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

[shawnd]

If anyone has the details - please post. Would love to see. 

[ragedracer1977]

1 minute ago, shawnd said:

If anyone has the details - please post. Would love to see. 

I'm reading the tentative ruling right now.  I think the Judge and I think alike.

Defendants read “Commercially Available” as meaning both “Commercially Available” and commercially feasible, which means that the defendants must not only be able to acquire the Commercially Available lower lead fuel but also be able to store it and to sell it to customers in sufficient volumes to be profitable. There must be “demands of the customers.” This reading is broader and more reasonable because the consent judgment states that the defendants must acquire lower lead fuel “to meet demands of the customers.” If there is little to no demand for the fuel at the prices that defendants would need to charge to sell the lower lead fuel at a break-even basis, then defendants could arguably purchase none of the lower lead fuel and meet the demands of the customers. The phrase “sufficient to meet demands of the customers” is where “Commercially Available” incorporates “commercially feasible.”

The Court is concerned that the Consent Judgment turned a case about warnings into a case about forcing a fundamental industry shift through the means of a consent decree, particularly here where regulatory bodies and industry groups are currently addressing the same issue— transitioning to the broad-based use of Avgas with lower levels of lead...

The Court as a matter of contract interpretation reads the word “approved” as meaning approved by the FAA for general use and reads the phrase “commercially available” as meaning both commercially available and commercially feasible. This broad interpretation of those terms is appropriate to ensure that the application of the Consent Judgment (1) is consistent with California and federal legislation and regulation regarding aviation fuel, (2) is lawful, reasonable, and consistent with its evident object, and (3) does not undercut a complex regulatory process that accounts for a wider range of stakeholders and issues than those evident here.

G100UL low lead fuel is not “Approved for aviation use.” Plaintiff has demonstrated that G100UL low lead fuel has been approved for certain aircraft with a Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”). STC approval concerns a modification from the original design rather than a general approval. Plaintiff has not demonstrated general approval as would be the situation if there were approval under the FAA’s PAFI or EAGLE programs.

[shawnd]

3 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I'm reading the tentative ruling right now.  I think the Judge and I think alike.

I'm glad to see this outcome, given all the implications about the judge ruling on this case in the thread above. As always, don't judge a book by its cover! 

[ragedracer1977]

This was the entirety of the argument CEH's lead attorney used to contest the ruling:

The unleaded fuel at issue, G100UL, has been approved for aviation use by FAA pursuant to the only approval method explicitly referenced in the Consent Judgment. That fuel is also "Commercially Available" as that term is defined in the Consent Judgment. The undefined term "commercially available" has a very specific dictionary definition which has been confirmed in case law and does not include feasibility.

[redbaron1982]

9 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

G100UL low lead fuel is not “Approved for aviation use.” Plaintiff has demonstrated that G100UL low lead fuel has been approved for certain aircraft with a Supplemental Type Certificate (“STC”). STC approval concerns a modification from the original design rather than a general approval. Plaintiff has not demonstrated general approval as would be the situation if there were approval under the FAA’s PAFI or EAGLE programs.

I love this part, too good to be true.

Edited March 5 by redbaron1982

[Marc_B]

If you care to read the entire tentative ruling.

The movement for unleaded fuel isn't gone, and I'm sure this will be actively pushed and revisited by the plaintiff.  But perhaps this gives a little pause to start working on a viable and safe unleaded fuel option.

"The Court is concerned that the Consent Judgment turned a case about warnings into a case
about forcing a fundamental industry shift through the means of a consent decree, particularly
here where regulatory bodies and industry groups are currently addressing the same issue—
transitioning to the broad-based use of Avgas with lower levels of lead."

59955118_03_04_2025_Tentative_Ruling.pdf

[MikeOH]

WHEW!

Big sigh of (temporary) relief from this Kalifornia pilot.

I found it fascinating that his justifications did NOT even touch upon damage or safety concerns despite the filed briefs covering those issues.

