Lawyers for a California environmental group say most if not all FBOs in California will be required to offer 100LL with General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s (GAMI’s) G100UL starting in the first half of 2024 thanks to a nine-year-old court ruling. The consent judgment, issued in favor of the Center for Environmental Health in December of 2014 by the California Superior Court in Alameda, says that as soon as there’s an approved commercially available replacement for 100LL, FBOs have to sell 100LL. CEH’s lawyers say they will be allowed to continue to sell 100LL but will also have to stock unleadd fuel. GAMI disagrees with that interpretation and says the FBOs will be compelled to sell only its fuel or another fuel that has no lead in it. CEH’s lawyers have sent notice to all California FBOs to stock G100UL as soon as it becomes commercially available to them. If they don’t, they could be found in contempt and face heavy fines.
GAMI head of engineering George Braly said Vitol Aviation, the producer/refiner now licensed to produce G100UL, is scheduled to produce large batches of the fuel later in the spring. Braly said it will “take a few months” to ramp up production and to supply all of the dozens of fuel sellers covered by the order, after which it will be able to maintain a steady supply to them.
CEH filed a lawsuit in 2011 against all the 100LL fuel sellers in California for exposing people to lead, and three years later settled the case. The settlement required anyone selling 100LL to post signs explaining the lead content and attendant risks. It also requires that “Settling Defendants distribute and sell the airplane fuel with the lowest lead content that is Commercially Available.”
In its December 2023 letter to the FBOs and other fuel distributors, CEH lawyer Mark Todzo said G100UL fulfills those requirements. “It can and should therefore serve as a lower lead replacement for the 100LL fuel you are presently distributing,” the letter says. “Production of G100UL has now begun such that it will be available to [those named in the order] for distribution and sale in California by early 2024.” We have contacted major FBO chains by email for comment but may not hear from them until after the long weekend.
As we reported last week, GAMI signed a production agreement with Vitol late last year and became the first licensed producer of the fuel. The company has received all the necessary approvals to make and distribute G100UL. Braly said the raw cost of the components in the fuel vary with the price of crude oil but over the past year have averaged 85 cents to $1.15 per gallon more to make than 100LL. It’s not clear how that will translate to the price at the pump after going through wholesale, distribution and retailing steps in the supply chain. Aircraft operators will also have to buy an STC for each airplane using G100UL and the cost depends on the horsepower of the engine(s) on the aircraft. AOPA and a major California flight school, California Aeronautical University, are demonstrating the fuel in a pair of Beech Barons at the Buckeye Air Fair in Arizona over the weekend.
Grab your popcorn and stay tuned. It’s going to get interesting soon.
It’s time the new FAA administrator takes California to federal court to overrule this. If he doesn’t then piston planes without the STC who need 100 octane will not be able to fly in California. I think there may be a constitutional issue here. Also if anyone thinks converting to diesel power is an alternative, California has banned diesel trucks more than 10 years old from doing business in California. It will be only a matter of time before the environmental zealots there catch on and try to ban diesel powered airplanes also. As John Mc said, it will be interesting!
Yeah, that’ll happen. The Biden Regime heads the same EPA that is unilaterally issuing unconstitutional ‘rules’ which amount to an effective ban on gasoline vehicles. The same EPA, through a recent ‘ruling’, is setting the stage to sunset general aviation based on unfounded concerns about lead.
And if the “Wise” take their airplanes and leave the Communist State of California, they will surely be charged with an “exit tax”.
While this is clearly stupid, at the end of the day the faster FBOs can adopt G100UL the better, and if mandating it in California can help ramp production and guarantee supply all the better for everyone else.
Airports around the country are getting threatened with lawsuits trying to shut them down, and ridiculous claims over lead contamination are a primary reason. The way FAA has treated GAMI has been ridiculous and I honestly hope that mandates like this can lead to them having some commercial success for all that they have struggled with.
Bob Case, I agree with you. Skygypsy is doing what GA has done for the last 50 years – take a “head in the sand” attitude towards leaded aviation fuel. “If we ignore it, it can’t hurt us.” It is absolutely ridiculous that the piston fleet didn’t convert to unleaded fuel 20 years ago. Leaded auto gas hasn’t been sold in this country since 1996 – 28 years ago! Are we really so special that we couldn’t have done the same, had we not so stubbornly fought it? No.
