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

[GeeBee]

40 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Something impervious to 100LL

Lots of sealants are impervious to 100LL but not higher aromatics. If that is the case, it matters little what lead free 100 octane is used it will leak. For instance PTE will debond in the presence of high aromatics where as PSD will not. GAMI has been very transparent about that fact. No factory uses PTE except Cirrus did on a few experimental aircraft but production aircraft use PSD. We are talking about a home built here. It is no reflection on the build quality, but there may have been the use of PTE. Equally so, some repairs on production aircraft could have been done with PTE.

[gabez]

55 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Something impervious to 100LL

Probably!! Left tank leaked, right tank did not. 

[GeeBee]

I think with a homebuilt, it is important to know if it was PSD or Bazooka.

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I think with a homebuilt, it is important to know if it was PSD or Bazooka.

No, it’s not! If it does NOT leak with 100LL and does with some other fuel THAT is a problem.

This idea that we are suppose to accept a product that damages our aircraft when 100LL does not is completely irrational.

 

[gabez]

33 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

No, it’s not! If it does NOT leak with 100LL and does with some other fuel THAT is a problem.

This idea that we are suppose to accept a product that damages our aircraft when 100LL does not is completely irrational.

 

well said. 

[Aaviationist]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

What did the builder use to seal the tanks?

This is an important question. Some home builders use questionable methods of building. 

[Aaviationist]

52 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

No, it’s not! If it does NOT leak with 100LL and does with some other fuel THAT is a problem.

This idea that we are suppose to accept a product that damages our aircraft when 100LL does not is completely irrational.

 

What is the status of your fuel formulation?  

[A64Pilot]

Which RV model is it?

Some builders back a few years ago I believe sloshed the tanks to seal them, the slosh comes off and leaks are the least of your problems then.

While it’s possible of course that a home builder could have used anything I think it very unlikely for an RV, we have several of the things here and a couple being built now. RV isn’t a cheap kit, majority of them are built with a new Lycoming and a new prop for example. Every RV I’ve seen built the builder builds IAW the instructions with a couple of rare mods, like a baggage door for an RV 14.

If all these problems are coming from one supply of fuel, I’d be suspicious of that batch, perhaps they got something wrong?

[Paul Thomas]

9 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Which RV model is it?

Some builders back a few years ago I believe sloshed the tanks to seal them, the slosh comes off and leaks are the least of your problems then.

While it’s possible of course that a home builder could have used anything I think it very unlikely for an RV, we have several of the things here and a couple being built now. RV isn’t a cheap kit, majority of them are built with a new Lycoming and a new prop for example. Every RV I’ve seen built the builder builds IAW the instructions with a couple of rare mods, like a baggage door for an RV 14.

If all these problems are coming from one supply of fuel, I’d be suspicious of that batch, perhaps they got something wrong?

This RV6 was build in 07. Slosh was a problem on early RV6's and earlier models. While it's possible the tanks built a much older than 07, the most likely sealant here would be pro seal.

[A64Pilot]

5 minutes ago, Paul Thomas said:

This RV6 was build in 07. Slosh was a problem on early RV6's and earlier models. While it's possible the tanks built a much older than 07, the most likely sealant here would be pro seal.

Funny you call it Pro-Seal, that’s what it’s called in the Army everywhere you go.

At the Thrush plant they called it B2, one is a brand name, the other the viscosity and pot life, nobody calls it by it’s proper name.

On edit even if it was slosh and Gami eats slosh, slosh is an approved aircraft sealant, I believe Mooney top coated the sealant with it?

We didn’t at Thrush and our tanks were much bigger, the aircraft operated off of much rougher strips and our landing cycles were much greater than Mooney’s and our tanks sealant lasted just as long as Mooney’s

Oh and we except for the main spar web lay up sealed our wings after shooting them together. I don’t think you could shoot entire wing skins wet.

 

Edited Monday at 01:43 AM by A64Pilot

[Paul Thomas]

7 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Funny you call it Pro-Seal, that’s what it’s called in the Army everywhere you go.

At the Thrush plant they called it B2, one is a brand name, the other the viscosity and pot life, nobody calls it by it’s proper name

 

and even worse, I've never gotten the advertised pot life (but I've always operated at the higher end of the temperature range).