I am concerned whether his reasoning on what 'commercially available' really means will hold up on appeal (basically the argument that the CEH attorneys brought). I.e. that they are correct that precedent (case law) does not allow for 'feasibility'.

Time (hopefully, a lot of it) will tell.  But the land developers are going to have to build elsewhere for a while longer

[redbaron1982]

> G100UL has not been approved by the FAA’s Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (“PAFI”), which was created to review unleaded fuels. (Oppo at 4-5) There is no ASTM Standard for unleaded gas, so there is no industry standard against which G100UL can be measured to ensure that it is safe and appropriate. (Oppo at 5-6, 9-10, 15-16.) Several aircraft manufacturers have disapproved use of G100UL for various reasons, including that it degrades tank sealant. (Oppo at 7-9.) G100UL has not been subject to “peer review” because GAMI (its manufacturer) refuses to share information without a confidentiality agreement. (Oppo at 9.)

This part mentions some safety concerns and mentions the GAMI refusal of peer review without a gag clause.

[IvanP]

I think that the lack of transparency was significant factor in the decision as well as the interpretation of the term "commercially available". I am not surprised that the judge did not go deep into the safety issues at this time. He did not need to. 

Edited March 5 by IvanP

[A64Pilot]

I think the most important part was him or her recognizing that the FAA hasn’t approved the fuel, but allows it if there is a major alteration of the aircraft done. STC by FAA definition is a major and therefore requires an IA and a 337.

Things like the opinion of the definition of Commercially available can be undone I think, but I think saying an STC isn’t a major when he FAA say’s it is, is going to be tougher for another Judge to disagree with.

There is precedent for fuel STC’s though with the Mogas ones back in the 70’s, but often they did require significant airframe modifications.

I keep thinking that surely the G100UL is dead, but the FAA still hasn’t taken action.

[ragedracer1977]

43 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I think the most important part was him or her recognizing that the FAA hasn’t approved the fuel, but allows it if there is a major alteration of the aircraft done. STC by FAA definition is a major and therefore requires an IA and a 337.

Things like the opinion of the definition of Commercially available can be undone I think, but I think saying an STC isn’t a major when he FAA say’s it is, is going to be tougher for another Judge to disagree with.

There is precedent for fuel STC’s though with the Mogas ones back in the 70’s, but often they did require significant airframe modifications.

I keep thinking that surely the G100UL is dead, but the FAA still hasn’t taken action.

I think the 'commercially available' argument was correct - In terms of the case at hand.  You have to read the original agreement.  Commercially available was defined in the agreement.  The dictionary definition is meaningless, and the judge addressed this at length.  I've argued here an on Beechtalk that the judge would find exactly as he did.  And I was told I was nuts.  (I mean.. they're not wrong there, but...) 

The decree defines it as " on a consistent and sustained basis at prices and on terms, in quantities and at times sufficient to meet demands of the customers of that Settling Defendant in California (“Commercially Available”), "

Simply having a fuel that has lower or no lead available for people to buy does not alone meet the tests presented by the agreement. 

[gabez]

11 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I'm hearing the consent judgement was denied!

RIP

[GeeBee]

For a CA court, I am surprised.......and pleased.

[A64Pilot]

10 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I think the 'commercially available' argument was correct - In terms of the case at hand.  You have to read the original agreement.  Commercially available was defined in the agreement.  The dictionary definition is meaningless, and the judge addressed this at length.  I've argued here an on Beechtalk that the judge would find exactly as he did.  And I was told I was nuts.  (I mean.. they're not wrong there, but...) 

The decree defines it as " on a consistent and sustained basis at prices and on terms, in quantities and at times sufficient to meet demands of the customers of that Settling Defendant in California (“Commercially Available”), "

Simply having a fuel that has lower or no lead available for people to buy does not alone meet the tests presented by the agreement. 

I’m not arguing against what your saying, I’m just saying I guess that unfortunately not all Judges are impartial and ones that aren’t can often find in a way that’s not impartial.

