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

[MikeOH]

Here's an interesting thought experiment

Suppose the ruling goes the wrong way and all of Kalifornia must use G100UL.  Of course, this can't happen overnight as GAMI isn't going to have enough G100UL nor the distribution system in place to switch immediately.  All of the defendants, however, could decide to just STOP selling any and all 100LL IMMEDIATELY.  After all, they could claim they would be in violation of the consent decree and would not want the penalty exposure.  I'd bet that would get this reviewed at the appellate level (State) pretty damn quick.

Obviously, they'd lose a ton of money so it'll never happen.  But, I'd bet it would be rather effective in settling this quickly.

Sadly, I suspect the reality is that Kalifornia will begin to be forced to use G100UL one airport at a time over the next 12 months.  If more issues arise (I suspect they will) there will be multiple engine failures due to G100UL (clogged injectors, my guess) which will be initially ignored (i.e. can't PROVE it was G100UL).  After enough of them, the FAA will finally get involved and we will see relief; namely, dropping of the mandate and allowing operators to choose which fuel to use.

As a Kalifornia aircraft owner my plan is to use ONLY 100LL as long as it is available.  When the only choice is G100UL, I will ground my plane and wait for the failures and a lifting of the mandate.  If, after a year, the mandate is not lifted, I'll re-evaluate selling vs. my own 'tankering' from Arizona (pick-up truck with large tank)

[shawnd]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

I'll re-evaluate selling vs. my own 'tankering' from Arizona (pick-up truck with large tank)

I can see the beginnings of a new venture: FuelDash - order 100LL on your app and voila...

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, IvanP said:

I think that the cause of action would have to be based on lack of safety of G100UL and damage caused by it, rather than arguing in favor of 100LL. Leaded fuel is going away whether we like it or not, but the question is what will it be replaced with. Arguing in favor of lead is a non-starter, but arguing for safety of flight may get some traction.

In my opinion, this product is not ready for fleetwide deployment under govt mandate. If a product is unsafe to use, argument could be made to enjoin distribution, or at least defer the mandate until thorough testing is conducted. 

I don't disagree.  My point is that if this judge rules to uphold the decree, then he has, de facto, said it G100UL is 'safe'!  Proving it unsafe is going to be difficult even if/when accidents happen.  It is going to take a while to PROVE G100UL is the proximate cause. Meanwhile???

[IvanP]

The damage to the Cirrus could be the most persuasive argument against "safe" G100UL. Having more planes affected in similar way, i.e., rendered unairworthy, could be probative enought to halt distribution on the basis of lack of safety. 

[ttflyer]

Since I don't live in Kalifornia, I'm kinda happy to let them be the test case. My guess is there will be lots of problems and they will have to go back to 100LL. Hopefully nobody is killed or hurt "testing" this out for us... 

BTW, there is a new video just out from mluvara on Youtube:

 

 

[redbaron1982]

My main concern is that once 100LL is ban, there might be no way back. And then it could happen that whatever needs to fix will come with an AD, at our expense.

Like "We found that this type of gasket are not compatible with G100UL, so any aircraft with G100UL need to replace the gaskets before X amount of hours"...

That would be really screwing all of us, which is usually how it goes.

[bonal]

The question was if your CA based what will you do if this ruling goes against LL. Well fortunately for me my o360 can use 94ul so I will spend the hundred dollars an acquire the STC for 94ul. Right now the closest airport selling is about 40 minutes flight time which is not ideal.  I will also petition as many retailers close to home to begin selling it.  If I were a seller of avgas I would rather sell a product that can be used by 69% of the fleet than run the risk of selling an unsafe fuel that could potentially cause damage to or worse an accident of any customer planes.  Personally I wouldn’t want to be the judge hearing this case because he literally could be liable should an accident occur that results in fatalities if it were determined to be the fault of the fuel. kind of like being struck between a rock and a hard place. In our litigation society anyone suffering damages for anything these days is quick to lawyer up and file suits.  Could be against the judge the state the plaintiff or even the FAA and certainly the retailers providing the fuel.  If it were me I would rule in favor of the defendants and let it play out until the real mandate of 2031 comes due.  Basically this whole thing sucks.  
I have been trying to find the details of the consent decree and if memory serves there are only a limited number of airports something like 14 that have to follow the ruling initially and start selling the new fuel.

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:30 PM by bonal
Change

[bonal]

Is @mluvara providing depositions in this case for the defendants. If not I think his research would be very helpful in slowing this shit show down until issues with the fuel are resolved 

[Paul Thomas]

Have any of the affected airplanes filed insurance claims? The insurance companies are going to have something to say...

[Marc_B]

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/court-decision-on-g100ul-use-expected-wednesday/

https://gama.aero/ceh-docs/

[MikeOH]

Glad to see that GAMA is taking a stand.