This move in CA – finally forcing the issue – was inevitable, because without it, we’d still be demanding 100LL availability in another 20 years. The fact that the EAGLE initiative has set a goal of 2030 certainly lends credence to that opinion.
I partially agree with you. Let the state that has elected the most inept Gov’t take the brunt of the high cost of launching this fuel. By the time they are ramped up and spreading across the country, and we get rid of the current administration, prices will surely fall. You are also right on with the ineptitude of the FAA. This GAMI fuel should have been approved years ago. And since this is our Gov’t at work, instead of sending more billions to Ukraine, how about we subsidize this fuel for the Democrat sales pitch “For the women and the children”, leadless skies, and maybe kick in some for the homeless VETS.
And Skygypsy, you must have lost all your cotton upstairs and sound like the proverbial Californian. Better to keep your mouth shut than show the world how little you know.
The reality is that lead has NOTHING to do with attempts to shut down airports except as a scare tactic for PR and legal weapon for use in court.
The real danger is the continued tolerance of the way many people use the government and legal system to steal in this country.
They (the state) paying for everyone’s STC? Not like it is terribly expensive, but have the state approach George and do a bulk buy. Use funds from the environmental agency. Then tell the real estate developers, er, “concerned citizen groups” near SMO and RHV that they can stop worrying about lead.
I bought the GAMI G100UL STC for my 1986 Maule MX-7-180 when it first came out for $600. Not inexpensive! I would switch to it today if it was available in my area. I like the idea of California paying for the STCs to accelerate the process but I like the idea of the FAA creating an exception to the STC process for G100UL even more. They’ve already approved G100UL for all piston engines under the STC process. They could waive the STC requirement and vastly accelerate the switch to unleaded fuel. I know that’s not financially great for GAMI but the FAA could reimburse them for the lost revenue. The goal is to switch to unleaded AVGAS as soon as possible since everyone and his/her brother knows that lead is bad for humans. Regulations shouldn’t take priority over safety.
Absolutely 100% agree. They are expensive and limiting. It will, if allowed to continue, create a GAMI fuel monopoly, squeeze out SwiftFuel and we will be at the mercy (or lack) of a monopolist. The insanity of approving a fungible commodity (fuel) on a manufacturer/engine/airframe a piece basis is sheer folly and will create economic and planning nightmares. It also flies in the face of the FAA’s move to make aircraft parts more affordable by allowing the use of common equivalent parts rather than MS/NAS specific parts under AC23-27.
I have a mogas STC paid $230 and can put any brand ETOH free mogas. I have not used 100LL for 3 decades unless I was on the road and out of range of lead free fuel (rarely).
GAMI is entitled to recover its no doubt massive hassle with the FAA for getting the fuel approved, but the STC path and an exclusive fuel option is a non-starter. What if I have no STC and end up at an airport that doesn’t have anything but GAMI?
Spend $800 for an “instant STC” plus $250 for the IA signoff on form 337? Then spend $7/gallon for GAMI fuel x 90 gals? That is one expensive top off. When I fly to the next fuel stop and they only have Swiftfuel? The process repeats and I’ve spent another $1,150 for a top? My mogas STC cost $300 (1990), $5 for a 50 ml pippet and $5 for a set of capped test tubes to test for alcohol. I can run any ASTM meeting fuel 80/87 octane or higher. This is problem which will not stop in California and probably NY and it will end the usefulness of GA.
You asked: “What if I have no STC and end up at an airport that doesn’t have anything but GAMI?”
Well, if I was certain my engine would perform fine with GAMI – I know what I’d do – buy the enough fuel to continue. Are there STC police at the pumps? Sometimes bureaucratic rules have to be ignored when faced with an extreme circumstance. Of course, once home, I’d likely get the STC to avoid a reoccurrence.
I cannot say I am not happy this is happening. Sometimes it take a clubbing to wake people up. In this case the FAA.
California is the worst.
Aviation is going to take a huge hit in most Blue States. Glad I left Illinois for South Carolina.
Ed. Note. Mr. D’Acosta has clarified his use of the term “known defects” to reference G100UL’s lack of ASTM approval. We have restored that part of the comment with the clarification.
California FBO’s: Don’t panic. Instead, do your due diligence.
The fuel described in the attached letter has known defects [lack of ASTM certification] reported in the media — which may be why it is not Commercially Available. Apparently, it has not completed the necessary prerequisites to be in the marketplace. The FAA alone does not make this decision.
