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

[IvanP]

6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

But it’s insane to allow a fuel be put into an aircraft that both the engine and airframe manufacturer warn against, this contributes to safety, how?

Cirrus saying that they have Airworthiness concerns on their aircraft that have the Gami fuel in it should raise Huge concerns in the FAA.

I wonder what new Cirrus wings cost?

 

The new fuels do not contribute one iota to flight safety. To the contrary, they arguably make it less safe if airworthiness of planes will be adversely affected. The UL fuel effort merely appeases the vocal environuts who have nothing better to do.  

[Marc_B]

Sounds like the California Consent Judgment case has been continued to Feb 27.  But I read part of the information including Mr. Braly's declaration in support of the motion to enforce the consent judgement.  I'm not sure what to make of his comments that the Mooney aircraft have a unique and inadequate type of fuel tank construction.  He offers that sealant in those tanks will only last about 15-20 years before they are at imminent risk of leakage and need to be resealed.  He suggests that leaks are due to the inadequate design and manufacturing methods used to produce these aircraft.  He suggests that the problem has been so significant that STCs were developed for fuel bladders to correct the issue.

 

I'm curious why these tanks have been so successful over the years and can routinely last 25 years plus (plenty over 40 years) and this is "inadequate"??  Plenty of engines, hoses, alternators, starters, avionics, vacuum pumps, etc. often last WAY less.  What am I missing here other than it's very likely that GAMI may feel that G100UL is incompatible with Mooney?

 

[MikeOH]

3 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Sounds like the California Consent Judgment case has been continued to Feb 27.  But I read part of the information including Mr. Braly's declaration in support of the motion to enforce the consent judgement.  I'm not sure what to make of his comments that the Mooney aircraft have a unique and inadequate type of fuel tank construction.  He offers that sealant in those tanks will only last about 15-20 years before they are at imminent risk of leakage and need to be resealed.  He suggests that leaks are due to the inadequate design and manufacturing methods used to produce these aircraft.  He suggests that the problem has been so significant that STCs were developed for fuel bladders to correct the issue.

 

I'm curious why these tanks have been so successful over the years and can last 25 years plus (plenty over 40 years) and this is "inadequate"??  Plenty of engines, hoses, alternators, starters, avionics, vacuum pumps, etc. often last WAY less.  What am I missing here other than it's very likely that GAMI may feel that G100UL is incompatible with Mooney?

 

WOW!

Well, that would explain why Braly hasn't shown up around here, lately.

If, in fact, he declared support for enforcing the consent judgement, then I feel he outright LIED to me.  Previously in this thread I asked him if he supported banning 100LL and responded that he did not!

[IvanP]

33 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

WOW!

Well, that would explain why Braly hasn't shown up around here, lately.

If, in fact, he declared support for enforcing the consent judgement, then I feel he outright LIED to me.  Previously in this thread I asked him if he supported banning 100LL and responded that he did not!

Well, when someone who stands to make profit from 100LL ban states that he does not support the ban I would probably not take this statement at face value.  

[IvanP]

43 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Sounds like the California Consent Judgment case has been continued to Feb 27.  But I read part of the information including Mr. Braly's declaration in support of the motion to enforce the consent judgement.  I'm not sure what to make of his comments that the Mooney aircraft have a unique and inadequate type of fuel tank construction.  He offers that sealant in those tanks will only last about 15-20 years before they are at imminent risk of leakage and need to be resealed.  He suggests that leaks are due to the inadequate design and manufacturing methods used to produce these aircraft.  He suggests that the problem has been so significant that STCs were developed for fuel bladders to correct the issue.

 

I'm curious why these tanks have been so successful over the years and can routinely last 25 years plus (plenty over 40 years) and this is "inadequate"??  Plenty of engines, hoses, alternators, starters, avionics, vacuum pumps, etc. often last WAY less.  What am I missing here other than it's very likely that GAMI may feel that G100UL is incompatible with Mooney?

 

Did he have anything to say about Cirrus and the "inadequate" design and construction of its wings? It would seem that the "inadequate" label would be better suited for G100UL than to the fleet of aircraft that did not experience any issues with the currently used fuel.

[MikeOH]

5 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Well, when someone who stands to make profit from 100LL ban states that he does not support the ban I would probably not take this statement at face value.  

In hindsight, I was pretty naive to believe him.

[ragedracer1977]

52 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Sounds like the California Consent Judgment case has been continued to Feb 27.  But I read part of the information including Mr. Braly's declaration in support of the motion to enforce the consent judgement.  I'm not sure what to make of his comments that the Mooney aircraft have a unique and inadequate type of fuel tank construction.  He offers that sealant in those tanks will only last about 15-20 years before they are at imminent risk of leakage and need to be resealed.  He suggests that leaks are due to the inadequate design and manufacturing methods used to produce these aircraft.  He suggests that the problem has been so significant that STCs were developed for fuel bladders to correct the issue.

 

I'm curious why these tanks have been so successful over the years and can routinely last 25 years plus (plenty over 40 years) and this is "inadequate"??  Plenty of engines, hoses, alternators, starters, avionics, vacuum pumps, etc. often last WAY less.  What am I missing here other than it's very likely that GAMI may feel that G100UL is incompatible with Mooney?

 

Where can find a copy of Brady’s declaration?

[A64Pilot]

There isn’t any difference that I can see in a Mooney’s wings fuel tank wise and the Thrush crop duster’s wings and I’d suspect there isn’t in any wet winged aircraft that’s riveted metal.

[Marc_B]

9 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Where can find a copy of Brady’s declaration?

https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/

You have to sign up for a public account and pay a small fee for downloads.  Case number search:  RG11600721

Lots of declarations and court documents; Declaration was filed on 1/24/2025.

