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

[MikeOH]

4 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

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."

I hope this information is admissible in the Consent Agreement hearing in Kalifornia.

[mluvara]

On 2/6/2025 at 4:48 AM, Sabremech said:

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

On 2/5/2025 at 6:32 PM, dzeleski said:

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…

I appreciate the offers. I never envisioned that a quick look at the effects of the fuel on my personal aircraft prior to application of an STC would lead to this effort of testing. At this point in time, I don't anticipate taking on additional testing and hope that those with the real testing tools and capabilities would perform any of that. It's likely this may already be occurring with some of the affected aircraft.

As to composition, I think one can glean enough from the SDS to make a reasonable guess at the percentage of elements, even if you took a mean value or slid them to one side. In the end, it all has to add up to 100%.

Michael

 

[A64Pilot]

22 hours ago, 201Steve said:

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

I would assume that they have a significant investment in developing this fuel.

I also assume that it’s taken a lot longer for them to begin to generate any revenue from it than they planned for.

I don’t think anything nefarious is going on, he’s I’m sure no dummy and smart enough to know that if the fuel caused problems that he would be worse off than he was before, so I have to believe he was confident that it wouldn’t cause problems.

Lots of assuming, just I think until there is actual data we should give him the benefit of the doubt

[toto]

12 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Lots of assuming, just I think until there is actual data we should give him the benefit of the doubt

This is really the only sensible approach. There’s no way that GAMI expected the fuel to eat through tank sealant and ruin paint within weeks of the event at RHV. I’ve got to think that they expected happy customers.

I’m super appreciative of the time and effort that @mluvara has put into his evaluation, and I hope that it helps identify areas of concern that can be addressed by GAMI moving forward. We all benefit hugely from unleaded avgas availability, and we all ultimately want the UL effort to succeed in one way or another. 

[ragedracer1977]

5 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I would assume that they have a significant investment in developing this fuel.

I also assume that it’s taken a lot longer for them to begin to generate any revenue from it than they planned for.

I don’t think anything nefarious is going on, he’s I’m sure no dummy and smart enough to know that if the fuel caused problems that he would be worse off than he was before, so I have to believe he was confident that it wouldn’t cause problems.

Lots of assuming, just I think until there is actual data we should give him the benefit of the doubt

I certainly don’t think anything intentionally nefarious is being done. That said, GAMI has been opaque on information.  When anything is questioned “don’t worry, we tested it is fine” but you can’t get answer as to what was tested.  The other line is “it’s because your airplane is a pile of junk.”

 When we are shown testing, it’s glaringly obvious that they tested one thing and one thing only.  Reference the paint thing.  They tested a bunch of identical pieces from identical airplanes.  Or their claim that with G100UL you will have 40-60% less wear in your engine. Based on one single oil sample. No, I’m not kidding.

 Or continually referencing an article from a decade ago saying it proves 100LL damages paint. However- that article never once mentions paint. It just contains one pixelated photo of a blue stain on a wing.  And then taking photos from PAFI UL testing  and trying to pass them off as damage from LL - as one of countless such examples found on line.  That no one else seems able to find.

 The belief apparently held at GAMI that service bulletins are mandatory. And every single one has been complied with - and if you didn’t - there would be long paragraphs of documentation from a mechanic describing why you refused.

Or the attempted use of government power to ban their “competition”.  This, after years of telling anyone who would listen that there was a vast conspiracy including the government, to keep their product off the market.

“We gave everybody barrels of fuel to test. We have no idea why they never did.”  Only for us to find out that no one would touch it because GAMI required them to sign an NDA prohibiting them from disclosing any adverse safety findings to any one - including the FAA.

It’s not that there’s teething issues. We all knew there would be.  The problem is the handling of those issues, such that it makes me very very unlikely to try the fuel unless I’m forced to use it.

[Sabremech]

To add to Ragedracer1977 comments, along with sending the engine manufacturers barrels of fuel, in an e-mail with GBraly he stated that they wanted six figure $’s to test the fuel in their engines and GAMI said no. 

