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

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

I lost some respect for him after all that.   

Me, too.

I had always thought his videos were well done. But I thought his G100UL video was biased and lacked any scientific objectivity. Very disappointing.

[gabez]

On 7/23/2025 at 3:18 PM, MikeOH said:

Me, too.

I had always thought his videos were well done. But I thought his G100UL video was biased and lacked any scientific objectivity. Very disappointing.

I asked him point blank what issues he had on this plane....crickets. definitely GAMI biased, saying I was wrong and you guys were right goes a long way especially if you have a YouTube channel.

[gabez]

this is from yesterday. Minute 56-57 on is about G100UL. Looks like they will be stopping (or proposing to) the sales of G100UL. 1st case of totaled aircraft due to G100UL 

https://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=16468&MinutesID=10778&Format=Minutes&MediaFileFormat=mp4

[redbaron1982]

24 minutes ago, gabez said:

1st case of totaled aircraft due to G100UL 

Is there any details on what damaged the fuel caused? $600k on repairs sounds like a lot

[jetdriven]

it was a Cessna 421

[gabez]

47 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

Is there any details on what damaged the fuel caused? $600k on repairs sounds like a lot

Steve the owner of the plane went through some details in the 3 minutes he had. But basically everything that the fuel touched needed to be replaced (poor man explanation)

[Aaviationist]

Another nothing sandwich. 
 

there is no requirement to stop the sale of Gami fuel. The FAA decision was about he previous stop of sale of 100ll. NOT the beginning of sale or continuation of availability of e Gami fuel. 
 

selling fuel that the FAA deems compatible with aircraft is not in any way the liability of the state, county, town, or airport. The determination of the safe operation of an aircraft is the responsibility of owner and or PIC. 

[redbaron1982]

4 minutes ago, gabez said:

Steve the owner of the plane went through some details in the 3 minutes he had. But basically everything that the fuel touched needed to be replaced (poor man explanation)

yeah, I listened to the whole hearing, but that's kind of vague. Like, did it damage the pistons? the cylinder head? I know for sure it didn't, but I can't imaging the damange being worth 600k.

[gabez]

4 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Another nothing sandwich. 
 

there is no requirement to stop the sale of Gami fuel. The FAA decision was about he previous stop of sale of 100ll. NOT the beginning of sale or continuation of availability of e Gami fuel. 
 

selling fuel that the FAA deems compatible with aircraft is not in any way the liability of the state, county, town, or airport. The determination of the safe operation of an aircraft is the responsibility of owner and or PIC. 

the regs don't matter anymore...GAMI has not proven to the eye of the consumer this fuel is drop in, so sales are virtually zero, planes are down and GAMI is backed against a corner 

[redbaron1982]

4 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

The determination of the safe operation of an aircraft is the responsibility of owner and or PIC. 

So then why A&P and IA worry much about lawsuits? They could just say "Hey buddy, I did my best, you are the owner and the responsible to determine if your aircraft is safe to fly"

My uneducated opionion is that any lawsuit will go after: GAMI, FAA, County, and the FBO.

[gabez]

1 minute ago, redbaron1982 said:

yeah, I listened to the whole hearing, but that's kind of vague. Like, did it damage the pistons? the cylinder head? I know for sure it didn't, but I can't imaging the damange being worth 600k.

I read it as nobody wants the responsibility to deal with any of these...so 600K is better than the alternative. 

[Jackk]

36 minutes ago, gabez said:

the regs don't matter anymore...GAMI has not proven to the eye of the consumer this fuel is drop in, so sales are virtually zero, planes are down and GAMI is backed against a corner 

The whole gami scam lowered my [already low] opinion of the FAA.

 

Now that we have aircraft down I think this really needs to be investigated, and by that I mean more like DOJ vs NTSB 

[Paul Thomas]

Has an insurance company paid $600k for the claim? If so, I wonder if they seek to be made whole by GAMI and the impact it will have on the insurance market.

[redbaron1982]

2 minutes ago, Paul Thomas said:

Has an insurance company paid $600k for the claim? If so, I wonder if they seek to be made whole by GAMI and the impact it will have on the insurance market.