[GeeBee]

I am going to say this and it is not going to be a popular position, but it is what is going to happen.

gabez, you seem to be under the assumption that someone is going to fix your airplane. Regardless of who is responsible, right now, you are the one who is going to pay for and repair your airplane. Sure you can litigate, you could file a claim with your insurer, but here are the cold hard facts. Tank sealant and paint, like the roof on your house are life limited items. Even if you are successful in your claim, you are not going to get a whole new tank job or a whole new paint job. You will get the funds that pro-rata the life of those items. Even with that you are looking at several years of claims and maybe litigation. You may get lucky and some party rolls over and says, "OK" they are not going to give you an entire tank and paint job. Unless you want to see your airplane sit a long, long time you need to be scheduling with a tank operation and a paint shop and breaking out the check book.

As to the RV no one knows because no one has stepped up to tell us how and with what those tanks have been sealed, only speculation and assumptions. 

[gabez]

29 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I am going to say this and it is not going to be a popular position, but it is what is going to happen.

gabez, you seem to be under the assumption that someone is going to fix your airplane. Regardless of who is responsible, right now, you are the one who is going to pay for and repair your airplane. Sure you can litigate, you could file a claim with your insurer, but here are the cold hard facts. Tank sealant and paint, like the roof on your house are life limited items. Even if you are successful in your claim, you are not going to get a whole new tank job or a whole new paint job. You will get the funds that pro-rata the life of those items. Even with that you are looking at several years of claims and maybe litigation. You may get lucky and some party rolls over and says, "OK" they are not going to give you an entire tank and paint job. Unless you want to see your airplane sit a long, long time you need to be scheduling with a tank operation and a paint shop and breaking out the check book.

As to the RV no one knows because no one has stepped up to tell us how and with what those tanks have been sealed, only speculation and assumptions. 

you seem to believe I had a problem before I got the STC, log books stickers and placards. I did not. The repair job is underway, the outcome of that will be an invoice. the FAA investigation is underway, the outcome of that will be an EAD, an AD or nothing. When I have all the information and facts I will initiate a next step. That is a variety of options. 

I am keeping GAMI in the loop, in good faith,  on a personal email with them and the shop. I have yet to see GAMI come over and take samples BTW. Their approach has been send us samples! 

You are all welcome to fly to KWVI and KRHV and fill up your tanks, but unless you do it. You are ultimately afraid that what some of us are experiencing will happen to you and that, only solidify that G100UL is not a drop in fuel and you are afraid you tanks will leak, your paint job will be ruined and more. Are you not? 

[Aaviationist]

27 minutes ago, gabez said:

you seem to believe I had a problem before I got the STC, log books stickers and placards. I did not. The repair job is underway, the outcome of that will be an invoice. the FAA investigation is underway, the outcome of that will be an EAD, an AD or nothing. When I have all the information and facts I will initiate a next step. That is a variety of options. 

I am keeping GAMI in the loop, in good faith,  on a personal email with them and the shop. I have yet to see GAMI come over and take samples BTW. Their approach has been send us samples! 

You are all welcome to fly to KWVI and KRHV and fill up your tanks, but unless you do it. You are ultimately afraid that what some of us are experiencing will happen to you and that, only solidify that G100UL is not a drop in fuel and you are afraid you tanks will leak, your paint job will be ruined and more. Are you not? 

That’s not how any of that works. Invoicing, fear of using 100ul, or otherwise. 
 

your invoice, I’m 100% sure, is going to be filed in the garbage. 
 

to think someone is going to pay to reseal your 40 year old tanks is ambitions if not asinine. 
 

based on the images you provided it is more likely than not that your airplane had deficiencies when it came to the condition of your tanks and sealant at a minimum. 
 

a lot of people do t think their tanks leak until they go to get their airplane painted. Then all of the sudden, these leaks reveal themselves. Is the airplane painting company also responsible for the resealing in this scenario?  No of course not. They just revealed what already existed by washing away the dirt and grime. 
 

For the record if 100ul was available in my area I’d use it. 

Edited Monday at 03:03 AM by Aaviationist

[GeeBee]

29 minutes ago, gabez said:

you seem to believe I had a problem before I got the STC, log books stickers and placards. I did not. The repair job is underway, the outcome of that will be an invoice. the FAA investigation is underway, the outcome of that will be an EAD, an AD or nothing. When I have all the information and facts I will initiate a next step. That is a variety of options. 

