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

[Sabremech]

18 hours ago, philiplane said:

It's not a low point. It's past the fuel tank, outboard. I'm pretty sure that Cirrus knows how to make their surfaces contamination-free before painting.

This wrinkling exists on most of the hundreds of Cirrus I've seen.

The 2005 SR22 in my hangar doesn’t have any of this wrinkling. If it’s the NACA scoop I think it is, it’s far out on the wing and also due to dihedral unlikely to see anything but vapors. Plus as others have stated, zero blue stains like a leak near the fuel tank. I have to lean towards bad prep or being affected by fuel vapors during painting based on the paint coverage of the vent and not being plugged off for paint.
I also question the brown color you state that 100LL turns to. I’ve seen the brown on a small seep that was on the bottom of my Mooney. I didn’t equate that directly to the 100LL but to dirt that gets picked up by the close proximity to the gear and the ground clearance on a Mooney.  Cleaning that did not leave any brown color but a very light shade of blue.

David

 

[A64Pilot]

I’ve seen lots of fuel leaks, recently my fuel strainer, it was leaking apparently for quite awhile, very dark blue stains.

I’ve seen brown stains from Mogas, but never seen anything but blue from 100LL myself.

Cant see it real well but the photo is the wing on my C-140, the two holes in the fuel cap are the only fuel tank vent so of course if the tank is full, fuel is sucked out onto the wing, Auto fuel leaves a brown stain, but even if left for months it cleans off easily. I guess I must have cleaned it off some time ago, it’s not as bad as I remember

 

[Marc_B]

Looks like this is on the docket for today...  Curious if anyone knows any details and interested to hear the outcome of this.

Case No. RG-11-600721
Hon. Somnath Raj Chatterjee
SETTLING DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
ENFORCE AND MODIFY CONSENT
JUDGMENT
Date: February 4, 2025
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Reservation Number: 690015831804

[UteM20F]

I've been curious about it today as well.  I bet Russ will post on Avweb as soon as there is information.  I wouldn't proffer a guess how it will turn out, as both sides (IMHO) offered lots of disinformation in their respective court filings.

[mluvara]

Here is an update on testing and issues in the field.

 

Edited February 6 by mluvara

[Paul Thomas]

The damage to the RV6 is shocking; it looks like it was vandalized with paint stripper. I could see insurance companies having a fit with G100UL... a simple leak that would have cost an insurance company nothing is now very expensive.

I wonder if the insurance industry is going to say if you want to use the STC, your coverage will have a higher cost.

[MikeOH]

13 minutes ago, Paul Thomas said:

The damage to the RV6 is shocking; it looks like it was vandalized with paint stripper. I could see insurance companies having a fit with G100UL... a simple leak that would have cost an insurance company nothing is now very expensive.

I wonder if the insurance industry is going to say if you want to use the STC, your coverage will have a higher cost.

If it turns out the damage IS due to unleaded fuel I suspect the insurance industry is going to list unleaded fuel usage as a policy exclusion for any damage caused thereby.

[MikeOH]

@Marc_B or others that may know: Any word on what happened to the court motion yesterday?

[dzeleski]

23 minutes ago, mluvara said:

Here is an update on testing and issues in the field.

 

The damage to the tank sealant is seriously concerning. This stuff is staying out of my fuel tanks.

Im not sure if you would entertain it but I would happily send over cash for you to buy some tank sealant and test it in a controlled manner.

Secondly that Cirrus looked like the resin was eaten out of the honey comb…

[Paul Thomas]

I have to admit that I'm disappointed. I'm a skeptic but I wanted to believe in G100UL, I was impressed by George Braly's willingness to engage, and I wanted to give G100UL the benefit of the doubt. As a fuel, it really does appear to work and I thought GAMI was sitting on a goldmine; I could even see an easy marketing campaign starting at Sun 'N Fun, ending at Oshkosh that would involved other big fly-ins and be easy for any media to promote. It would be so easy to go worldwide and make great press.

