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

[IvanP]

33 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

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”

If the city/county intentionally made certain product the only choice available for a lawful commercial activity, then they they did, in fact, compel the users to use it. Of course, the crux of the claim would be the misrepresentation of the product as a "safe drop-in replacement" by its purveyor(s). Your posts seem to indicate that you have a vast experience in litigating product liability lawsuits. Perhaps you could educate us stupid pilots on how the legal system really works in US. Maybe a refresher on the Restatement of Torts for those of us who have long forgotten that from our law school years  .  

[gabez]

53 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

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”

the name of the owner and operator as well as tail number are spoken in the video I have uploaded I am sure you can figure out a way to reach out to him and ask him all sorts of questions. 

[mluvara]

I would suggest a read of the FAA's Part 16 determination (link) that this whole situation is precipitated by. 

"The text of these Resolutions is unambiguous. In response to the Resolutions, the County took immediate steps without qualification or limitation to implement the specific intent to prohibit the sale or use of 100LL at County airports. Specifically, the County terminated all FBO 100LL fuel sale permits, purchased unused 100LL stocks from FBO-operated tanks, and transitioned all County-owned fuel tanks to the exclusive sale of 94UL, effective January 1, 2022."

Aircraft owners were left with no choice but to fuel elsewhere or now fill up with the only 'drop in' replacement (see G12) that arrived just under 3 years later. And a significant number of those who filled up with the 'drop in' replacement have experienced unique and noteworthy issues with their aircraft. I would say that it did not 'enhance the flying experience' for many.

Couple relevant airport newsletter links:

Fall 2024

Winter 2024

Users were also provided with an incentive that had the following language:

"You are each encouraged to buy some fuel and see for yourself that it operates no differently than the 100LL you are accustomed to, with the advantages of a cleaner engine, cleaner spark plugs, cleaner air, and reduced engine wear."

[Jackk]

6 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

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”

 Uhh yeah I don’t see it that way 
 

Remove proven product, replace product that doesn’t work and damages planes, still are listed as a airport with fuel, pay the man

[Aaviationist]

1 hour ago, Jackk said:

 Uhh yeah I don’t see it that way 
 

Remove proven product, replace product that doesn’t work and damages planes, still are listed as a airport with fuel, pay the man

I’m not going to continue this circle talk. You will see how it turns out. 

[Paul Thomas]

It's my understanding that not only did the airport sell the product, but that it helped market and encourage sale. Am I correct?

[redbaron1982]

10 minutes ago, Paul Thomas said:

It's my understanding that not only did the airport sell the product, but that it helped market and encourage sale. Am I correct?

The fact that the airport has prohibited the sale of 100LL is, in itself, a strong endorsement pushing pilots toward using G100UL.

The argument that “we didn’t force you to buy G100UL” might hold more weight if 100LL were still available for purchase.

But as it stands, I can easily see an attorney making the case that the airport effectively forced all its tenants to use G100UL.

Edited 15 hours ago by redbaron1982

[Aaviationist]

4 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

The fact that the airport has prohibited the sale of 100LL is, in itself, a strong endorsement pushing pilots toward using G100UL.

The argument that “we didn’t force you to buy G100UL” might hold more weight if 100LL were still available for purchase.

But as it stands, I can easily see an attorney making the case that the airport effectively forced all its tenants to use G100UL.

My home gas station stopped selling ethanol free. 
 

My motorcycle requires ethanol free. I guess I’ll sue the gas station after my motorcycle blows up for not providing me an alternative. 
 

you understand how retarded an argument that sounds like right?

I bet you don’t. 

[Jackk]

15 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

My home gas station stopped selling ethanol free. 
 

My motorcycle requires ethanol free. I guess I’ll sue the gas station after my motorcycle blows up for not providing me an alternative. 
 

you understand how retarded an argument that sounds like right?

I bet you don’t. 

