unleaded fuel in the market will provide COMPETITION, rather than a de facto government supplied MONOPOLY!  Saying this "Can't be done" because of made-up non-viability of multiple tanks, or trucks, or whatever is just deliberate impediment to a proper transition.  Airports handle Jet-A, 100LL, 94UL and used to provide even more grades.

Exactly. Well said!!

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Of course I "accept" what's coming

Then why are you wasting keyboard strokes?

[gabez]

23 hours ago, Justin Schmidt said:

Do you have engineering or scientific evidence that the fuel caused your issue?

Are you working with GAMI to research the issue?

Are you working with a lab, and material engineers with the fuel in your tanks?

I do. the paint is peeling off from there the fuel is coming out. 

I am 

it's not my job,  I didn't design the fuel nor commercialized it. This is Gami's job

Edited December 24, 2024 by gabez

[gabez]

9 hours ago, VetRepp said:

I've used the G100UL without any issues, Although this thread has now given me cause for concern. 

The STC was $570, but reimbursed by Airport promotion, so Free

go and look at my mooney, it is spot 02-02 or it is with Terry. 

[Pinecone]

19 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Since it appears there are at least TWO other countries producing TEL, your point is moot; it would just be a paperwork/permit situation that would need to be expedited in order to buy/import into the US.  This TEL 'going away' is just a red-herring to this discussion, anyway.

I thought I read the Chinese plant had shut down.  Never heard of the Russian one.

Have you confirmed at least two?  That make a product of the proper quality?

[T. Peterson]

14 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Then why are you wasting keyboard strokes?

Come on, GeeBee, you are a really smart guy. You certainly have a philosophical disagreement with us, but you know perfectly well what is our point. I also think you know there is validity to it even though you completely disagree. I completely support you in disagreeing. Robust debate is the hallmark of the great American experiment. But neither @MikeOH@ragedracer1977, @redbaron1982or myself are wasting keyboard strokes.

Philosophically defending our privilege of flying against the overreach of government may be just as important to protecting us as is understanding all the technical intricacies of flying machines. Some of us are not going to jump just because the FAA says “Frog”!

[gabez]

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/california-mechanics-tests-show-g100ul-paint-nitrile-o-ring-damage-under-some-circumstances/

 

I passed the video to the team at Gami that is on the email chain with my shop

Edited December 24, 2024 by gabez

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I thought I read the Chinese plant had shut down.  Never heard of the Russian one.

Have you confirmed at least two?  That make a product of the proper quality?

India would be the other.  Somehow they are supplying 100LL to fuel aircraft in the ROW and planes aren't falling out of the sky due to poor quality.

If you want to prove those factories don't exist (and, what 'your heard' or 'never heard') is not quite up to normal standards of proof  I'm not going to give 'em a call and report back just to satisfy you...you'd  just claim the recording was a fake, anyway

[Pinecone]

Thanks for the info.   

Now I remember about India.  But for some reason, they couldn't export TEL.  But that can possibly be fixed.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

Come on, GeeBee, you are a really smart guy. You certainly have a philosophical disagreement with us, but you know perfectly well what is our point. I also think you know there is validity to it even though you completely disagree. I completely support you in disagreeing. Robust debate is the hallmark of the great American experiment. But neither @MikeOH@ragedracer1977, @redbaron1982or myself are wasting keyboard strokes.

Philosophically defending our privilege of flying against the overreach of government may be just as important to protecting us as is understanding all the technical intricacies of flying machines. Some of us are not going to jump just because the FAA says “Frog”!

Because this is not a hill to die on.  There are much bigger issues and this one has a direct path to it. That is closure of airports. Nothing else matters because once they close your airport, it's over. If they close a lot of airports, it is all over. The leading reason to close GA airports right now is lead pollution. We have to remove this issue if we are to survive and these inter-nicene battles will deliver us to our enemies hands. I understand your concern about "over-reach" but on the issue of lead in fuel  it is an insurmountable issue with the public that we cannot overcome no matter the data. Lead scares the h-e-double hockey sticks out of parents and when you start messing with the parent/child protectorate  you are talking about the most powerful bond in the universe (ask the Democrats in VA).   That is why I am cheer leading anyone who can solve the problem and we may have to accept some less than elegant solutions including resealing our tanks, changing seals, tubes and o-rings as well as paint protectants. We need lead behind us, and we need to do it fast if we are to survive.  