I wish GAMI the best and hope material compatibility can be sorted out and that a winning formula can be developed. Alternatively, let's figure out which paints, hoses, etc. are not compatible and state that. I bet there would still be plenty of willing customers and the fleet will adapt. It did for ethanol.

I never understood the marketing path GAMI used for G100UL and it appears this crisis is being mishandled. When it comes to safety or not taking risk with customers, a lot can be learned from Tylenol's 1982 recall.

[Sabremech]

10 hours ago, mluvara said:

Here is an update on testing and issues in the field.

 

Would it be beneficial to send a sample to a lab to analyze the components and more importantly the percentages of each? We’re not going to get the second part of that from GAMI. I’d be willing to chip in for the cost of that if it would get us beneficial information.

David

[Marc_B]

15 hours ago, MikeOH said:

@Marc_B or others that may know: Any word on what happened to the court motion yesterday?

Someone on BT said it was "Deferred another couple weeks..."  Not sure any details or what was discussed in Court.  Addendum: Mr. Niles said it was put off until Feb. 18 at the earliest, possibly Feb. 25.

Edit: would be interesting if G100UL went through the PAFI testing process to better understand where it works well and where it fails.  I don’t think we’re likely to “see” the data that was presented to the FAA for STC and given that Braly has only presented limited videos and labeled this hard data I don’t think that we will.  
 

Would G100UL have been able to get approval through PAFI?  And if not, this certainly calls into question the approval process for alternative fuel STC’s. 

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Would G100UL have been able to get approval through PAFI?  And if not, this certainly calls into question the approval process for alternative fuel STC’s. 

I've long suspected that the reason GAMI went to an STC process was that they didn't want the level of scrutiny that would be required in PAFI, or perhaps knew that they wouldn't survive it.   We're only just now seeing why that may be, and the growing number of unfortunate aircraft owners who have suffered for being essentially beta testers is not encouraging.   I don't see how G100UL survives in the marketplace with the current amount of evidence of serious damage, and I suspect we've not seen the last of it.

I am glad, however, that so far the damage has been limited to airplanes parked on the ground and there have been no injuries to operators or passengers.

STCs do always carry more risk, and for any STC it is the responsibility of the installer to determine that it is compatible with existing systems, including other STCs that may have been installed.   Sometimes this can be tricky.

[redbaron1982]

I'm glad we have people like @mluvara that take the time to do this analysis and videos. I wish we would have a few more to dissipate concerns about "it's just one person. The results were not replicated by anyone else"

I wish I would have the time to do some tests myself.

[IvanP]

3 hours ago, Marc_B said:

 

Edit: would be interesting if G100UL went through the PAFI testing process to better understand where it works well and where it fails.  I don’t think we’re likely to “see” the data that was presented to the FAA for STC and given that Braly has only presented limited videos and labeled this hard data I don’t think that we will.  

The data presented to FAA by GAMI could probably be obtained by filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Federal agencies are required to respond to FOIA reuests and disclose information in their possesion that is not classified or otherwise protected from public discloure. It may take a while, though to get anyting from them. Federal agencies are generally not known for their willingness and cooperation with such requests. 

[Sabremech]

29 minutes ago, IvanP said:

The data presented to FAA by GAMI could probably be obtained by filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Federal agencies are required to respond to FOIA reuests and disclose information in their possesion that is not classified or otherwise protected from public discloure. It may take a while, though to get anyting from them. Federal agencies are generally not known for their willingness and cooperation with such requests. 

The FAA would contact GAMI and ask them if they wanted to release any of their data and all GAMI has to say is that they consider all of it proprietary and none of it will released. The STC protects GAMI from releasing any of their data. Been there, done that with an STC I hold.

[IvanP]

8 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

The FAA would contact GAMI and ask them if they wanted to release any of their data and all GAMI has to say is that they consider all of it proprietary and none of it will released. The STC protects GAMI from releasing any of their data. Been there, done that with an STC I hold.