Is it possible that airports / pilots / lawyers could be liable or negligent if they advocate a fuel using Section 2.3.1 a) in the Consent Judgement that has not completed industry-mandated due diligence, for example ASTM International fuel standards? Be careful.
Finally, Section 2.3.1 a) of the Consent Judgment is poorly worded and must not interfere with existing contracts involving the sale of Commercially Available unleaded fuels that are already FAA approved and meet ASTM industry standards.
Chris D’Acosta, CEO – Swift Fuels
Interesting comment, especially the first paragraph.
I’ve edited that comment to remove what is so far an unsubstantiated claim. If Mr. D’Acosta can provide more information on it I will restore the edited portion.
Update: Mr. D’Acost has clarified his use of the term “known defects” by explaining that he was referencing G100UL’s lack of ASTM certification as a “defect.”
best to just leave the claim and counter/challenge it in a separate message. It’s troubling when forum owners edit contributing members comments, let alone a comment from a competitor of GAMI.
UND tried — and failed — to get acceptable results with Swift 94UL. What’s YOUR fuel’s “known defect”?
Their defect was “lead free”…. read the UND report
What do you expect from the left coast state…run by left wing limousine nuts..
What do you expect from a poster with “gy” in the middle of his name … ad hominem right-wing attacks with zero information value.
Another CA infringement…UND switched years ago to UL avgas…results? Valve and seal problems in young engines that are I0-320s. Forget your usual maintenance, worse with larger engines and what about that of us that fly around the country? I don’t believe the fuel can be mixed?!
The fuel can be mixed with other fuels.
And do we know EXACTLY how that will affect detonation on different engine types as you approach peak temperature when heading to lean of peak when using mixes in any proportions? This is because their compositions and therefore combustion characteristics are potentially so very different.
Dang – you’d think that they’d test for things like that.
When will they learn?
Thanks for the morning chuckle!
Hi Tim, You don’t have any background in combustion science and engineering then clearly…. I do. The combustion characteristics (temperatures, speed of flame fronts, pressures etc etc) are entirely different between alkylate (traditionally between 90 and 99% of avgas – depending on source) and the various aromatic compounds which proliferate all of these unleaded offerings. You should go spend a few decades studying these things first before dismissing what you haven’t a clue about huh! 😉
UND didn’t use G100UL; they had a problem with Swift 94UL.
that had a problem with valve recession due to the lack of lead.
Read Mike Busch’s latest artcle. UND’s data collection was dubious at the very best.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/february/pilot/savvy-maintenance-unleaded-avgas-cure-or-curse
Just what we need (sarcasm,)–ANOTHER “patchwork quilt” of State and local “regulations” to kill aviation. Whatever happened to “Federal Pre emption?”
Like it or not, we can’t have 50 states trying to regulate interstate travel.
THINK about it–how would it work if every State tried to implement their own laws about what kind of fuel you could have in your car–(“regular, high-test”, E-84, E-88, “gasohol”–“biofuels”–etc?
It would be akin to the effort by States in the early days of aviation to enact their own interpretation of “Air Regulations.”
“Those who don’t learn history are condemned to repeat it”—–Edmund Burke
“THINK about it–how would it work if every State tried to implement their own laws about what kind of fuel you could have in your car…”
Generally, such efforts would be pointless – unless, of course, the state happened to be California. In 1970 the EPA allowed CA to set its own emissions standards (via CARB), as long as they exceeded the national standards. Seven years later, the EPA allowed all other states to follow either EPA or CARB standards – about a third of them now use CARB.
CA has such a large vehicle market that automakers were hard pressed from the start (’70) to justify building two different models – one for CA, one for The Rest of the Country. Eroding the TRotC share from ’77 on made things worse.
As it stands, CA sets emission/fuel standards for the rest of the country.
At my FBO, we were an early adopter of no-ethanol auto fuel, once it was FAA approved–and after 80/87 was no longer available. We sell it for 60 cents a gallon more than auto fuel at the gas station–about $3.75 a gallon for the last load. (We also provide a shipment report from the trucker, with the assurance that the trailer is NOT used for transporting any fuel containing lead. We provide a “birth certificate” for the fuel from the factory for the protection of the customer (and for US)–batch number, octane rating, and a statement that it contains no alcohol. The octane rating has actually been running about 96 octane–meets approval for 91/96 engines. IN ALL THESE YEARS, WE HAVEN’T HAD ONE COMPLAINT (in our own aircraft or in customers) about the fuel.
