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

[MikeOH]

12 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

No, you paid 400$ for an STC allowing you to use the fuel covered under the STC. 
 

are you saying Gami or someone prevented you from using the fuel?

 

how much of the STC’d fuel have you run through your engine?

Like a joke that you don't get, it's pointless to explain it to you.

[Aaviationist]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

Like a joke that you don't get, it's pointless to explain it to you.

I get it perfectly.

as usual, you do not. I don’t know if your problems are some sort of mental deficiency or just a general reduction in capacity due to age.
 

In order for there to be a lawsuit there needs to be damages. In this case, the stated damages were for a product that didn’t do what was advertised. In this case the product was an STC to allow the use of a specific fuel. 
 

unless the other poster has been blocked or prevented from using the fuel, there are no damages. He/she got exactly what they paid for. 
 

it’s REALLY not that complicated for most, but for you, I’m sure it is. 

[Aaviationist]

20 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Like a joke that you don't get, it's pointless to explain it to you.

Also, I saw your airplane recently. It’s exactly the cheap maintenance nightmare I expected it to be. 
 

just as an FYI. 

[redbaron1982]

17 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

I get it perfectly.

as usual, you do not. I don’t know if your problems are some sort of mental deficiency or just a general reduction in capacity due to age.
 

In order for there to be a lawsuit there needs to be damages. In this case, the stated damages were for a product that didn’t do what was advertised. In this case the product was an STC to allow the use of a specific fuel. 
 

unless the other poster has been blocked or prevented from using the fuel, there are no damages. He/she got exactly what they paid for. 
 

it’s REALLY not that complicated for most, but for you, I’m sure it is. 

So by your logic, if I sell you a permit to build on land I don't actually own, and you later discover you can't build anything there, there's no damage? Nothing broke, yet you still paid for something you can't use.

That's the same situation here. Damage isn't limited to something physically breaking. Financial harm, like paying for a right you can't meaningfully exercise, is also damage.

In this case, the issue isn't whether the STC exists. It's that GAMI sold approval for a product that isn't available at scale, leaving buyers unable to use what they paid for. That is, by definition, financial damage.

[MikeOH]

3 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Also, I saw your airplane recently. It’s exactly the cheap maintenance nightmare I expected it to be. 
 

just as an FYI. 

Top Gun didn't think so when they performed my annual. Not surprisingly, I'll take their judgement over the lack of yours.

[Aaviationist]

1 hour ago, redbaron1982 said:

So by your logic, if I sell you a permit to build on land I don't actually own, and you later discover you can't build anything there, there's no damage? Nothing broke, yet you still paid for something you can't use.

That's the same situation here. Damage isn't limited to something physically breaking. Financial harm, like paying for a right you can't meaningfully exercise, is also damage.

In this case, the issue isn't whether the STC exists. It's that GAMI sold approval for a product that isn't available at scale, leaving buyers unable to use what they paid for. That is, by definition, financial damage.

Yes. That same logic applies here. If you buy land that turns out to be a swamp, that’s on you for not doing the research to make sure the land is suitable for you needs. 
 

Again, it’s really very basic. 
 

if you don’t think you got what you paid for, dispute the charge with the bank. It’s not a legal issue. 

[Jackk]

1 hour ago, Aaviationist said:

Yes. That same logic applies here. If you buy land that turns out to be a swamp, that’s on you for not doing the research to make sure the land is suitable for you needs. 
 

Again, it’s really very basic. 
 

if you don’t think you got what you paid for, dispute the charge with the bank. It’s not a legal issue. 

 Uhhh no

 

If you advertise it as 100% drop in buildable land, “proven” to be as good as any other land, put out a bunch of BS about how it’s buildable, and turns out its a hidden, and obviously known to you, non buildable toxic swamp, yeah you’re going to have troubles in court 

Edited Sunday at 08:16 PM by Jackk

[Aaviationist]

1 hour ago, Jackk said:

 Uhhh no

 

If you advertise it as 100% drop in buildable land, “proven” to be as good as any other land, put out a bunch of BS about how it’s buildable, and turns out its a hidden, and obviously known to you, non buildable toxic swamp, yeah you’re going to have troubles in court 

Even if that was the case, the equivalent here would be a permit to buy the land. 
 

If you bought the fuel and then wanted a refund for the fuel or to sue for the fuel you bought, that’s would be the equivalent. Not the STC. 
 

[Mufflerbearing]

@Aaviationist I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but I have seen too many good and productive participants on this forum leave because of personal attacks.  Yes, tons of people have differing opinions and that can be healthy and hopefully sharing these differing opinions, we learn.  Personal attacks are different that just having differing opinions and are not welcome here.  Please change the tone before more people leave.

[gabez]

is anyone here aware of Scott Perdue's lack of follow up on his recent videos re G100UL as well as the issue he had on his plane? we have been trying chasing him on beechtalk but he went silent tho he admitted the fuel had compatibility issues. Note he is a very pro GAMI and I'd like to think he can properly maintain his plane. 

[Jackk]

3 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

Even if that was the case, the equivalent here would be a permit to buy the land. 
 

If you bought the fuel and then wanted a refund for the fuel or to sue for the fuel you bought, that’s would be the equivalent. Not the STC. 
 

 It 100% is the case lol

 

 And the fuel and the STC are all the same maker, same “kit”.

 

 

[Aaviationist]

1 hour ago, Jackk said:

 It 100% is the case lol

 

 And the fuel and the STC are all the same maker, same “kit”.

 

 

it’s the case that he bought swamp land?
 