 

[redbaron1982]

59 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

WOW!

Well, that would explain why Braly hasn't shown up around here, lately.

If, in fact, he declared support for enforcing the consent judgement, then I feel he outright LIED to me.  Previously in this thread I asked him if he supported banning 100LL and responded that he did not!

I think technically he didn't lie. If I remember correctly, he used fancy words to say that he would not support the ban, as long as there was no commercially available alternative.

He has repeatedly said that G100UL is an alternative for all aircraft and is commercially available.

So then he supports the ban.

[IvanP]

Maybe AOPA could file amicus brief with teh court and raise the safety issues ralted to damage to aircraft and the fact that airframe manufacturers advise against usng G100UL in aircraft they manufature.  

[MikeOH]

16 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

I think technically he didn't lie. If I remember correctly, he used fancy words to say that he would not support the ban, as long as there was no commercially available alternative.

He has repeatedly said that G100UL is an alternative for all aircraft and is commercially available.

So then he supports the ban.

You are correct, now that I reread what he said.  Just like a lawyer; words matter.  Stupid me for not seeing through to his real answer.

[MikeOH]

8 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Maybe AOPA could file amicus brief with teh court and raise the safety issues ralted to damage to aircraft and the fact that airframe manufacturers advise against usng G100UL in aircraft they manufature.  

I suspect AOPA is in SUPPORT of G100UL; the 'get the lead out' politics override everything else

[ragedracer1977]

Your planes are pieces of junk.  Paraphrased.

 

 

[IvanP]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

I suspect AOPA is in SUPPORT of G100UL; the 'get the lead out' politics override everything else

Sadly, you are probably right. They repeatedly voiced support for G100UL. In thier opinion, it seem sto be the next best thing since sliced bread. Curious if any "donations" to AOPA were made by GAMI recently  

[shawnd]

4 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Your planes are pieces of junk.  Paraphrased.

 

17 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Maybe AOPA could file amicus brief with teh court and raise the safety issues ralted to damage to aircraft and the fact that airframe manufacturers advise against usng G100UL in aircraft they manufature.  

Maybe Cirrus being modern along with Piper who both have a large fleet can weigh in on the matter.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, shawnd said:

 

Maybe Cirrus can weigh in on the matter.

Braly weighed in on airplane manufacturers NOT approving his fuel in his brief:

 

[ragedracer1977]

15 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Your planes are pieces of junk.  Paraphrased.

 

 

I can’t believe he threw in that Mooney’s have inadequately designed fuel tanks. As if wet wings aren’t the most common fuel tank design in common use 

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I can’t believe he threw in that Mooney’s have inadequately designed fuel tanks. As if wet wings aren’t the most common fuel tank design in common use 

His comment, especially as an 'expert', seems to border on libelous to Mooney Corp.

[IvanP]

6 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Braly weighed in on airplane manufacturers NOT approving his fuel in his brief:

 

How many new fuels were STC's and "approved" for safe use during Mr. Braly's 29 years of FAA certification experience? 

The best argunent here is potentially adverse impact on safety of flight. I have to agree that the OEM's recommendations against this fuel may not carry water, but is someoce can demonstrate adverse effect on safety, it is toast.  All what is needed is one plane that crashes as a result of damage to teh fuel system that could be sufficiently linked to use of G100UL. If enough planes are affected to the point of becoming unairworthy, the next thing would be a class action lawsuit to put GAMI out of existence.  

I do not wish anything bad to Gearge or his company, but I slo do not want his fuel in my plane. 

[MikeOH]

12 minutes ago, IvanP said:

How many new fuels were STC's and "approved" for safe use during Mr. Braly's 29 years of FAA certification experience? 

The best argunent here is potentially adverse impact on safety of flight. I have to agree that the OEM's recommendations against this fuel may not carry water, but is someoce can demonstrate adverse effect on safety, it is toast.  All what is needed is one plane that crashes as a result of damage to teh fuel system that could be sufficiently linked to use of G100UL. If enough planes are affected to the point of becoming unairworthy, the next thing would be a class action lawsuit to put GAMI out of existence.  

I do not wish anything bad to Gearge or his company, but I slo do not want his fuel in my plane. 

My fear is that his comments in this brief will prove very effective in allowing the judge in this case, possibly with Kalifornia environmental bias, to rationalize upholding the enforcement of the decree.  The defendants will then be faced with a protracted and expensive appeals process.  Likely without being able to get an injunction to stay the enforcement decree while the appeal winds its way through the courts.

As bold as George is with these claims I have to believe he feels that he can avoid future product liability by claiming the FAA approved the fuel in combination with shifting responsibility for any issues to improper/poor maintenance by owners.

 

[redbaron1982]

My only hope at this time, is that the FAA steps in and cancels the STC. I don't know if that has ever happened.

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

My only hope at this time, is that the FAA steps in and cancels the STC. I don't know if that has ever happened.

Agreed.

My hope is that the FAA's investigation of the evidence at RHV will prompt them to be concerned enough with a potential safely issue that they will take at least enough action that courts will be forced to postpone any 100LL ban.

[gabez]

1 hour ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Your planes are pieces of junk.  Paraphrased.

 

 

yep, that's all I have heard from day 1. now that I have moved on passed the tanks and the busted paint job. I am curious to see what savvy has to say about my G3 data ...... 

[redbaron1982]

1 minute ago, gabez said:

yep, that's all I have heard from day 1. now that I have moved on passed the tanks and the busted paint job. I am curious to see what savvy has to say about my G3 data ...... 

what about it?