Kudos to GAMI for not only developing the fuel, but for making it commercially available. California–LISTEN AND LEARN!
I’m gonna laugh when old diesel engines over 10 years old are banned in Kalyfornya. Sooner or later, all the left-wing lunatics out there are gonna get seriously impacted by their self-inflicted ecoterrorism antics. And THIS aviation baloney … same story … different flavor.
Meanwhile, back at the law offices, I’d like to see a suit challenging the meaning of “commercially available.” Does having to purchase a STC vs. just pulling up to a pump an putting ‘approved’ fuel in your tank meet that litmus test? I’d challenge it as … no.
Frankly, I’m getting mighty tired of unelected bureaucrats mandating things. If THEY’re gonna run the country … then we don’t need no stinkin’ politicians. If G100UL was causing problems for UND … how is THAT then OK for use in Kalyfornya.
“I’m gonna laugh when old diesel engines over 10 years old are banned in Kalyfornya.”
Please, there’s plenty of reasons to attack CA, but do the facts straight. The diesel ban that went into effect 1/1/23 bans trucks with engines built before 2010.
In other words, 13 year old engines were OK on the day the law went into effect, 14 year olders are OK now, and your ’10 engine will continue to comply, year after year.
over 14,000 lbs
Meant to add that the law only applies to vehicles weighing over 14,000 lbs.
Let us actually read the consent decree section in play here, highlighting added:
“each Settling Defendant shall purchase for resale, distribute, and sell in California Avgas with the lowest concentration of lead approved for aviation use that is commercially available to that Settling Defendant *** on a consistent and sustained basis at prices and on terms, in quantities and at times sufficient to meet demands of the customers *** of that Settling Defendant in California (“Commercially Available”)”
Note the language talking about consistency, prices, terms, quantities.
G100UL is in no danger of meeting those aspects any time soon and thus doesn’t meet the definition of “commercially available”. For the fuel to be consistently available, it has to be delivered over a period of time, which cannot be established on day one. Prices are yet to be exposed fully. Failure of terms could include needing an STC. Quantities are clearly not met, either. And all this is defined to “meet the demands of the customers”. That’s so vague you could drive a truck through it.
The CEH lawyers don’t get to decide when that standard is met, the courts do. They can send out letters al they want, but they have no power themselves. I’m sure they are looking at this generating more billable hours when they repeatedly go to court to claim the defendants are violating the consent decree.
The CEH letter doesn’t move the needle very much, it was a publicity stunt or a legal fee revenue generator, or perhaps both.
Great info. Seems like the ruling was intended to prevent it being used to violate the 10th Amendment, but I doubt that will slow down anyone in California where the Constitution is thought to be a document that only limits others.
This slight of bureaucratic heavy handedness on 100LL isn’t about safety and lead poisoning its about power and politicians scoring points. GA and 100LL lead poisoning is a ridiculous minuscule percentage point in the overall picture of pollutants circulating our skies of breathable air.
Forcing everyone in electric cars and solar panels before the technology is truly developed is also a dimwitted approach to our prosperity as a nation.
The same people who are running the show in these endeavors have no regard to the consequences. If there is an unknown glitch or untested problem from these ‘TWO’ Barons 100LL will be unavailable to thousands of GA planes……a disaster in the making. Possibly on purpose.
With respect to electric cars and solar panels, what is your definition of ‘truly developed’ technology?
How about cars that don’t burst into flames, go 150 miles max and bust through guard rails and concrete barriers because they’re 2500 lbs heavier or how about solar panels panels that are actually cost effective.
I am really enjoying this thread. Great entertainment! (But also somewhat depressing that my fellow aviators are so un/misinformed).
Have you heard of Tesla?
They don’t burst into flames nearly as often as ICE vehicles, they surpassed the 150 mile range (with reserves) long ago, and have battery packs weighing in at around 1,000 to 1,200 pounds.
This is what happens when the clueless have power and the informed have no voice. You end up with a mandated non-solution to a problem that doesn’t exist just for show. It’s political masturbation at its best.
The truth is that if a drop-in unleaded approved 100 replacement were available the public would be happy to buy it without any litigation or mandates.
Fill Cee, your last comment seems at odds with most of the comments. These guys don’t seem to want anything to change about GA – ever! Nothing! They probably yelled about the ADS-B mandate. They’ve been yelling for years about unleaded gas. And here we find GAMI’s 100UL – which is an approved 100 octane unleaded replacement “drop-in” fuel about to be made available – and they’re still yelling.