However I think that a Judge that has an Agenda will find the argument that requiring a major modification be done to burn a fuel harder to overturn, could still happen just I think it’s a more convincing argument.

Long way of saying this might just not be the last we hear of it, that more court cases are coming.

I know nothing about California’s politics and CARB etc except what I read and hear, but I’m surprised at this ruling, I expected a rubber stamp.

I would expect the ones leading the fight to ban lead to have an apoplectic fit and come out strong. I doubt they will stay quiet, but as I don’t live there and have personal experience maybe I’m wrong.

[Marc_B]

The saga continues...sigh

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/judge-defers-ceh-g100ul-ruling/

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

The saga continues...sigh

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/judge-defers-ceh-g100ul-ruling/

WTH??

So yesterday's 'ruling' wasn't a ruling?  Only in LA LA LAwyer land...what was the point?

Another two weeks of 'sweating it out', I guess.

I am glad to hear the judge is concerned with the 'process' for the STC in this case.  Never seemed proper to me; who ever heard of a blanket STC for ALL models of anything (except helicopters)???

[Marc_B]

I think if no one contested the ruling then it would become final.  Of course the plaintiff contested... 

tentatively scheduled 3/12/2025 at 2:30PM...

[MikeOH]

Just now, Marc_B said:

I think if no one contested the ruling then it would become final.  Of course the plaintiff contested... 

tentatively scheduled 3/12/2025 at 2:30PM...

Thanks.  Silly me, I thought that's what an appeal was for: to contest the outcome.  Or, is that what happens after the 'final' ruling?  What a mess!

[Paul Thomas]

I was discussing this fuel and the legal case with my wife who brought up something I have no seen discussed: corrosion. Since this fuel appears to act as a paint stripper, how does it affect corrosion? Is there a concern that ingredients in the fuel may accelerate corrosion? If so, that would be a nasty combination.

[gabez]

41 minutes ago, Paul Thomas said:

I was discussing this fuel and the legal case with my wife who brought up something I have no seen discussed: corrosion. Since this fuel appears to act as a paint stripper, how does it affect corrosion? Is there a concern that ingredients in the fuel may accelerate corrosion? If so, that would be a nasty combination.

funny you say that, when I emailed mooney about this shit show one of their comments was:

"I wonder if there is anything going on with the aluminum itself, I would hope they did test, but you would think they did test on the paint and sealant as well…"

[A64Pilot]

12 hours ago, Paul Thomas said:

I was discussing this fuel and the legal case with my wife who brought up something I have no seen discussed: corrosion. Since this fuel appears to act as a paint stripper, how does it affect corrosion? Is there a concern that ingredients in the fuel may accelerate corrosion? If so, that would be a nasty combination.

No telling, good point though, anything that will dissolve Jet-Glo is a serious solvent. Problem with actual testing is it takes a long time and for metals it takes a lot more than just eye balls, like does it cause Hydrogen embrittlement in steel etc.

However I still think that a real issue here is that the stuff that’s in this fuel is likely more damaging to health than the lead it’s meant to replace.

Being as how everything in California causes Cancer or at least anytime I buy anything it has a label attesting to that I’m surprised that hasn’t been brought up, but suspect it’s because of the Laser focus on lead must go.

On edit, I’m not saying the testing that has been done isn’t without merit, just saying sometimes the damage doesn’t present itself so quickly and sometimes it’s not visible to the naked eye.

 

Edited March 7 by A64Pilot

[gabez]

sales of G1 at KWVI through March 11

[redbaron1982]

34 minutes ago, gabez said:

sales of G1 at KWVI through March 11

Any news on the court side?

[IvanP]

does not look like the fuel is in high demand. Less than 200 gal sold in March. That is like 3-4 planes fueling up in last 21 days. Flightaware shows more than 40 arrivals today alone. 

[gabez]

14 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

Any news on the court side?

you mean RHV? it's the same trend