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

[MikeOH]

@EricJ

You're the A&P/IA, not me, so I'll take your word on how much theoretical responsibility falls to each individual IA based on your points.  Practically speaking, I still believe there's no real financial liability risk to the IA.  My argument is based on exactly what you said, "so a judge may have to decide at some point".  What the judge is actually deciding is WHO has the money to pay!  Out of everyone involved the IA is the LEAST likely able to pay!  It's going to be the manufacturer and the fuel distributors.  And, my guess is that GAMI is, in the scheme of things, VERY small in terms of assets...and furthermore, is structured to NOT hold many in the first place (very little net worth and retained earnings...all the profit is 'pulled out')!  IMHO, the FAA should be accountable as they issued the blanket STC...but good luck successfully suing, winning, and collecting from the FEDS!  The fuel disty's are going to get stuck.  Especially ironic in that, if the Consent Decree is upheld, they will be FORCED to sell the fuel in the first place...and then have to pay for damages it causes!

[Sabremech]

50 minutes ago, EricJ said:

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.   

Amen. Fuel should have Never been an STC. It’s only a matter of time before someone becomes that smoking hole if this stuff is continued to be used and sold as a complete drop in replacement. I will not be that IA in that mess. 

[Aaviationist]

Now that this thread has wound down to 3, maybe 4 people circle talking the same thing repeatedly, surely the FAA will take notice and make change. 

[A64Pilot]

Many years ago there were auto fuel STC’s granted and I think that set a precedent, that and the Political pressure to get rid of the lead pressured the FAA.

What is different in my opinion is the Auto fuel STC’s approved an existing fuel, but the Gami stuff is a mixture of chemicals, that was never a fuel.

Who is going to pay I think that @MikeOH has it pretty correct, if I understand George Braly was first a Laywer, so one would expect that he is pretty well protected from Lawsuits.

I suspect that the individual aircraft owner is who will pay, as it may be that there are no deep pockets on the other side no Lawyer will take this on commission and even if someone were to take it upon themselves to fund it, it would likely take years to get a judgement, and about all I suspect you could do with that is frame it and hang it on the wall, because I think George may be “judgement proof”

 

Edited March 27 by A64Pilot

[IvanP]

5 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Many years ago there were auto fuel STC’s granted and I think that set a precedent, that and the Political pressure to get rid of the lead pressured the FAA.

What is different in my opinion is the Auto fuel STC’s approved an existing fuel, but the Gami stuff is a mixture of chemicals, that was never a fuel.

Who is going to pay I think that @MikeOH has it pretty correct, if I understand George Braly was first a Laywer, so one would expect that he is pretty well protected from Lawsuits.

I suspect that the individual aircraft owner is who will pay though, as it may be that there are no deep pockets on the other side no Lawyer will take this on commission and even if someone were to take it upon themselves to fund it, it would likely take years to get a judgement, and about all I suspect you could do with that is frame it and hang it on the wall, because I think George may be “judgement proof”

 

If/when lawsuits are filed ragarding this brew on the product liability theory, the targets will likely be the manufacturer(s) and distributor(s). Although the plaintiff's lawyers will porbably name everybody who was involved, including GAMI and the poor sap who signed the 337, the real targets will be the companies with the most money and their respective insurers.  

[A64Pilot]

16 minutes ago, IvanP said:

If/when lawsuits are filed ragarding this brew on the product liability theory, the targets will likely be the manufacturer(s) and distributor(s). Although the plaintiff's lawyers will porbably name everybody who was involved, including GAMI and the poor sap who signed the 337, the real targets will be the companies with the most money and their respective insurers.  

Assuming as you say that they have deep pockets, then it’s likely that they have legal teams on retainer.

Not saying that makes them invulnerable, but does make it real tough.

Remember the Ford Pinto? The lawsuit? As I understand it the Jury awarded over 100 million, but Ford Lawyers had it reduced to 3 Mil and a new trial etc. Now I wasn’t there of course but I was told by someone who knew this kind of stuff that years later the Plaintiffs still hadn’t gotten much, Lawyers fees etc pretty much ate up what they had received and Ford had tied it up in courts etc for years.

If you read about how complicit Ford was in the Pinto design, it was criminal, then later along came the Explorer, read about that too and you may not be pleased.

[hazek]

8 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

Now that this thread has wound down to 3, maybe 4 people circle talking the same thing repeatedly, surely the FAA will take notice and make change. 

I'm just over here in Europe watching this fiasco unfold wondering why we can't have nice things. Why do people have to lie. And why the world can't agree on reality. All of it is stupid. Just stupid.

[gabez]

5 hours ago, hazek said:

I'm just over here in Europe watching this fiasco unfold wondering why we can't have nice things. Why do people have to lie. And why the world can't agree on reality. All of it is stupid. Just stupid.

there are relatively speaking a lot of money on the table, rookie entrepreneurs routinely make the mistake of believing what they have is special when in reality it's not. Consumers will always  corse correct this individual/companies, which is what you are seeing here.