Reminds me of a typical 8 year-old, to almost anyone with authority: “You can’t tell me what to do!!!!”
This is most decidedly not true.
We do want GA change, but reasonable and useful change that improves operations and gives greater economy.
We do not want meaningless change that adds to costs with close to zero benefit. Otherwise, Dynon, Avidyne and Garmin would not be selling electronic cockpits, EA and SureFly would not be selling electronic ignition systems. If I could have found a cost effective diesel I would have installed it a decade ago. Key word: cost effective.
I concur.
While I share your frustration with that attitude often found in GA, I think you are misapplying the diagnosis. There’s been a lot of reactionary comments here, but they’ve been mostly pointed at bad faith attacks and bad science.
I seem to keep saying it, but seem to find little agreement due to partisan entrenchment. Yes, lead is bad and we ought to get rid of it. No, we are not poisoning anyone and the solution needs to be fair to aircraft owners. Amounts matter. Science matters.
Economics and policy also matter. Most of the existing fleet would be gone by now if the FAA and other government institutions had not seemingly gone out of their ways to ruin it. We’d be flying newer, safer, and more economical planes.
Fill Cee, Exactly. No one I know opposes unleaded fuel, or “yells” about it, except the FAA bureaucracy; and therein lies the problem! The STC process is not the solution and neither are mandates. I don’t believe this order will stand. Wait and see, and check the fuel availability if you fly within or to CA.
I spent 25 years of my younger adult life in California and can state that a majority of Californians (not pilots, of course) would like to repurpose all GA airports into mixed-use developments with dog parks, condominiums, etc. Pressure from community activists is why I stayed on the wait list for a hangar at Santa Monica for two full decades. Well, I don’t want to preach to the choir. There is little reason to hope that reasonable adults will do anything responsible here.
I should have added that I never got the hangar. SMO charged annual fees to stay on the wait list, so when I left California I stopped paying the fees and dropped off the list. I was also on the wait list at the Hawthorne airport (formerly Northrop Field). Maybe 5-6 years after I moved, those folks contacted me to tell me that new hangars had been built and my number had come up, so I was welcome to contract for a hangar. It was just another “what could have been” experience.
In these Marxist states, this isn’t really about getting rid of lead, which in most cases can’t even be measured because it is so low, this is about taking the first step to closing airports. Those airports are future cash cows for the local governments looking for tax money from the redevelopment of the land.
Before anyone else cites UND’s decision to stop using UL fuel in its fleet, read this article by Mike Busch (who almost certainly knows a heckuva lot more about GA piston engines than you do): https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/february/pilot/savvy-maintenance-unleaded-avgas-cure-or-curse
VERY interesting article – thanks for the link.
I was excited until UND exited (fled) the program. If UND had problems in low compression engines what kind of problems are ahead for The Dukes, 421’s, and other high compression, turbocharged, contraptions? It seems to me that GAMI will share in the engine repair bills in the future. Then these and legal costs will increase the cost of UL and the snowball becomes an avalanche. The plaintiff attorneys will line up like vultures over a rotting corpse and rightfully so. Every aircraft that loses power hence forth will blame the GAMI fuel in front of a judge. A couple of years from now you might wake up to the news of a new A.D. to check for valve and seat damage before the next flight, then every 25 hours hence forth until your next overhaul which is now 1000 hours reduced from 2000 hours. As they would say at Buffalo Airways “hang onto your hats boys”.
As crazy as it might seem there is an upside to GAMI UL. When we can no longer train pilots due to a grounded fleet, the mandatory 121 retirement age will (finally) be raised from 65 to 165.
UND may or may not have had an actual problem;
They started doing testing they had never done; their results contradicted FAA testing when unleaded fuel was approved, and contradicted the testing GAMI has done; testing far more stringent than ever previously done.
A cynic would suggest that someone at UND didn’t understand chemistry, metallurgy, or physics, and trumped up some way to deny reality.
Users running unleaded Mogas are getting much longer life out of cylinders; lack of lead does not cause valve recession.
Sweden had been using unleaded Avgas for decades; better engine life; reality!
Lead is bad for engine, lead is bad for people; get over it.
The fact that aviation has been using leaded gas for decades after there could have been a change is pathetic; comes down to apathy and ignorance.
Und didn’t use G100UL; they used — and had a problem with — Swift 94UL.
that had a problem with valve recession due to the lack of lead
Anecdata.