I am keeping GAMI in the loop, in good faith,  on a personal email with them and the shop. I have yet to see GAMI come over and take samples BTW. Their approach has been send us samples! 

You are all welcome to fly to KWVI and KRHV and fill up your tanks, but unless you do it. You are ultimately afraid that what some of us are experiencing will happen to you and that, only solidify that G100UL is not a drop in fuel and you are afraid you tanks will leak, your paint job will be ruined and more. Are you not? 

Actually you did have a problem. 40 year old tank sealant. Most people would say 40 years is at least 15 years beyond useful life. I don't have to go to KRHV or KWVI. G100UL is coming to Tupelo, MS. I may go over and get some once my eye surgery is cleared. 

 

[gabez]

1 minute ago, GeeBee said:

Actually you did have a problem. 40 year old tank sealant. Most people would say 40 years is at least 15 years beyond useful life. I don't have to go to KRHV or KWVI. G100UL is coming to Tupelo, MS. I may go over and get some once my eye surgery is cleared. 

 

good luck, let us know when you fill the tanks. I take your word for it and I will keep an eye on you...not pun intended. 

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

I am going to say this and it is not going to be a popular position, but it is what is going to happen.

gabez, you seem to be under the assumption that someone is going to fix your airplane. Regardless of who is responsible, right now, you are the one who is going to pay for and repair your airplane. Sure you can litigate, you could file a claim with your insurer, but here are the cold hard facts. Tank sealant and paint, like the roof on your house are life limited items. Even if you are successful in your claim, you are not going to get a whole new tank job or a whole new paint job. You will get the funds that pro-rata the life of those items. Even with that you are looking at several years of claims and maybe litigation. You may get lucky and some party rolls over and says, "OK" they are not going to give you an entire tank and paint job. Unless you want to see your airplane sit a long, long time you need to be scheduling with a tank operation and a paint shop and breaking out the check book.

As to the RV no one knows because no one has stepped up to tell us how and with what those tanks have been sealed, only speculation and assumptions. 

Please explain how this G100UL situation differs from the class action lawsuit claims paid when Mobil AV-1 synthetic aviation oil caused engine issues.

[GeeBee]

6 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Please explain how this G100UL situation differs from the class action lawsuit claims paid when Mobil AV-1 synthetic aviation oil caused engine issues.

A plaintiff's lawyer

A filing

A judge

A courthouse

A supoena for discovery of facts

A whole bunch of depositions

A bevy of expert witnesses

A finding of fact by a judge or jury

A settlement

Right now, you don't have any of those elements, just accusations and opinions. When the facts come in, if they come in, from an authoritative and unbiased source I am sure most of us can form an informed opinion and those affected can choose a course of action.

[GeeBee]

Speaking of lawsuits. How would you like to be personally sued for lead emissions? Now you may say it is without merit, but.......you still have to hire a lawyer and answer the suit if you don't want a default judgement against you.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airport-neighbour-cites-lead-pollution-in-suit/

 

 

[redbaron1982]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Speaking of lawsuits. How would you like to be personally sued for lead emissions? Now you may say it is without merit, but.......you still have to hire a lawyer and answer the suit if you don't want a default judgement against you.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airport-neighbour-cites-lead-pollution-in-suit/?MailingID=FLY250120003&utm_campaign=avwebflash&utm_medium=newsletter&oly_enc_id=5912C9519189D2Y

 

 

Something that I don't like about US justice system is that the person that losses a suit doesn't have to automatically pay for the winner reasonable defense expenses. 

That's why you have completely illogical lawsuit like this one. 

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, redbaron1982 said:

Something that I don't like about US justice system is that the person that losses a suit doesn't have to automatically pay for the winner reasonable defense expenses. 

That's why you have completely illogical lawsuit like this one. 

The legal system is administrated, run and policed by Lawyers.

Who do you think it primarily serves and protects?

In my life I’ve been party to one lawsuit, and that one was a class action one, the open cell foam / synthetic stucco one on houses, and believe it or not but I received enough money from that to mostly fix my house, with me doing a lot of the work myself of course and some money out of my pocket.