 

 

[Marc_B]

The issue stems around the fact that a significant number of aircraft fueled at the G100UL roll out (at only  2 locations) have had apparent issues resulting in damage to paint and sealant in SHORT term field use.  The implication is that there may be many more with LONG term use of G100UL.  The allegation from GAMI has been that this was due to high toluene 100LL, nitrile fuel components, and PTE wet wing sealant coupled with assumptions that if it leaks then it must have been poor application.  "it's not me, it's you."

Given Braly's recommendation for use of Viton, teflon lined hoses, and negative comments towards wet wings...one is left to assume that they likely did know there might be issues with some of the fleet.

Given Braly's comment that paint wasn't a requirement of the PAFI process and his comment "fuel belongs in the tank"...I assume that this implied that GAMI wasn't required to do widespread paint surface testing for their STC approval and so their testing may have been limited here.  They openly list very specific "fueling hygiene" and acknowledge that their fuel damages paint to some extent.  Their rollout G100UL in California was shown with towels, mats, and adsorbent material that is MUCH different from standard 100LL fueling practices in use.

But each time G100UL is shown to have issues in the field (including with an airframe manufacturer) they release a YouTube video that poorly replicates the case study and their video is called "hard data."  This makes me nervous...it is certainly possible that the only testing that was done may have been the one in the video.  The methods shown in the videos are not of the caliber I'd expect from an engineer or a company that expects to supply 100% of the Avgas in the country/worldwide.  Certainly not the quality and caliber of the testing that was mandatory for fuels going though the PAFI process.  Unfortunately this is the only "data" that the public is left with from GAMI as any of the other data (whatever that is) is not open source or available.  Questioning this only gets a comment suggesting the "FAA is watching you and takes offense that you'd question their approval."  Not really confidence inspiring.

However, the thing that gives me the most pause is that GAMI/Mr. Braly have repeatedly been very vocal about the term "commercially available" and this is likely very intentionally done to springboard off of the Consent Judgement in California in an attempt to outright ban 100LL in the state.  And their comments came well before G100UL was actually widely field tested and shown to be safe and truly a "drop in fuel" like they claimed.

What's been "proven" is that G100UL is likely NOT a "drop in" fuel.  And if some of the comments coming from PAFI are accurate, there may not ever be a truly drop in fuel.

Knowing this, the most important part of the "discovery" of field use and wider testing of ANY unleaded fuel is going to be our own transparency of where the alternate fuel's weakness lie so that we can all learn from this and effectively adapt our aircraft to the new era of unleaded fuel.

The issue I see with G100UL is that so far, their comments suggest that there is no problem with G100UL and the issues are all in poor maintenance and substandard equipment and old materials...but the problem is that they are referring to many materials, processes, and equipment that are standard use and have been effective until now...

[EricJ]

14 hours ago, toto said:

This is really the only sensible approach. There’s no way that GAMI expected the fuel to eat through tank sealant and ruin paint within weeks of the event at RHV. I’ve got to think that they expected happy customers.

Either they knew, or suspected, that it would cause issues and deployed anyway, or they didn't do sufficient testing to know that it would cause issues and deployed anyway.   Neither scenario reflects well on GAMI at this point.  

[gabez]

this is my wheel panel from the copilot tank leaking G100UL. today I tried to remove the strain. spent about 30 minutes wet sand 1000 grit with an electric buffer. I have an entire wing to clean up.....

[shawnd]

@gabez I'm really sorry you're going through this. It's frustrating to see.

Have you tried refilling this side with 100LL? I'm curious if it's also leaking, possibly due to seal damage from the G100UL.

[OSUAV8TER]

I don't see how this stuff is a drop in replacement if all these issues are suddenly appearing. GAMI complained for years that the government was out to get them, now they are actively working to have the government ban 100LL in California. I'd be very worried if I were suddenly forced to use this fuel. 

[DonMuncy]

1 hour ago, OSUAV8TER said:

 now they are actively working to have the government ban 100LL in California. 

I haven't seen any evidence of that. Did I miss something. 

[gabez]

9 hours ago, shawnd said:

@gabez I'm really sorry you're going through this. It's frustrating to see.

Have you tried refilling this side with 100LL? I'm curious if it's also leaking, possibly due to seal damage from the G100UL.

both side leaked. the pilot side only from 5 screws from a wet bay. both sides have been fixed and refueled with 100LL, I will post full pics of the damage to the paint from both sides and both landing gear panels.