The bottom line on flight schools is they do not like anything new. Everything they report needs to be checked that it isn’t just caused by that phenomenon. I’d wait for more evidence.
LOL, make sure the Capt. gets his Geritol.
This is a no-brainer. Just don’t go to California. And if you live there – move. Personally I go out of my way to bypass California either in my personal airplane or car when commuting between Washington State and Arizona. The California State Legislature is totally out of touch with reality. You can no longer purchase a gas-powered lawn mower, weedeater, chainsaw, etc. in California, and in 11 years you will not be able to purchase a gas or diesel powered vehicle in California. I don’t know if that will include airplanes, but my guess is yes. According to CNN the cost of living in California ranges 30 to 50 percent more than Arizona.
I’m wondering if CA’s upcoming ban on buying ICE powered cars will create a new business opportunity – – an out-of-state company purchases the car of your choice and registers/plates it outside of CA then leases/loans it to you for you to use in CA – thus side-stepping the ban. Basically a longtrem rental car with better rates. It’s not as though they are going to ban out-of-state ICE cars from entering CA (at least not yet). Bottom line, Californians are getting what they voted for (and stay there to endure) so I have no sympathy for them anymore and will chuckle when their EV mandates go poorly.
California has laws which require incoming vehicles to be registered within (mumble) days of moving in. This has long been the case, largely to prevent people from dodging smog compliance rules.
I have no idea on how the laws are enforced or how effective they are.
Gas powered lawn tools, on the other hand…
True; California is ahead of some other places; who wants the stink and noise of gas powered leaf blowers etc. when the electrics are better, quieter, longer lived.
Similarly, EV’s are better, more powerful, more reliable, cheaper to operate, and longer lived than ICE vehicles.
California had a tremendous problem with smog; the realists in California figured out how to fix the problem and moved forward with solutions.
Other jurisdictions remain mired in a 1950’s fantasy world; hard to comprehend why.
Noise was just the excuse. Otherwise, they would have made noise regulations and let the market innovate. Instead, they used the issue to get what they wanted without regard to how it would affect everyone.
I really do not get why they always think they need to decide for everyone.
Noise complaints have around since their invention, but have only partially prevailed – perhaps because the bulk of our (CA) population are urban.
But enviro concerns is a brand new subject, and its backers go way beyond those who are affected by the noise.
EVs last longer? LOL! I have a 20 year old Volvo, 16 year old Ford, 10 year old Honda van and a 56 year old Chevelle – all running beautifully. Just how many lithium batteries (with their inherent mining and disposal issues) would I have gone through with these cars? Of course, we all know that EV makers and likey 3rd party vendors would only provide replacement battery packs for maybe 10-15 years after a car is made then you’d be out of luck.
Forgot to mention my three motorcycles (from 1985, 1988 and 1996) – still running fine!
Would you say that your experience is typical? Or perhaps you’re an outlier?
“You can no longer purchase a gas-powered lawn mower, weedeater, chainsaw, etc. in California”
Minor correction: Gas powered equipment manufactured prior to 2024 may still be sold; an apparently reasonable way to mitigate disruption while phasing out gas powered equipment.
[I’m a resident, but I’m not taking sides – the gas powered equipment that I already have will outlast me.]
“Just don’t go to California. And if you live there – move.”
Excellent advice. That means more hanger space and controllers that are less busy for the rest of us. 🙂
As a previous flying club member but now owner of an RV6 (Experimental) with a Lycoming 0-360 engine (that I’ve read can supposedly tolerate Lead Free MoGas) but currently only gets 100LL – would I be required to get and STC before using the GAMI or Swift Fuels lead-free fuels when they become available? Or does the “Experimental” classification eliminate that requirement? Sorry for such a basic question – but as a new(er) owner I’m still learning.
I was going to immediately say that you could use new unleaded fuels, and, if you were the original builder you could write it into your operating limitations, flight test it, and then sign it off. But you are not the builder and don’t have the repairman’s certificate and would at least need to get an A&P or the original builder involved.
I would recommend you give EAA a call and ask for their take on this.
But, once you do this, you don’t need the STC. STC is required only for aircraft with an FAA standard airworthiness certificate. You are experimental and not subject to certification requirements.
Hmm, look in your original authorization letter. Maybe the builder included unleaded fuel as acceptable in the authorization letter and aircraft limitations. If he/she did, you are already free to use these other fuels.