At least, I guess airplanes holding the GAMI STC might be put on a "at risk" list and have higher premiums.

[gabez]

17 minutes ago, Paul Thomas said:

Has an insurance company paid $600k for the claim? If so, I wonder if they seek to be made whole by GAMI and the impact it will have on the insurance market.

as per Steve on his 3m, the insurance will be suing GAMI and the county/municipality. 

[GeeBee]

What is so stupid about Santa Clara County wringing its hands about leaded fuel is KSJC, 4 miles away is selling 100LL so the airplanes burning lead overhead, not to mention Hollister and other Bay Area airports. It's beyond moronic.

[Aaviationist]

1 hour ago, gabez said:

as per Steve on his 3m, the insurance will be suing GAMI and the county/municipality. 

Anyone can sue for anything they want. None of it matters until someone wins or loses. 
 

I suspect if they do sue, at least the government side of this gets thrown out. 
 

again, nothing sandwich. I’d also like to see where insurance is coving this and what exactly the damage is. 

Edited August 7 by Aaviationist

[IvanP]

11 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

What is so stupid about Santa Clara County wringing its hands about leaded fuel is KSJC, 4 miles away is selling 100LL so the airplanes burning lead overhead, not to mention Hollister and other Bay Area airports. It's beyond moronic.

This is yet another example of local govt s^$#heads trying to be holier than thou and "lead" the good fight to becoming a complete nanny govt with complete absence of common sense. Govt officials love to impose nonsensical mandates so long as they are exempt from such themselves. Look at COVID restrictions in the Bay are few years back and how the govt officials, including the governor, flaunted their disregard for the very restrictions and mandates they imposed on everyone else. 

Rant off  

[GeeBee]

11 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Anyone can sue for anything they want. None of it matters until someone wins or loses. 
 

I suspect if they do sue, at least the government side of this gets thrown out. 
 

again, nothing sandwich. I’d also like to see where insurance is coving this and what exactly the damage is. 

Don't think so. One because the County is derelict in its duty to its grant assurances, two it is on constructive notice of the issue three and finally and most importantly the county has been hostile to the airport users because it wants to sell the airport to developers who have given a whole lot of money to county commissioners. They don't arrive at trial with "clean hands" in fact, very dirty hands.

I can see a big judgement for the C421 and if a crash happens, the ambulance chasers will go after the deepest pocket and that is the County of Santa Clara. I lived there for 40 years, I even served on the SJC airport commission, I know stupidity thrives at the highest levels there.

[Aaviationist]

9 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Don't think so. One because the County is derelict in its duty to its grant assurances, two it is on constructive notice of the issue three and finally and most importantly the county has been hostile to the airport users because it wants to sell the airport to developers who have given a whole lot of money to county commissioners. They don't arrive at trial with "clean hands" in fact, very dirty hands.

I can see a big judgement for the C421 and if a crash happens, the ambulance chasers will go after the deepest pocket and that is the County of Santa Clara. I lived there for 40 years, I even served on the SJC airport commission, I know stupidity thrives at the highest levels there.

None of that has to do with putting fuel in an airplane. 
 

they made a fuel available, but did not force you to use it. 
 

the city and its issues with the FAA have nothing to do with who put what fuel in what airplane. Only what fuel was or was not available. Those issues are not the same. 
 

it’s a nothing sandwich. You will see. 
 

crashes happen all the time. Nobody goes after the county because of a proper and legal fuel they had available. 
 

if I put diesel in my car, that’s for me to know if it’s compatible or not. The gas station (or airport) is a point of sale - nothing more. 
 

I also fail to see how a fuel could cost 600k in damages. I haven’t seen any information about this 421, but it doesn’t make a ton of sense. 
 

even if it requires brand new engines, that doesn’t equal 600k. 
 

it’s still just the same 3 people in this thread making extremist arguments that don’t really match reality or how the legal system works. 

Edited August 7 by Aaviationist

[redbaron1982]

31 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

What is so stupid about Santa Clara County wringing its hands about leaded fuel is KSJC, 4 miles away is selling 100LL so the airplanes burning lead overhead, not to mention Hollister and other Bay Area airports. It's beyond moronic.