[OSUAV8TER]

6 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

I haven't seen any evidence of that. Did I miss something. 

You did. GAMI is involved and pushing for the declaration of G100UL being "Commercially available," in the State of California in accordance with the settlement decree that was agreed to under Case No. RG-11-600721, which may outlaw 100LL in California. Here is an older AvWeb article https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/nata-challenges-gamis-assertion-of-commercial-availability-of-g100ul/.

Attached is the revised complaint from Center for Environmental Health to enforce the settlement. I believe it has been delayed to later this month. 

2024-12-04-Notice-Motion-to-Enforce-Avgasfs.pdf

[Marc_B]

23 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

I haven't seen any evidence of that. Did I miss something. 

Don, basic gist is that GAMI has been actively advertising using the phrase "commercially available" to spring board off of the 2014 Consent Judgement which would be an attempt to ban 100LL in California.  The use of this terminology was well before G100UL was available for purchase by aircraft.

Mr. Braly has also submitted testimony to the House against PAFI and against leaded Avgas testifying that G100UL is a "complete drop-in replacement for the existing 100LL Avgas."

[Marc_B]

It's such a fascinating, multi-player game of chess we have these days...

Santa Clara County wants to close KRHV, but FAA says no because you have grants that preclude closing.  So instead Santa Clara bans sale of 100LL, has threshold displaced to shorten runway/limit noise/adjust traffic, is set to close in 2031 and has county resolution to pursue "any and all available paths to early closure prior to 2031 ." (edit: was confusing with KSMO who shortened runway by 1500' and will close 2028)...

Plane crashes from RHV due to fuel exhaustion and unable to fuel with 100LL on the field.

Santa Clara County invited to join FAA to help establish best practices for transition to unleaded fuel.

GAMI moves in and begins sale of G100UL at KRHV and advertises G100UL "commercially available" so lead threshold for Avgas would be now zero for all of California based on a Consent Judgement that was originally started to get California airports to put up Prop65 warning signs that fuel is dangerous.

But push against lead was never really about lead...it's about airport closures.  According to CalTrans, "In the 1960s there were 275 public-use airports, and by 2019 there were 242. In the last decade, eight general aviation airports were either revoked, suspended, or closed to the public."  Fortunately for those political interests, they don't care if an alternative fuel is damaging to aircraft (and probably figure that's a good thing for them).

I've always heard an estimation that 80% of the 100LL fleet can run on lower octane fuel.  20% of the 100LL fleet can't.  The 20% that can't, are responsible for 80% of the use of 100LL.

It's a wild and twisted road we're on these days.  In my mind, the "safe bet" is move to aircraft that can burn Mogas/UL94 (to go slow/stay local) or move up to Jet A (to go fast/travel far).  BUT we may have 5 years left for a PAFI fuel, GAMI could work out the kinks and have a successful product, and/or technology could be adapted to allow use of lower octane fuel in high compression, turbocharged, high octane engines.

...but GA airports are still at risk of closure at an alarming rate and this all has nothing to do with fuel.

...and I keep having thoughts of KRHV as the canary in the coal mine.  "What happens here changes the world."

[GeeBee]

What is happening at KRHV really gets my blood boiling. I started my aviation career there as did many of my contemporaries. I suspect well into the 4 figures are the number of airline pilots who started there. Having dealt with many of the politicos in SJC and SC County in the past years who were lukewarm at best to GA I am not surprised at what is transpiring. I even stopped my donations to SJSU because they rolled over on the demolition of the aviation department building at KSJC. For me, I moved in 1990,  the divorce was complete when I sold the last of my real estate partnerships in 2015 and walked away forever. Until CA as a whole has a viable political opposition party, nothing of anything will happen to change the trajectory of grift that is destroying GA and that continues unabated and without end.

[A64Pilot]

I don’t think you can take California as an example for the rest of the Country.

In the last 20 years or so Georgia spent tens of millions rejuvenating the little country airports, lengthening runways, new FBO buildings, hangars etc. It was apparently the tobacco settlement money they spent. This was I guess 15 or 20 years ago.

Florida in most cases is expanding little airports, keeping free loaner cars etc. Tax free parts and no tax on maintenance labor I think etc. There are probably at least ten Airparks within 50 miles of me.