Thanks for the reply/info. We’re in the midwest so will likely have access to 100LL for quite awhile more – but do travel so will be good to figure out. I’ll reach out to EAA as you suggest and ask around at this summer’s EAA AirVenture. As an FYI – I beleive the original builder is deceased – but fortunately not in one of his builds 🙂 . May make most sense to talk with Lycoming – I’m really not near as concerned about some bureaucrat stopping me at the fuel pumps and asking for documentation – as I am about not harming myself and others due to a fuel related engine problem.
Anyone else remember the brown smogs over Los Angeles in the late 1960s and 1970s? They are the reason why California is so touchy about its air quality (although not touchy enough to replace endless “freeways” with cycle lanes…..) Go against the grain at your peril.
I worked on the 10th floor of a west facing office building, across the street from Westwood Village. We used to see some gorgeous sunsets, seemingly with colors that only airborne chemicals could produce.
I remember. I have total empathy and agreement with their touchiness. I do not have to agree with their statist, mob mentality on the solutions.
Unleaded fuels didn’t help with smog, oxygenates in fuel did, such as MTBE, ETBE and ethanol. They also raised octanes. Gami’s Xylene cocktail raises octane, but is not an oxygenate. We solve one problem and create another. Granted it’s progress but we will still be on the EPA’s radar.
Several posters have stated that UND had operational problems with GAMI G100UL. This is not true; the fuel was Swift Fuels 94UL. I’ve not been able to find a report of any operational problem caused by G100UL. Please get the facts, then form opinions. You might also ask Chris D’Acosta (CEO, Swift Fuels, who has posted in this thread) what caused the problem with 94UL …
that had a problem with valve recession due to the lack of lead.
The myth that lead is somehow good for engines was put to bed decades ago; whey do some still believe in and defend the indefensible?
Engines operated on unleaded fuel have longer life; long since proven by those who use Mogas.
Scandinavia has had unleaded Avgas for decades; no engine problems and longer life.
GAMI has done more testing of combustion and engine life than any other entity.
Lead is bad for people and engines;
It seems that Californians are more in touch with reality than some of the populace.
Time for the FAA to simply issue blanket exemptions instead of STC’s.
Could I ask who are these “some” who believe the indefensible?
It seems like a kind of straw man tactic to me. I’ve yet to meet these great fans of lead.
Mature technologies don’t need the government to force its adoption. Whether it’s G100UL, electric cars or solar panels and battery banks in every home, if the technology was viable and mature, people will adopt it. The fact the government has to force the adoption of their pet tech means it is not ready for the big leagues yet.
MONEY! DENERO! CASH! MOOLA! GREEN BACKS! Whatever you want to call it; it is what it’s all about.
The most agreeable compromise is probably BOTH/AND, not EITHER/OR. My engine (Rotax) is negatively impacted by both the lead in 100LL and the ethanol in mogas. I’ve been begging my airport and FBOs for UL fuel. Airports all over the Midwest have been doing this for years and it’s given pilots more freedom and choices. UL aviation fuel will liberate pilots who fly modern ICE engines from the damaging risks, costs, and consequences of last-generation fuels. It would be ideal if both 100LL and 100UL were sold side-by-side so everyone gets what they need. I’d be very happy to use a pump-on-a-pallette for UL so that new infrastructure isn’t needed, costs are minimized, and convenience is maximized.
I’m dying to fly to California! It’s such a great place to live and fly. Not to mention walking the picturesque roads of San Fransisco! OH California! The governor is such a nice guy! He is doing such a great job! LOL
Please stay home; we have enough assholes out here already.
Well, now, it seems that Braly GAMI 100UL has a court order in effect that makes you buy his product.
To Brian Hope:
You have your Facts all wrong.
UND was NOT using Braly GAMI 100UL fuel.
UND was using Chris D’Agosta SWIFT 94UL fuel.
that had a problem with valve recession due to the lack of lead.
Ya’ll realize this article is about an environmental group saying something and not the state right? Also, GAMI unleaded is the way forward for the best engine health, kid and adult health, and keeping small airports active. The price will come down with volume.
That’s a distinction without a difference. The state has effectively created a private attack arm that allows private lawsuits to regulate environmental issues and many others. It’s an activist lawyer’s paradise. I suspect also there’s a rather busy revolving door between education, state environmental departments , non profits, and legal groups. IOW, all the same folks.
Won’t SOMEONE blame drones?