 I think as far as silly talk, comparing a motorcycle and its fuel, maintenance costs, regulatory environment, and risks pertaining to an engine failure vs airplane, it’s a….. a wee bit different 

 

 Plus federal tax dollars with assurances  didn’t build the local quickie mart gas station 

[redbaron1982]

1 hour ago, Aaviationist said:

My home gas station stopped selling ethanol free. 
 

My motorcycle requires ethanol free. I guess I’ll sue the gas station after my motorcycle blows up for not providing me an alternative. 
 

you understand how retarded an argument that sounds like right?

I bet you don’t. 

Your analogy overlooks several critical distinctions.

A “home gas station” for cars or motorcycles does not exist in the same legal or operational sense that a based airport does for an aircraft. For ground vehicles, fueling options are abundant and geographically dispersed, and traveling to a different station to purchase the required fuel typically carries no additional operational risk.

In contrast, an aircraft based at KRHV is subject to the airport’s exclusive fuel availability. If 100LL is unavailable on the field, the operator must either:

Use G100UL, or

Conduct an additional flight solely for refueling elsewhere.

The latter option is not equivalent to driving to a different gas station, it imposes additional cost, scheduling complexity, and operational risk, including extra takeoffs and landings, which statistically carry higher accident risk.

From a legal perspective, when a governing body or facility owner removes the only on-site source of an essential, approved fuel, while continuing to permit operations of equipment that requires it, it could be argued that they are effectively compelling the use of the substitute fuel. This is a materially different situation from retail fuel market dynamics for cars or motorcycles.

Edited 14 hours ago by redbaron1982

[Aaviationist]

That’s what I thought. 

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

I’m not going to continue this circle talk

 

Then you posted two more times after that.

 

2 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

you understand how retarded that sounds like right?

I bet you don’t. 

Yuup, you don't.

[MikeOH]

@mluvara

Do you know if the County has appealed the FAA Determination of Grant Violation on counts 1 through 4? (IIRC they had 30 days...and we are long past that)

[mluvara]

26 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@mluvara

Do you know if the County has appealed the FAA Determination of Grant Violation on counts 1 through 4? (IIRC they had 30 days...and we are long past that)

In short, the county filed an appeal and a corrective action plan. The corrective action plan has not been published and they continually say that they are making good progress. The latest update talks about them putting the appeal into abeyance and are supposedly working in 'good faith'.

The entire public docket for the Part 16 complaint is here.  You'll find the latest update from the FAA where they grant the appeal being put into an abeyance and the 3rd document down is from AOPA questioning all the delays.

During the commission meeting this past week that Gabe posted the video link to, county's counsel updated the commission on their status with nothing more than a basic report of 'they are having good discussions with the FAA'. Frustrating. 

To me, it just seems that the county likes to use delay tactics and excuses to drag things out. 

Michael

Edited 12 hours ago by mluvara

[IvanP]

Delay tactics are commonly used by parties litigating on the losing side of the argument. I think that SC county folks have a reason to believe the jig is up and thus they will use any available stall tactics to delay the final adjudication of the matter.

[mluvara]

6 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

My home gas station stopped selling ethanol free. 
 

My motorcycle requires ethanol free. I guess I’ll sue the gas station after my motorcycle blows up for not providing me an alternative. 
 

you understand how retarded an argument that sounds like right?

I bet you don’t. 

Actually, I'm not sure you understand this situation fully.

If you read the FAA's part 16 director's determination, you will see that this specific case is different. The county took over all fueling under their so called 'proprietary exclusive right' in order to stop the sale and distribution of 100LL. They did not allow anyone else to sell 100LL because all others had to buy fuel from them and they only sold unleaded fuel. The FAA determined they could not do that. This is totally different than a private gas station that chooses what to sell. There are several FAA cases like this and in fact another one discusses this exact issue for mogas. An airport sponsor does not have to provide all fuels. It just cannot prevent others from providing those fuels if they are federally obligated.

Edited 9 hours ago by mluvara

[mluvara]

13 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

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”

At the following link, scroll down to item 8f below the video, which has the proof of loss statement

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