Remember when Apple launched the iPhone4 and Steve Jobs had to go out in public and tell everyone they needed a bumper because the hand would block the antenna? Well that's Apple who invests billions of dollars in development. 

Now this is GAMI well...you can connect the dots 

[Pinecone]

On 3/25/2025 at 10:32 PM, philiplane said:

I've watched the A340 wing in flight, but a 787 is even more flexible. The tips rise several feet on takeoff.  

 

Hmm, B-52 wing tips rise something like 12 - 16 FEET on take off.  And that is an aluminum airplane, many older than our Mooneys.  I suspect they have bladders that have been changed a few times though.

 

[Pinecone]

14 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Assuming as you say that they have deep pockets, then it’s likely that they have legal teams on retainer.

Not saying that makes them invulnerable, but does make it real tough.

Remember the Ford Pinto? The lawsuit? As I understand it the Jury awarded over 100 million, but Ford Lawyers had it reduced to 3 Mil and a new trial etc. Now I wasn’t there of course but I was told by someone who knew this kind of stuff that years later the Plaintiffs still hadn’t gotten much, Lawyers fees etc pretty much ate up what they had received and Ford had tied it up in courts etc for years.

If you read about how complicit Ford was in the Pinto design, it was criminal, then later along came the Explorer, read about that too and you may not be pleased.

If there is more than one or two plaintiffs, the lawyers seem to get all the money.   There was a case with faulty equipment and firefighters being exposed to hazardous gases and vapors.  When it was all done, each one got less than $100,000.   Last I heard, the plaintiffs were suing their lawyers.

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Who is going to pay I think thathas it pretty correct, if I understand George Braly was first a Laywer, so one would expect that he is pretty well protected from Lawsuits.

To be correct, George started as an aeronautical engineer FIRST.  He worked for Ted Smith on the Aerostar. 

He later became a lawyer, then got back into aviation with GAMIjectors.

[gabez]

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID139871502220250328153822.0001

[Aaviationist]

That’s literally nothing. It literally says they are not aware of any issues, but if you do have issues, to please report them. 
 

nothing to see here  

 

let me ask a practical question to the 3 of you. -

When all paths to a drop in replacement are exhausted and none are found, what do you think the next step is?  It’s NOT “oh I guess we need to use leaded fuel forever”. You’re going to HAVE to do something to make your aircraft compliant with whatever the requirements are, or scrap it. 
 

That’s what it is. At least 1 of the 3 of you thinks this is strictly someone else’s problem to figure out financially. And it isn’t, and it never will be. 

Edited March 29 by Aaviationist

[Mufflerbearing]

I for one would love to install water/methanol injection and run mogas.  It would only be used for a sort time every trip on climb out.  Now if there was an stc for that on our planes...

[A64Pilot]

6 hours ago, Mufflerbearing said:

I for one would love to install water/methanol injection and run mogas.  It would only be used for a sort time every trip on climb out.  Now if there was an stc for that on our planes...

While it is possible and would work, a possible stumbling block is that Mogas doesn’t really exist anymore.

The current Auto fuel is actually many different fuels, one for Summer, and a different one for Winter, apparently a third for high density population areas and California of course has its own special fuel, and even if we ignore that Auto fuel keeps changing, I think MTBE is gone? Replaced by aeromatics?  ETH or alcohol fits in there somewhere too. So what do you certify to?

Either way MTBE wasn’t in the fuel back in the day when the Auto fuel STC’s were issued, so are they even valid now?

That is why I think, in my opinion and yes I know what my opinion is worth, but a way forward is ADI with 94UL.

I think it’s the only viable option right now, don’t need ADI because your low compression, fine burn 94UL, have a high compression motor? Fine burn 94UL with ADI. Only need to sell one fuel, one that should work fine with existing trucks, tanks etc.

I guess maybe the perfect 100LL replacement could come out tomorrow, but as they have been trying for more than 20 years my guess is if it were possible it would have happened long ago?

Even bladder guys I believe will have problems. My bladders are made from the same material O-rings are made from, so if it causes O-rings to swell and soften, won’t it affect my bladders the same way?

I just hope the Feds don’t mandate this stuff

[gabez]

from the beechtalk thread:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-BAdrBUFKZNaVIoJ6sFFXuu2GG9rr1Cp/view?usp=sharing

 

[IvanP]

14 hours ago, gabez said:

from the beechtalk thread:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-BAdrBUFKZNaVIoJ6sFFXuu2GG9rr1Cp/view?usp=sharing

 

Interesting write up, but there are some questionable statements. The very first paragraph where he stated that he "refueled exlusively with G100UL" on multiple trips to Mexico simply cannot be true unless he was also tankering G100UL on his trips to Mexico or G100UL is available there (doubtful). If I recall correctly, BO A-36 has range somewhere around 700nm, the distance from San Martin to El Fuerte is around 1,000nm. Inconsistencies like this, albeit probably unintentional, will nevertheless diminsh the probative value of his statement. 