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Because this is not a hill to die on.  There are much bigger issues and this one has a direct path to it. That is closure of airports. Nothing else matters because once they close your airport, it's over. If they close a lot of airports, it is all over. The leading reason to close GA airports right now is lead pollution. We have to remove this issue if we are to survive and these inter-nicene battles will deliver us to our enemies hands. I understand your concern about "over-reach" but on the issue of lead in fuel  it is an insurmountable issue with the public that we cannot overcome no matter the data. Lead scares the h-e-double hockey sticks out of parents and when you start messing with the parent/child protectorate  you are talking about the most powerful bond in the universe (ask the Democrats in VA).   That is why I am cheer leading anyone who can solve the problem and we may have to accept some less than elegant solutions including resealing our tanks, changing seals, tubes and o-rings as well as paint protectants. We need lead behind us, and we need to do it fast if we are to survive.  

While this post is your best argument yet, my response is, "so, what hill is worth dying on"?  Time after time, issue after issue, we hear that phrase..."taking the hill" is never easy, but to cave on some kind of Neville Chamberlain approach is just untenable to people like me.  The foes will NOT stop trying to shut down GA regardless of how this 'lead ban' turns out.

Rather than cave, I advocate pushing back.  If the downsides shown in that video are widespread then I'd say that is pretty solid justification for pulling the blanket STC; would similar downsides be so ignored for any other modification?

Having a 'commercially available' unleaded fuel is more than merely running an engine properly (which, IMHO, is also not proven as there are possible valve issues) damage to the rest of the airframe is critical, as well.

I am NOT against unleaded fuel.  I believe that demanding a truly 'drop in' substitute should not be an unreasonable pre-requisite before BANNING leaded fuel.

[Shiroyuki]

Honestly, this whole drama just makes me sad.

my previous airplane, a piper tomahawk, with a small O235 engine was riddled with lead deposit issue.y mechanic says those small engines doesn’t run hot enough and lead scavenger doesn’t get to work. For the 700 hours I owned it, there’s always lead deposit on the exhaust valve causing leaks. Compression was in the mid 60s. I used TCP additive religiously and lean the plane as much as I could in cruise (though not in climb and now I’m aware that I should), those deposits does gets better but never goes away.

beside that, the occasional spillage of 100LL onto my hand makes me worry from time to time.

I absolutely hated lead in the fuel, and can’t wait to have a hassle free drop in replacement for 100LL, and G100UL was the light of hope that’s almost here.

But now with these issues, especially that video made by Luvara, clearly demonstrated G100UL have a lot of compatibility issues. Now we have to pay the bill to swap out all the components incompatible with G100UL, or wait another who know how many years for swift or PAFI.

what doesn’t help is how GAMI keeps saying their fuel has no issue… while they likely know G100UL have these issues..

[GeeBee]

43 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

While this post is your best argument yet, my response is, "so, what hill is worth dying on"?  Time after time, issue after issue, we hear that phrase..."taking the hill" is never easy, but to cave on some kind of Neville Chamberlain approach is just untenable to people like me.  The foes will NOT stop trying to shut down GA regardless of how this 'lead ban' turns out.

Rather than cave, I advocate pushing back.  If the downsides shown in that video are widespread then I'd say that is pretty solid justification for pulling the blanket STC; would similar downsides be so ignored for any other modification?

Having a 'commercially available' unleaded fuel is more than merely running an engine properly (which, IMHO, is also not proven as there are possible valve issues) damage to the rest of the airframe is critical, as well.

I am NOT against unleaded fuel.  I believe that demanding a truly 'drop in' substitute should not be an unreasonable pre-requisite before BANNING leaded fuel.

Again, you are concentrating on the doughnut hole, rather than the doughnut. It is the reason why Constantinople is now called Istanbul. Fight, but choose your fight carefully and more important, strategically.

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Again, you are concentrating on the doughnut hole, rather than the doughnut. It is the reason why Constantinople is now called Istanbul. Fight, but choose your fight carefully and more important, strategically.

Ah, so we should 'give up' because we are being attacked by Mehmed II.