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

[gabez]

2 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

It was fairly obvious to me that this fuel was a safety concern from just what it did to O-rings, that was enough for me, the paint issues came along and that again screamed it was an aggressive solvent, I’m not talking about staining I’m talking about dissolving Jet-Glo. I wasn’t surprised at all knowing that that it ate fuel tank sealer, I expected that. I think in time we will see fuel pump leaks, maybe fuel servo problems and or fuel spider problems, anything in the fuel system that has “rubber” components. Maybe even fuel hoses.

Then as it became apparent that “fresh” fuel wasn’t as big a problem as was what was left behind when the more volatile fluids flashed off made sense as assumption that only the fresh fuel was tested during the STC process. I can accept that as an honest mistake. But you need to own up to your mistakes, mistakes don’t get better with time.

1 in 1000 problems is unacceptable, 7 out of 100 is crazy, especially how quick the problems popped up, I’m used to mistakes only showing up months or years later, not within days. Over time that 7 out of 100 will increase I’m sure.

I’m amazed it hasn’t been voluntarily withdrawn, will it take a fatality for that to happen? Do they think these issues are made up, that they don’t exist, or do they think they will just go away on their own?

I guess I expect that in time the FAA will pull the STC

and....https://fb.watch/yz--fslm_s/ coming soon to KRFG

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, gabez said:

and....https://fb.watch/yz--fslm_s/ coming soon to KRFG

WOW.  Time to triple-down on the risk, I guess

[A64Pilot]

8 minutes ago, gabez said:

and....https://fb.watch/yz--fslm_s/ coming soon to KRFG

Link doesn’t work for me, too many redirects.

What was it saying?

[gabez]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

WOW.  Time to triple-down on the risk, I guess

what am I missing? SOS

[MikeOH]

Just now, A64Pilot said:

Link doesn’t work for me, too many redirects.

What was it saying?

G100UL is coming to KFRG with free STCs....just like RHV.

[A64Pilot]

Krfg is Texas?

[redbaron1982]

10 minutes ago, gabez said:

and....https://fb.watch/yz--fslm_s/ coming soon to KRFG

Don't California my Texas

[A64Pilot]

Why would anybody in Tx want the stuff?

[MikeOH]

6 minutes ago, gabez said:

what am I missing? SOS

Just that GAMI now know there are problems in the field from the two airports already selling G100UL...now introducing another one!

[gabez]

5 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Why would anybody in Tx want the stuff?

from the FB page looks like a couple that wants to start an FBO, which is a monumental task given the low to zero number of operations from FlightAware. I just don't get how you are going to attract operations 

[MikeOH]

26 minutes ago, gabez said:

from the FB page looks like a couple that wants to start an FBO, which is a monumental task given the low to zero number of operations from FlightAware. I just don't get how you are going to attract operations 

Hmm, doesn't sound like the best business plan...

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, gabez said:

from the FB page looks like a couple that wants to start an FBO, which is a monumental task given the low to zero number of operations from FlightAware. I just don't get how you are going to attract operations 

Low fuel price. Maybe inventory clearance?

[IvanP]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

1 in 1000 problems is unacceptable, 7 out of 100 is crazy, especially how quick the problems popped up, I’m used to mistakes only showing up months or years later, not within days. Over time that 7 out of 100 will increase I’m sure.

I’m amazed it hasn’t been voluntarily withdrawn, will it take a fatality for that to happen? Do they think these issues are made up, that they don’t exist, or do they think they will just go away on their own?

I guess I expect that in time the FAA will pull the STC

I think the purveyors of this product rely on the strong push from governments and environuts to move away from leaded fuel at any cost to the owners and operators of the aircraft and on the fact that it would probably be pretty difficult to determine that fuel was the principal cause of an accident. Hence the claims that any problems related to use of G100UL were not caused by the fuel itself but rather by poor maintenance or inadequate materials and/or design used in the affected aircraft. 

[A64Pilot]

15 minutes ago, IvanP said:

I think the purveyors of this product rely on the strong push from governments and environuts to move away from leaded fuel at any cost to the owners and operators of the aircraft and on the fact that it would probably be pretty difficult to determine that fuel was the principal cause of an accident. Hence the claims that any problems related to use of G100UL were not caused by the fuel itself but rather by poor maintenance or inadequate materials and/or design used in the affected aircraft. 

I hear you and understand what your saying.

But inadequate materials and or design if it exists is a fact of the GA fleet, one that has been operating for decades with minimal issue. So it is pretty apparent that these materials and design are in fact adequate with existing fuels. This new fuel was supposed to be completely transparent in its use, no significant changes. Nothing about except for certain makes etc.

The fact that people have investigated wing fuel tanks with the Gami fuel in it and found that the sealant had been softened to the point that a borescope camera would leave indentations in the sealant and the fact that when they went back to 100 LL the sealant hardened up seems at least to me that it’s the fuel, not inadequate material or design that’s the issue, unless you accept that fuel tank sealant is inadequate?

We had a joke in the Army, if you were caught doing something you shouldn't the course of action was to Lie, Deny, and make Counter Accusations., until the hammer falls.

Seems that is what Gami is doing, all I can think of is that they believe there is a conspiracy against them and or maybe these issues will just go away, both of which just don’t make sense, bad news doesn’t get better with time, the more aircraft that use this fuel and accumulate damage, the more likely there will be lawsuits. The hammer falling.

I just don’t see the logic in continuing?

I mean Cirrus, a major manufacturer of new aircraft has come out and said don’t use it, but the real damning thing is their concern of one that has that has been brought to their attention isn’t airworthy now.

What ever happened about that anyway?

Edited Wednesday at 09:16 PM by A64Pilot

[IvanP]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

We had a joke in the Army, if you were caught doing something you shouldn't the course of action was to Lie, Deny, and make Counter Accusations., until the hammer falls.