Where the heck is AOPA?

[IvanP]

29 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Where the heck is AOPA?

Right behind GAMI pushing for fast adoption of their witches brew  

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Right behind GAMI pushing for fast adoption of their witches brew  

Has AOPA actually endorsed it???

[mluvara]

5 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Has AOPA actually endorsed it???

The following post in January was the most recent statement on their position.

"First, AOPA does not support one unleaded fuel over another. The marketplace (pilots) will ultimately determine which fuels are successful and which are not.

Second, AOPA has been a strong proponent of a “burn and learn” approach to new FAA-approved unleaded fuels to help accelerate a transition to an unleaded future. As we did with our Beechcraft Baron last year, AOPA will continue to demonstrate new unleaded fuels as they become available, and we’ll provide full transparency on our results."

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/january/23/presidents-position-on-unleaded-fuel

Edited Tuesday at 04:47 PM by mluvara

[IvanP]

11 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Has AOPA actually endorsed it???

Quote from AOPA's recent article on Jan 23rd.

"Our experience with General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s G100UL has been widely reported and was quite positive overall."

No mention of the leaks on the Baron that AOPA used to demonstrate the safety of G100UL. In my view, this is as close as one gets to a one-sided endorsement that conceals a known safety issue. 

[mluvara]

12 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Quote from AOPA's recent article on Jan 23rd.

"Our experience with General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s G100UL has been widely reported and was quite positive overall."

No mention of the leaks on the Baron that AOPA used to demonstrate the safety of G100UL. In my view, this is as close as one gets to a one-sided endorsement that conceals a known safety issue. 

Keep in context the fact that they relied on a report and a narrative from GAMI. The current CEO of AOPA was not part of the previous testing.

My read of Eagle Fuel Cell's report doesn't align completely with GAMI's conclusion.

https://flyeagle.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AOPA-Baron-Fuel-Cells-Report.pdf

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/aopa-baron-wing-stain-traced-to-leaking-bladder-patch/

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/november/pilot/unleaded-fuel-what-we-have-learned

[IvanP]

The AOPA video about Baron test seems quite in line with GAMI's conclusion that any issues with the fuel are to be blamed on the age and/or maintenance history of the aircraft without any further inquiry into material incompatibility issues. Dave glossed over the issue by making a quick remark that teh bladders were old and were replaced. Of course, it is easy to do when they are spedning other people's money on fixing the plane. Most pilots will be spening their own money fixing damage caused by G100UL.  

I woud be curious to see how the new bladders will hold up with G100UL use, but it is my understanding that the experiment was terminated at this point so we may never learn.  

[redbaron1982]

13 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Of course, it is easy to do when they are spedning other people's money on fixing the plane.

That's why I will cancel my membership if they don't stand up and side with us.

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

That's why I will cancel my membership if they don't stand up and side with us.

I've been an AOPA member since 1978 and I am considering non-renewal, as well.  I've always taken the view that my money is going to a PAC that supports MY best interests.

NOT taking a stand is NOT going to cut it; they appear to be trying to 'walk a line'...NOT acceptable.

[gabez]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Has AOPA actually endorsed it???

I actually got an email from their CEO who wants to connect, it went to spam "no pun intended" so trying to connect with him see what's up 

 

Gabe 

Edited Tuesday at 08:22 PM by gabez

[A64Pilot]

Burn and Learn, seriously?

Why are they so hot to “help accelerate a transition to our unleaded future?” 

Why the hurry? Shouldn’t they instead be all for a slow roll out to ensure safety or extensive third party testing or similar?

[shawnd]

15 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Burn and Learn, seriously?

Burn and Learn = Waste other's people's money to get data. Yay, great idea!

[Shiroyuki]

I watched Luvara's 4th video, and it is very concerning. 

Even more concerning is how GAMI posted everyone's declaration on their website, but not George Braly and Paul Millner's declaration which supports the mandate of G100UL, which happened on Janurary 2025.

George claims he does not support mandating G100UL, yet he's eating his own word now.

He also again blamed Mooney's wet wing design, can claim such design is inadequte and substandard comparing to industry practise.

Everyone should spend a few minutes and read George's declaration. 

Such conflict of interest...

It's not to late to send your GAMI injectos in to get them recalibrated. When GAMI goes out of business because of this, you would want to have a new set of clean gami injectors.......

[gabez]

16 hours ago, Paul Thomas said:

Have any of the affected airplanes filed insurance claims? The insurance companies are going to have something to say...

I did not, but I actually did something different, i filed a claim with the county to lower the value of my plane and hence the prop tax in California. Since the fuel is sold by the city thus the county it’s their fu.k up, believe it or not i got an email today and they will, now we are just negotiating by how much 

[ragedracer1977]

I'm hearing the consent judgement was denied!