They aren’t the same product. One is an agreement allowing you to use a fuel, which nobody has prevented, and the other is the fuel itself - which it’s suggested he never used. 
 

ask ANY attorney. It’s really that simple. 

[Aaviationist]

4 hours ago, Mufflerbearing said:

@Aaviationist I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but I have seen too many good and productive participants on this forum leave because of personal attacks.  Yes, tons of people have differing opinions and that can be healthy and hopefully sharing these differing opinions, we learn.  Personal attacks are different that just having differing opinions and are not welcome here.  Please change the tone before more people leave.

I noticed the people that liked your post are people who have personally attacked me both here and other threads. 
 

kettle?

 

mooneyspace has a reputation for being unfriendly. In fact, my very first post here when I was initially interested in a Mooney and I didn’t fit comfortably, someone told me it was because I was fat and needed to lose weight (I’m north of 240 and it’s most definitely NOT fat)

 

nah. 
 

people leave because know noting circle talk. 

Edited Monday at 02:36 AM by Aaviationist

[Marc_B]

The issue is advertising G100UL as a "100% drop in fuel" with no maintenance required.  The ICA that mentioned considering Viton o-rings and teflon-lined hoses was initially buried under the advertising that it's invisible to the pilot and the plane and "no airframe left behind."  At the onsite STC events, none of the IA's GAMI hired were checking for this.

The reality is that it will likely require some form of maintenance in order to decrease the risk of having significant damage resulting from leaks.  Additionally Mr. Braly has been very vocal against wet wings since the issues started cropping up, and he's even submitted a declaration to the State of California attesting that the wet wings, specifically mentioning Mooney wet wings, are inadequate and likely to leak.

So the idea of a "safe" use of G100UL in a Mooney has turned into a gamble on how well YOU feel your Mooney is prepared, as according to GAMI it's likely to have issues unless you've had it professionally resealed (patching isn't adequate) and you've updated your o-rings and fuel lines using "modern" practices.

 

My guess is that the most that someone could ask for who purchased an STC and didn't use it would be a refund for the STC cost paid.  However, the general sentiment for those who purchased a STC early when they couldn't even obtain fuel was that this was just supporting GAMI to help bring the fuel to market, and personally hedging bets that the price of STC would likely be more expensive if/when GAMI was successful.  I personally think it's going to be difficult to recoup any amount.

[Paul Thomas]

Guys... you're taking the bait.

 

Should attorneys get involved to go after GAMI, I doubt that it would end up as a class action. Way too risky for GAMI. My bet is it would be a quick settlement. When GAMI gets a demand letter, they'll likely quickly settle over the risk of having to go through the discovery process. I doubt we'll see lawsuits over this unless someone wants to prove a point; it's too expensive for both side.

I wish we had a way to know whether GAMI will pay the insurance companies for the damage to some of the airplanes. The 421 that was totaled seemed like someone that could end up in a lawsuit.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Paul Thomas said:

The 421 that was totaled seemed like someone that could end up in a lawsuit.

That was apparently a $600k payout for the insurance company.  My understanding was that the insurance company was going to pursue GAMI for recovery.   That certainly seems like enough to motivate them to do that.   It won't take many of those to do some serious damage to GAMI.   If they're insured it may make insurability more difficult going forward.

[Mufflerbearing]

18 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

kettle?

 

mooneyspace has a reputation for being unfriendly. 

I don't know where you heard about that reputation and I certainly have not seen it other in isolated situations.  It's these situations that need to stop the fighting and bickering.  This is the single BEST place to talk Mooneys and it's important for all of us to make it a welcoming and productive place for Mooniacs to hang out and share experiences (good and bad) that others may glean valuable information.  

I'm sorry if someone made comments about your weight.  That's not right in any fashion. 

Also, if you went back to all of my posts, you will see that I have not attacked or said negative things about anyone personally.  Including you.  We want everyone here, let's help this forum have a really good vibe.

[Jackk]

22 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

it’s the case that he bought swamp land?
 

They aren’t the same product. One is an agreement allowing you to use a fuel, which nobody has prevented, and the other is the fuel itself - which it’s suggested he never used. 
 

ask ANY attorney. It’s really that simple. 

 If that is the case it shows what a joke the legal system has become.

 

Sorry they made a huge claim, somehow got the FAA to sign off on their BS, now it turns out their BS is BS and they just get to take their toys and go home without making right?

 

 If I was on that jury I wouldn’t be voting that way. Think in 2025 folks are getting sick of corp/gov scams, people don’t think  nullification be like it be, but it do 

[MikeOH]

IMHO, the issue is if G100UL was misrepresented in its advertising.

Was there a false statement of fact? Claimed to be a "Drop in replacement". Is it?
Was being a 'drop in replacement' a major reason people chose to buy the STC?
By relying on that did buyers suffer damage/losses?

While damage to your aircraft from using G100UL is certainly a loss, so is the cost for an STC that you cannot use because the product will not meet claims advertised. I see no reason you have to actually buy and use the misrepresented fuel to have a financial loss from the misrepresentation.  Paying for a 'license' (the STC) to use a misrepresented product is still a loss due to relying upon a false statement of fact.

[EricJ]

A license to an STC is still a thing of value sold for a price.   It's just like a license to a patent or anything else.   I can't imagine why misrepresenting the utility of a license isn't cause for recovery.    If that's not the case I'm about to go get very rich on some patents.

[gabez]

GAMI has 3 problems:

- a fuel that left a bad taste (no pun intended)

- 1M gallons of it now over 1 year old. 

- VP chasing them https://vpracingfuels.com/blogs/press-releases/vp-navigates-faa-approval-for-unleaded-fuels

[Kelpro999]

Does George have another profile?