Yes, many agencies tend to respond to FOIA requests with a blanket denial. However, not all proprietary information is necessarily protected from FOIA disclosures. There is a process for adminstrative and judicial review of the initial denial. When potenetial risk to public safety is involved or credible suspicion that the information provided to the agency may have been misleading, the disclosure may be compelled by the court. Long and costly process, to say the least.  

Nevertheless, it could be worth a try to see if the company is as transparent about the process as it claims to be. 

[A64Pilot]

This has me wondering why the FAA hasn’t pulled the STC?

I’m not saying the fuel has caused anything, but it would seem that there is enough data to support an investigation, and the most conservative response safety wise would be to halt the sale until an investigation clears it?

[gabez]

36 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

This has me wondering why the FAA hasn’t pulled the STC?

I’m not saying the fuel has caused anything, but it would seem that there is enough data to support an investigation, and the most conservative response safety wise would be to halt the sale until an investigation clears it?

I am in communication with the FSDO FAA, the samples collected have been analyzed and test results are under review. this was as of yesterday.  

[redbaron1982]

Just now, gabez said:

I am in communication with the FSDO FAA, the samples collected have been analyzed and test results are under review. this was as of yesterday.  

Those would be fuel samples? Or samples from the panels / sealant that were damaged?

[gabez]

4 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

Those would be fuel samples? Or samples from the panels / sealant that were damaged?

I was asked for authorization from the FSDO on fuel and oil. I don't know what they took from other planes if any

[shawnd]

Anyone know if there has been any recent update on UL100E? Any success with engine testing? Don't see anyone chiming in on it recently.

Reference: https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/aircraft-propulsion/avgas-developer-drop-fuel-100ll-not-possible

[201Steve]

Just received this email from Cirrus:

One of the candidate unleaded fuels – GAMI G100UL – is now offered at several airports in the United States. We want to remind you that Cirrus does not currently approve the use of any unleaded fuel – including GAMI G100UL – in Cirrus SR Series airplanes. Through our testing in coordination with the FAA and through field observations of aircraft that have elected to use unleaded fuel, we have seen damage to airframe components, which could create airworthiness concerns.  

 

Our responsibility is to ensure SR Series airplanes can safely operate with unleaded fuel, and we are working toward that through multiple industry efforts. We will keep you posted on updates when we have them. Click on the links below to learn more about our efforts on the aviation fuel landscape and Service Advisory (SA24-14R1) related to this issue.

[redbaron1982]

52 minutes ago, 201Steve said:

Just received this email from Cirrus:

One of the candidate unleaded fuels – GAMI G100UL – is now offered at several airports in the United States. We want to remind you that Cirrus does not currently approve the use of any unleaded fuel – including GAMI G100UL – in Cirrus SR Series airplanes. Through our testing in coordination with the FAA and through field observations of aircraft that have elected to use unleaded fuel, we have seen damage to airframe components, which could create airworthiness concerns.  

 

Our responsibility is to ensure SR Series airplanes can safely operate with unleaded fuel, and we are working toward that through multiple industry efforts. We will keep you posted on updates when we have them. Click on the links below to learn more about our efforts on the aviation fuel landscape and Service Advisory (SA24-14R1) related to this issue.

The SA states:

"While some aspects of the initial Cirrus testing of the GAMI G100UL fuel are encouraging, Cirrus
has identified specific concerns regarding material compatibility. Lab and on-aircraft testing, in
coordination with FAA representatives, revealed degradation of tank sealant when in contact with
GAMI G100UL fuel that could result in airworthiness concerns."

So I guess this information is not new, but GAMI elected to push G100UL forward I assume trying to get 100LL banned. It is borderline criminal, I really hope that we don't end up with a fatal accident as result of G100UL.

[201Steve]

1 hour ago, redbaron1982 said:

So I guess this information is not new, but GAMI elected to push G100UL forward I assume trying to get 100LL banned. It is borderline criminal,

I don’t see any indication they’ve acted nefarious per se. I think more along the lines, they got tunnel vision about it. 
 

although I don’t know much