Based on the G100UL fuel leak thread what's your position?

[Ryan ORL]

What even is the point of the debate on who is enforcing the STC?  It's obvious that it's nobody...

Who is enforcing that you aren't doing all your own maintenance without an A&P?

Who is enforcing that you don't install unapproved minor mods?

Who is enforcing that you are actually current?

Who is even enforcing that you have a pilot certificate?  In 20 years of flying I have never been ramp checked by an FAA inspector.  The only person who has even looked at my pilot certificate is US Customs when coming back from Canada/Bahamas.  So if I was only flying domestically I likely would still not be asked.

Obviously the vast majority of aviation is on the honor system.  STCs, maintenance paperwork, currency records, etc.

[T. Peterson]

8 minutes ago, Ryan ORL said:

What even is the point of the debate on who is enforcing the STC?  It's obvious that it's nobody...

Who is enforcing that you aren't doing all your own maintenance without an A&P?

Who is enforcing that you don't install unapproved minor mods?

Who is enforcing that you are actually current?

Who is even enforcing that you have a pilot certificate?  In 20 years of flying I have never been ramp checked by an FAA inspector.  The only person who has even looked at my pilot certificate is US Customs when coming back from Canada/Bahamas.  So if I was only flying domestically I likely would still not be asked.

Obviously the vast majority of aviation is on the honor system.  STCs, maintenance paperwork, currency records, etc.

I don’t think it was a debate, just a question. But your point stands.  I don’t think anyone would argue with you.

[George Braly]

I think, sometime in the 1990s,  the Congress made it a federal criminal offense to use an STC without the required permission of the owner of the STC.    But I have not gone back and verified that in 15 years or so.   My memory may be fooling me.   That happened because of complaints that people were just doing xerox copies of their neighbor's STCs. 

 

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Yes, the insurance company has a duty to defend you from civil liability. Administrative or criminal charges, not so much. Guess which one the FAA will bring? Care to buy a vowel?

You crack me up!  I'm sure in your world there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Part 91 pilots locked up for missing STC paperwork.  Real world, nope.

[donkaye]

56 minutes ago, George Braly said:

I think, sometime in the 1990s,  the Congress made it a federal criminal offense to use an STC without the required permission of the owner of the STC.    But I have not gone back and verified that in 15 years or so.   My memory may be fooling me.   That happened because of complaints that people were just doing xerox copies of their neighbor's STCs. 

 

KRHV has a form that needs to be filled out before they will fill with G100UL.  Either have the sticker on the wing or show your copy of the STC.  I have it on my iPad, but haven't needed it because of the wing sticker.

[GeeBee]

The problem becomes more acute when G100UL becomes ubiquitous enough to be self-serve. The whole idea of self serve is to reduce fuel exhaustion accidents.

[gabez]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The problem becomes more acute when G100UL becomes ubiquitous enough to be self-serve. The whole idea of self serve is to reduce fuel exhaustion accidents.

KWVI is self serve, anybody can put G100UL...mind they don't care about their paint

[Justin Schmidt]

13 minutes ago, gabez said:

KWVI is self serve, anybody can put G100UL...mind they don't care about their paint

Really looks like you used stripper to try and get a free tank reseal and/or paint job. Looks too contained 

[Paul Thomas]

Is G100UL currently being subsidized? If not, should we expect price to drop once critical mass is reached?

I've read that GAMI's only source of income from G100UL is from the STC. Is that accurate? Will that continue? If others fail and 100LL goes away, GAMI could demand a royalty of  $3 per gallon.

I'm not saying GAMI should make a royalty, I'm just wondering about the future economics. GAMI may just have us over a barrel...

[gabez]

7 minutes ago, Justin Schmidt said:

Really looks like you used stripper to try and get a free tank reseal and/or paint job. Looks too contained 

yep...exactly....same with the other planes...fly to KWVI and put some G100UL into your tank see what happens. 