That's exactly what I thought as I listened to a lady and a gentleman repeat "100LL is not coming back to the airport".

I just popped open flightaware and saw 3 airplanes doing touch and go at the airport and I'm 110% sure they were burning LL. Lol

I wonder if they know that not having 100LL is worse, as airplanes have to fly for a top off. 

[GeeBee]

57 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

None of that has to do with putting fuel in an airplane. 
 

they made a fuel available, but did not force you to use it. 
 

the city and its issues with the FAA have nothing to do with who put what fuel in what airplane. Only what fuel was or was not available. Those issues are not the same. 
 

it’s a nothing sandwich. You will see. 
 

crashes happen all the time. Nobody goes after the county because of a proper and legal fuel they had available. 
 

if I put diesel in my car, that’s for me to know if it’s compatible or not. The gas station (or airport) is a point of sale - nothing more. 
 

I also fail to see how a fuel could cost 600k in damages. I haven’t seen any information about this 421, but it doesn’t make a ton of sense. 
 

even if it requires brand new engines, that doesn’t equal 600k. 
 

it’s still just the same 3 people in this thread making extremist arguments that don’t really match reality or how the legal system works. 

You are trying to make sense of civil litigation. A civil jury is a wild thing, don't even have to get a unanimous decision in some cases. Just sympathy.

[Jackk]

11 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

None of that has to do with putting fuel in an airplane. 
 

they made a fuel available, but did not force you to use it. 
 

the city and its issues with the FAA have nothing to do with who put what fuel in what airplane. Only what fuel was or was not available. Those issues are not the same. 
 

it’s a nothing sandwich. You will see. 
 

crashes happen all the time. Nobody goes after the county because of a proper and legal fuel they had available. 
 

if I put diesel in my car, that’s for me to know if it’s compatible or not. The gas station (or airport) is a point of sale - nothing more. 
 

I also fail to see how a fuel could cost 600k in damages. I haven’t seen any information about this 421, but it doesn’t make a ton of sense. 
 

even if it requires brand new engines, that doesn’t equal 600k. 
 

it’s still just the same 3 people in this thread making extremist arguments that don’t really match reality or how the legal system works. 

Difference is this defective fuel was sold and promised as being compatible 

 

If I pump fuel normal 87 from Joe Bobs gas station into a mini van filled with screaming kids, marked to take 87, I get on the highway and the fuel causes the engine to seize, causing a crash, betcha Joe Bob is going to need a change of underwear when he sees that on the news 

[Aaviationist]

12 minutes ago, Jackk said:

Difference is this defective fuel was sold and promised as being compatible 

 

If I pump fuel normal 87 from Joe Bobs gas station into a mini van filled with screaming kids, marked to take 87, I get on the highway and the fuel causes the engine to seize, causing a crash, betcha Joe Bob is going to need a change of underwear when he sees that on the news 

Where did the airport or county say you needed to use the fuel in your aircraft?  
 

they did not make any claims to performance or compatibility. They simply made it available. 
 

the county town or city is in no way responsible for your maintenance issues or fuel choice. 
 

this would most likely not be a jury case - it’s civil litigation. 
 

still, nobody has provided the information for this 421 that “suffered 600k in damages”

Edited August 7 by Aaviationist

[dkkim73]

On 7/22/2025 at 3:17 PM, MikeOH said:

I wonder how that million gallons GAMI brewed up is aging...it's got to be a couple of years old, now.  Maybe it mellows, like a fine wine, with age

No disposition needed. It's already eaten its way out of the tank. 

Sorry, 53 pages and accusations of extremism and I just feel like I'm missing out... 

Actually it is interesting that there is some interesting info still trickling in. 

Reading the last couple pages, got to thinking that it *is* an interesting question to turn the spotlight back on how this all happened. As @Jackk brings up. And what should be expectations for infrastructure. On one hand there are efforts like the Gubernator's old hydrogen fuel station initiative decades ago, and the big costly "effort" to build EV charging stations across the country in the last couple years. Lot of top down but little impact. On the other is what people practically adopt and use in different locales. Ie. Many places petroleum isn't going anywhere soon. So... are some of these airport positions and statements like a town that just decides to outlaw gas stations?