Ocala is the exception, they I believe have instituted landing fees with my belief the intent of keeping the little nuisance nickel and dime aircraft out so they don’t annoy the Biz Jets. But Ocala is I believe an exception, they cater to the horse crowd apparently and those people charter Biz Jets.

Having said that I have no idea what’s going on in the Megaopolis’s like Orlando, Miami etc., they may be closing little airports and building Condo’s where they were.

Edited Sunday at 07:46 PM by A64Pilot

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I don’t think you can take California as an example for the rest of the Country.

I profoundly disagree. By the time this unleaded thing is over CARB (California Air Resources Board) will have weighed in and CARB is the 800 pound gorilla. How big? 15 states and DC all have laws that say, "whatever CARB does, so will we". That means a car you buy in Rhode Island has a California emissions package. It has become so pervasive most automakers have given up dual production and only produce CARB compliant automobiles. It was also CARB that exposed VW's diesel emissions cheating via their very own and very sophisticated labs. I am, quite frankly surprised CARB has not already waded into the waters of PAFI and unleaded 100 octane, and I pray they don't every day.

[A64Pilot]

I’m familiar with CARB, it’s why I can’t buy a gas can that doesn’t leak when I use it.

I was speaking more toward the killing off of GA airports.

We will see what happens in California, they may ban 100LL even without a viable replacement, it won’t affect the Hollywood elite in their oil burners 

But I don’t think the rest of the US will ban 100LL, just because California does. Not now, last year if California did I could see the Feds doing so, but not now.

[GeeBee]

In so far as airports go, there is one fundamental calculation. The value of the land. If the airport can generate the income to the government jurisdiction or owner in excess of what its value for other uses, it stays. If not, it goes.

 

 

[A64Pilot]

21 hours ago, GeeBee said:

In so far as airports go, there is one fundamental calculation. The value of the land. If the airport can generate the income to the government jurisdiction or owner in excess of what its value for other uses, it stays. If not, it goes.

 

 

Airports generate very little income, in every case I’m aware of they cost, not make money. I’m talking small Rural airports  not large Commercial ones.

But besides that sometimes it has nothing to do with that, sometimes it’s a developer wants the land and hatches a crooked deal with whoever in the Government can make it happen for them.

To give an example it’s been a few years ago but Panama City Fl sold a Marina to a developer for Condo’s, not long after there was a private sale where some of the City Officials could buy Condo’s the sale was not announced and not open to the public. Mayor got the Penthouse for example, he of course sold it soon after. I never heard what he paid for it but assumption is it was a fraction of what he sold it for.

[A64Pilot]

Everywhere I have ever lived the towns have airports for the same reason they build roads and bridges etc. it’s not to make money it for public service. It’s very common for small towns to have airports that may not see any air traffic for days, yet the City, County etc keeps them open.

I kept my Maule in Camilla Ga. (KCXU), in a brand new T-hangar big enough for my Maule and my C-140.

I paid $125 a month for it and electricity was included. Fuel was cheap too. $4.75 right now.

City wasn’t making any money off of the airport, can’t at those prices.

Closest airport to me now is Umatilla Fl. X23, I don’t know what hangars go for, but I buy my oil there because I can’t find it cheaper anywhere else even online, they have I think four Courtesy cars and fuel right now is $4.65.

I’m pretty sure they don’t make any money either, doubt they even cover costs unless the Feds are kicking in a bunch.

Edited Monday at 09:07 PM by A64Pilot

[GeeBee]

No actually municipalities in GA love airports. They don't make money if you only count rent and sales. Where the money is made is the personal property tax. An airplane is taxed at the same rate as private real estate. I pay about 2800 a year for my Mooney. As any municipality in GA will tell you the airport's tax revenue is almost free money, because it requires little in the way of services and maintenance is pretty simple, there is less asphalt per dollar of tax revenue than a subdivision, little police or fire. 

We made sure we did an economic impact study of our local airport so the politicos are well aware of how much business it brings in, and how much taxes are paid. When you carefully aggregate it, you can make the case, anytime, anywhere except when the land is worth 10 million an acre like many places in CA such as KRHV.

[ragedracer1977]

What’s this property tax thing you speak of?