The Lawyers I’m sure received far more than the people with the rotting houses.

This Gami thing differs from the Mobil 1 “thing” in a couple of to me very important aspects. First it’s way too early to asses anything against Gami, I think at this point there is zero proof?

But secondly and more importantly I don’t think even if there becomes proof, even damning proof that there will ever be any significant litigation. Because I think George if that’s his name is a Lawyer and being a Lawyer Gami is organized, set up or whatever as an organization with little to no assets and he himself is very well insulated from any litigation from anything Gami does or doesn’t do. Not ascribing any kind of negative thoughts against George, but if he’s any kind of decent Lawyer he’s far more aware of what the possible outcomes of any possible lawsuit are and has enough sense to ensure that he and his assets are as protected as possible.

Sp I think any Lawyer hired to sue Gami if I’m correct is going to find out that Gami has essentially no assets, and George’s assets are pretty much untouchable, without spending a large sum and years, so they wouldn’t take the case.

So I think this is very different than the Mobil oil fiasco.

But we are getting way ahead of ourselves as I don’t believe there is any proof at all.

Only reason I bring this up is for anyone who believes they have been harmed by this fuel, I think it’s unreasonable to expect anything other than your going to foot the entire bill to fix your airplane yourself.

Fault in my opinion has little to do with successful out come of Lawsuits, it’s the depth of the pockets that does.

[A64Pilot]

Been at least 50 years ago and I do not have personal first hand knowledge of this, this is second hand from a Bell Helicopter employee.

But a wealthy person purchased a brand new Bell 206, being as it was a military derivative aircraft the low fuel warning lights said 20 min fuel on the Caution warning segment because the Army reg required a fuel warning when 20 min of fuel remained at normal cruise, during the factory training this individual received at the factory he signed forms three times attesting that it had been explained to him that this light was an indication of low fuel and depending on rate of fuel consumption that the fuel remaining may not be 20 mins worth. The POH of course had warnings and stated how much fuel quantity was remaining when the light illuminated.

Well on the way home the aircraft ran out of fuel, he froze never reducing the collective or taking any apparent action so he crashed and died.

The grieving Widow sued of course, the basis of the Lawsuit was the aircraft ran out of fuel 15 min after he reported to ATC that he had a low fuel indication. The Widow got a Huge settlement. The pilot was shown to be grossly negligent of course, all he had to do was land in any of the open fields he was flying over, he wasn’t IMC, didn’t execute an Autototation etc. But Bell Helicopter had DEEP pockets and I’m sure the Jury felt sorry for the Widow.

Outcome of the Lawsuit had nothing to do with any fault of Bell Helicopter

[GeeBee]

All this points to the fact we need unleaded fuel pronto. Noise we can fight, lead would be an impossible slog.

 

[redbaron1982]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Speaking of lawsuits. How would you like to be personally sued for lead emissions? Now you may say it is without merit, but.......you still have to hire a lawyer and answer the suit if you don't want a default judgement against you.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airport-neighbour-cites-lead-pollution-in-suit/

 

 

It seems that Mr Scott Iceberg is addicted to lawsuits: https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-brookstone-landscape-design-llc, https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-whole-foods-mkt-grp-inc?q=scott iceberg&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case, https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-martin?q=scott iceberg&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case, and many more...

Edited Monday at 06:01 PM by redbaron1982

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

A plaintiff's lawyer

A filing

A judge

A courthouse

A supoena for discovery of facts

A whole bunch of depositions

A bevy of expert witnesses

A finding of fact by a judge or jury

A settlement

Right now, you don't have any of those elements, just accusations and opinions. When the facts come in, if they come in, from an authoritative and unbiased source I am sure most of us can form an informed opinion and those affected can choose a course of action.

And, how do you suppose this started with the Mobil AV-1 issue?  Exactly the same way: with reports from the field first labeled as mere opinions and accusations, then data that initially gets labeled as false or fabricated, then enough multiple examples that the data can no longer be ignored as wrong.  We can differ in opinion on where in this continuum we are, but to deny that parallels exist between the two situations is deliberately looking the other way.

I do agree with @A64Pilot's analysis on the likely outcome financially due to the size and structure differences between Mobil and GAMI.