Accusing me of insurance fraud is defamation so I would be careful what you write 

Edited Sunday at 04:46 PM by gabez

[Justin Schmidt]

4 minutes ago, gabez said:

yep...exactly....same with the other planes...fly to KWVI and put some G100UL into your tank see what happens. 

Accusing me of insurance fraud is defamation so I would be careful what you write 

Oh and accusations against a company without any proof, which IS seriously compromising their integrity in the court of public opinion because you are not being an adult about it is not libel? Funny how hypocrisy works.

If I were GAMI I would already be talking to a lawyer and force a spectrograph.

Your behavior of personal and company attacks is not showing a straight game.

[Justin Schmidt]

13 minutes ago, Justin Schmidt said:

If I were GAMI I would already be talking to a lawyer and force a spectrograph.

It's cheap, I'll even pay for it

[gabez]

1 hour ago, Justin Schmidt said:

Oh and accusations against a company without any proof, which IS seriously compromising their integrity in the court of public opinion because you are not being an adult about it is not libel? Funny how hypocrisy works.

If I were GAMI I would already be talking to a lawyer and force a spectrograph.

Your behavior of personal and company attacks is not showing a straight game.

GAMI was the first to be notified, they have contact with the shop, I gave them access to the plane and I have saved fuel for them in case they want it. The STC(s) claims direct replacement to 100LL so not sure what else as a pilot should I expect to have done differently besides buy the STC, fuel the plane and fly. Don't forget I am not the only one who's paint has been compromised. Anybody is welcome to come and see the plane I don't care. The YouTuber who made the video did and took his own videos. you can do the same, come to KWVI, pump some fuel and take pics of my plane.

 

 

 

[redbaron1982]

8 hours ago, Paul Thomas said:

I've read that GAMI's only source of income from G100UL is from the STC. Is that accurate? Will that continue? If others fail and 100LL goes away, GAMI could demand a royalty of  $3 per gallon.

The idea that GAMI is not charging a royalty per gallon was mentioned here, but George didn't confirm nor deny it.

I would guess that they are getting a cut from the STC and also from each gallon sold. 

[A64Pilot]

Ref enforcements 

Often it occurs after an accident / incident 

Or probably more often when someone makes a complaint to the FAA, you would be surprised how often this occurs. 

But as far as the FAA police setting up traps like a local red neck Sheriff, your right that hasn’t happened, but be aware that if you have an accident or maybe even an incident that it’s likely an FAA inspector will be looking at your books, and possibly the aircraft. If they discover things in or on the aircraft that aren’t documented in the books, often they start digging, and very often the owner / pilot’s attitude determines how bad it gets.

Yeah it’s very unlikely you go to jail, but they can pull your ticket and that can be hard and expensive to get back, they can fine you and enforcement actions don’t help your insurance bill either.

I’ve been ramp checked, the Inspectors really do have a quota on ramp checks, Falcon Field near Atlanta is very close to the FSDO and as such gets more than it’s share of ramp checks

[George Braly]

39 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Ref enforcements 

Often it occurs after an accident / incident 

Or probably more often when someone makes a complaint to the FAA, you would be surprised how often this occurs. 

But as far as the FAA police setting up traps like a local red neck Sheriff, your right that hasn’t happened, but be aware that if you have an accident or maybe even an incident that it’s likely an FAA inspector will be looking at your books, and possibly the aircraft. If they discover things in or on the aircraft that aren’t documented in the books, often they start digging, and very often the owner / pilot’s attitude determines how bad it gets.

Yeah it’s very unlikely you go to jail, but they can pull your ticket and that can be hard and expensive to get back, they can fine you and enforcement actions don’t help your insurance bill either.

I’ve been ramp checked, the Inspectors really do have a quota on ramp checks, Falcon Field near Atlanta is very close to the FSDO and as such gets more than it’s share of ramp checks

I have been ramp checked (randomly) at least six or 8 times over the years.   

More recently - - when we were at  the AOPA airshow in Buckeye Arizona last year - - two FAA inspectors showed up on the ramp in a golf cart while we were installing the STC and placards on the Baron owned by California Aeronautical University which they brought down to do formation fly overs at the Buckeye air show in two Barons operating on G100UL Avgas. 