Seems that is what Gami is doing, all I can think of is that they believe there is a conspiracy against them and or maybe these issues will just go away, both of which just don’t make sense, bad news doesn’t get better with time, the more aircraft that use this fuel and accumulate damage, the more likely there will be lawsuits. The hammer falling.

I just don’t see the logic in continuing?

 

Exactly. GAMI and other proponents of this product seem to be willing to do anything to get it mandated by the govt. See the posts related to the CA CEH suit. While doubling down on distribution of arguably defective product may seem counterintuitive to most people, if the product will be mandated by the govt (via ban of the only viable alternative), someone is going to make a boatload of money. Similar to big tobacco, the potential profits will likely far surpass the losses related to litigation for damage casued to the aircraft. My guess is that this is the strategy employed here. Time will tell.    

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, IvanP said:

 if the product will be mandated by the govt (via ban of the only viable alternative), someone is going to make a boatload of money. Similar to big tobacco, the potential profits will likely far surpass the losses related to litigation for damage casued to the aircraft. My guess is that this is the strategy employed here. Time will tell.    

THIS!

And, if true, Braly isn't the good ol' boy many seem to believe.  Remember, he's an attorney so it's not like he's ignorant of these factors.

[gabez]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

THIS!

And, if true, Braly isn't the good ol' boy many seem to believe.  Remember, he's an attorney so it's not like he's ignorant of these factors.

I wonder if he has read crossing the chasm? 

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

THIS!

And, if true, Braly isn't the good ol' boy many seem to believe.  Remember, he's an attorney so it's not like he's ignorant of these factors.

He was pretty quick to throw the entire Mooney community under the bus as soon as it appeared that it would benefit him to do so.  

[Sabremech]

18 hours ago, MikeOH said:

G100UL is coming to KFRG with free STCs....just like RHV.

Just a question knowing what we know now, as an IA, would you sign the 337 for this STC? 
I don’t think I could if I was asked to. Thoughts? 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Sabremech said:

Just a question knowing what we know now, as an IA, would you sign the 337 for this STC? 
I don’t think I could if I was asked to. Thoughts? 

I wouldn't, either, fwiw.

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Just a question knowing what we know now, as an IA, would you sign the 337 for this STC? 
I don’t think I could if I was asked to. Thoughts? 

Not a chance.

[IvanP]

3 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Just a question knowing what we know now, as an IA, would you sign the 337 for this STC? 
I don’t think I could if I was asked to. Thoughts? 

Maybe some aviation lawyers on the forum could chime in with qualified opinions. My thinking is that, in llight of the fairly publicized issues with G100UL material incompatibility, signing this 337 now could present siginifcant liability risk for the IA. 

Edited Thursday at 04:40 PM by IvanP

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Maybe some aviation lawyers on the forum could chime in with qualified opinions. My thinking is that, in llight of the fairly publicized issues with G100UL material incompatibility, signing this 337 now could present siginifcant liability risk for the IA. 

You could be right, but I think from a legal perspective the IA is, practically speaking, probably safe from personal liability.  His argument (his lawyer's) would be that he installed an FAA approved STC in accordance with the STC instructions.  I doubt trying to prove whether he was even aware of issues with the fuel would be allowed into court.  After all, some IAs might well NOT be aware even if they're well publicized.

My objection is a moral one; I wouldn't want my customer to suffer any negative consequences.

[redbaron1982]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

You could be right, but I think from a legal perspective the IA is, practically speaking, probably safe from personal liability.  His argument (his lawyer's) would be that he installed an FAA approved STC in accordance with the STC instructions.  I doubt trying to prove whether he was even aware of issues with the fuel would be allowed into court.  After all, some IAs might well NOT be aware even if they're well publicized.

My objection is a moral one; I wouldn't want my customer to suffer any negative consequences.

Yeah, I think the IA would be liable if he doesn't comply with the steps / modifications stated in the STC. But I don't know how he could be liable as long as the work associated with STC was correctly performed.

I don't think the IA responsibility is to question and evaluate if an STC is safe or not, that is the responsibility of the FAA.

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

You could be right, but I think from a legal perspective the IA is, practically speaking, probably safe from personal liability.  His argument (his lawyer's) would be that he installed an FAA approved STC in accordance with the STC instructions.  I doubt trying to prove whether he was even aware of issues with the fuel would be allowed into court.  After all, some IAs might well NOT be aware even if they're well publicized.

It's always the IA's job to make sure that the STC is compatible with the aircraft being altered, in its current state, even if the aircraft is on the AML for the STC.   This includes checking what other STCs are installed, and whether there could be compatibility issues with those installations, since compatibility with those STCs may not have been considered during development of the current STC being considered.   Since we now know that there were a lot of material compatibility issues that were not adequately considered (IMHO, anyway) for the G100UL STC, and GAMI says that they think all o-rings should be flourosilicone by now, anyway, if an IA knows (or, IMHO, suspects), that a particular aircraft still requires nitrile o-rings according to the IPC, or still has nitril o-rings installed, then that's an issue that the IA could be expected to deal with.   We also know that that's just one dimension of the potential safety or maintenance issues that should be reviewed for an owner considering this STC.

Many say, as you suggest, that an IA is just installing the STC and the burdens for safety compliance are elsewhere.    So where are they?   Everybody points fingers somewhere else, so a judge may have to decide at some point.   I think the point being raised here is that the IA is a safety gatekeeper to some degree, and is often the aircraft owner's last chance for such a safety review, regardless of how much somebody might trust the STC process.

One of the fallouts from this whole saga is that some, including myself, have lost a lot of confidence in the efficacy of the STC process to produce safe alternatives or modifications for GA aircraft.