[toto]

11 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Interesting write up, but there are some questionable statements. The very first paragraph where he stated that he "refueled exlusively with G100UL" on multiple trips to Mexico simply cannot be true unless he was also tankering G100UL on his trips to Mexico or G100UL is available there (doubtful). If I recall correctly, BO A-36 has range somewhere around 700nm, the distance from San Martin to El Fuerte is around 1,000nm. Inconsistencies like this, albeit probably unintentional, will nevertheless diminsh the probative value of his statement. 

I’m not on Beechtalk, but the document says it’s version 5. This would be good feedback to provide the author, especially if he hasn’t already submitted it. 

[gabez]

47 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Interesting write up, but there are some questionable statements. The very first paragraph where he stated that he "refueled exlusively with G100UL" on multiple trips to Mexico simply cannot be true unless he was also tankering G100UL on his trips to Mexico or G100UL is available there (doubtful). If I recall correctly, BO A-36 has range somewhere around 700nm, the distance from San Martin to El Fuerte is around 1,000nm. Inconsistencies like this, albeit probably unintentional, will nevertheless diminsh the probative value of his statement. 

it's a good point, I didn't do a ton of research but that BO has tips also, so maybe he gets a better range? 

[IvanP]

8 minutes ago, gabez said:

it's a good point, I didn't do a ton of research but that BO has tips also, so maybe he gets a better range? 

I doubt that you could get 2,000 nm out of bo (round trip) even with extended tanks.. 

[mluvara]

1 hour ago, IvanP said:

Interesting write up, but there are some questionable statements. The very first paragraph where he stated that he "refueled exlusively with G100UL" on multiple trips to Mexico simply cannot be true unless he was also tankering G100UL on his trips to Mexico or G100UL is available there (doubtful). If I recall correctly, BO A-36 has range somewhere around 700nm, the distance from San Martin to El Fuerte is around 1,000nm. Inconsistencies like this, albeit probably unintentional, will nevertheless diminsh the probative value of his statement. 

His original intent of this document was to share it with the two airports that carry G100UL (RHV & WVI). I believe his point was that he exclusively filled up any time in the bay area with G100UL, but obviously needed 100LL to fly home. The aircraft's flight history is here, with obvious stops for border crossing.  He quantified that the D-Shannon tip tanks hold 40 gallons in this post.

Edited March 30 by mluvara

[IvanP]

8 minutes ago, mluvara said:

His original intent of this document was to share it with the two airports that carry G100UL (RHV & WVI). I believe his point was that he exclusively filled up any time in the bay area with G100UL, but obviously needed 100LL to fly home. The aircraft's flight history is here, with obvious stops for border crossing.  He quantified that the D-Shannon tip tanks hold 40 gallons in this post.

I got his point and I do not disagree with the opinions articulated in his writeup. My point was that any factual inaccuracies in publicly shared documents will arguably diminish the author's credibility and probative value of his conclusions.

Your posts and videos are great in this respect - based on facts and observations that are reported as accurately as you can without any hyperbole or embelishments. I greatly appreciate your effort to put the facts out in a clear and easy to understand manner. Your work is of great value to GA community. Thank you!!  

[mluvara]

20 hours ago, IvanP said:

I got his point and I do not disagree with the opinions articulated in his writeup. My point was that any factual inaccuracies in publicly shared documents will arguably diminish the author's credibility and probative value of his conclusions.

Your posts and videos are great in this respect - based on facts and observations that are reported as accurately as you can without any hyperbole or embelishments. I greatly appreciate your effort to put the facts out in a clear and easy to understand manner. Your work is of great value to GA community. Thank you!!  

I reached out to Paul and conveyed your feedback to him.

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate it. 

Michael

[MikeOH]

On 3/29/2025 at 8:43 AM, Aaviationist said:

That’s literally nothing. It literally says they are not aware of any issues, but if you do have issues, to please report them. 
 

nothing to see here  

 

let me ask a practical question to the 3 of you. -

When all paths to a drop in replacement are exhausted and none are found, what do you think the next step is?  It’s NOT “oh I guess we need to use leaded fuel forever”. You’re going to HAVE to do something to make your aircraft compliant with whatever the requirements are, or scrap it. 
 

That’s what it is. At least 1 of the 3 of you thinks this is strictly someone else’s problem to figure out financially. And it isn’t, and it never will be. 

You're a riot.  Practical question for you:  Do you really think the FAA went to the trouble to issue this SAIB because only 3 people are concerned?  Sounds like part of the process for coming up with an AD, to me.

[varlajo]

4 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

You're a riot.  Practical question for you:  Do you really think the FAA went to the trouble to issue this SAIB because only 3 people are concerned?  Sounds like part of the process for coming up with an AD, to me.

Totally agree. It's like "Hey y'all, anyone having issues with 20W50XC? Let us know!"