Initially,  the two FAA inspector's "attitude" was in full blown "enforcement" mode.  They were a bit in disbelief that we were actually going to put unleaded avgas in the CAU baron.   So they demanded to see all of the paperwork.   STC.  Installation Instructions; ICAs; Apprvd FMS; etc.    While they were standing there we were putting the placards on the wings next to the fuel filler ports.  About that time, a local I.A. drove up in a golf cart and jumped out and said,  "where do  I sign ?"   He signed off the log book and the 337 and left.   The two FAA inspectors walked around the airplane and came back to me and thanked me for our cooperation and expressed their satisfaction that all of the paperwork details were in good order. 

 

[Marc_B]

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/california-fuel-distributors-file-unleaded-fuel-court-defense/

California Fuel distributors file opposition to motion regarding consent decree.

 

https://vansairforce.net/threads/rv6-fuel-tank-leak.232303/#post-1817348

Apparent RV6 with fuel leak; unknown details of builder or aircraft.

[redbaron1982]

19 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/california-fuel-distributors-file-unleaded-fuel-court-defense/

California Fuel distributors file opposition to motion regarding consent decree.

 

https://vansairforce.net/threads/rv6-fuel-tank-leak.232303/#post-1817348

Apparent RV6 with fuel leak; unknown details of builder or aircraft.

Everyone affected by G100UL should get in touch and share experiences, maybe it would be a good idea to share their experience with the judge who is going to analyze this matter.

[Marc_B]

13 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Ref enforcements 

Often it occurs after an accident / incident 

Or probably more often when someone makes a complaint to the FAA, you would be surprised how often this occurs. 

With regards to a pilot using a new fuel with limited fleet testing, with limited liability coverage from the manufacturer/supply stream, without an paying for and receiving a valid STC...that's just a special kind of poor ADM in my mind.   (regardless of being "caught" by enforcement)

[Marc_B]

GAMI has said that G100UL was sent to Continental and Lycoming and years later was returned unopened (paraphrasing here not sure on exact details).  The "Settling Defendents Opposition to Motion..." suggests that requirements of a gag-restriction was part of/the reason this testing wasn't performed.  I haven't read about that before and curious if this is true and if standard practice that Continental and Lycoming could test something to be used in their engines but not disclose the results of said testing to FAA or owners...seems that would run counter to the AD/SB process if an issue was discovered.

"Lycoming advises that, because GAMI insists on a “gag-restriction” that prevents it from sharing
“appropriate guidance to the FAA, the industry, and the flying public,” it has not yet had the
opportunity to evaluate G100UL’s “material compatibility, evaluation of toxicity, engine testing
for detonation, endurance, flight testing and operability; as well as review of operational concerns
to determine that [G100UL] is fit for purpose.” Hoyt Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. B."

(Edit: this is also mentioned on Lycoming's webpage: https://www.lycoming.com/fuels regarding "gag-restriction.")

[gabez]

39 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/california-fuel-distributors-file-unleaded-fuel-court-defense/

California Fuel distributors file opposition to motion regarding consent decree.

 

https://vansairforce.net/threads/rv6-fuel-tank-leak.232303/#post-1817348

Apparent RV6 with fuel leak; unknown details of builder or aircraft.

this plane is at KWVI also

[redbaron1982]

1 hour ago, gabez said:

this plane is at KWVI also

That guy is mentioning leaks and peeling, same as you.

[ragedracer1977]

1 minute ago, redbaron1982 said:

That guy is mentioning leaks and peeling, same as you.

Probably sealed the tanks with latex caulk and painted the plane with a roller.

 

 

[redbaron1982]

19 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Probably sealed the tanks with latex caulk and painted the plane with a roller.

 

 

Probably, still, not a drop-in replacement.... It looks like latex is not affected by 100LL but G100UL is.

[gabez]

27 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

That guy is mentioning leaks and peeling, same as you.

yep, no leaks with 100LL that's what he says. tho looks like a massive failure of the sealant with G100.