The Southern California Airspace Users Working Group is calling on its membership to contact their state senators to block a bill that would begin the phaseout of leaded aviation gasoline in 2027 (amended from 2026). As we reported earlier, State Sen. Caroline Menjivar introduced the bill in February. It calls for banning leaded avgas starting with airports in “disadvantaged” areas on Jan. 1, 2027. The bill has apparently cleared committees and is nearing a vote in the State Senate. “Being proactive will help preserve our right as pilots to fly safely,” the eblast said. “Nobody ideally wants lead in our fuel, and solutions are being perfected. However, until they are perfected and commercially available, we need the fuel that has been proven safe.”
The bill went to the Senate Standing Committee on Transportation in early April and passed 8-3, and it was referred to the Judiciary Committee. We couldn’t find a record of those proceedings, but in the transportation committee opponents cited the lack of a commercially available replacement and noted the FAA had already set 2030 as the deadline to have a lead-free 100-octane fuel universally available. Proponents countered that General Aviation Modifications’ G100UL has already been approved by the FAA via an STC and Swift Fuels plans to have its 100-octane fuel ready in 2025. The Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) group announced earlier this year that a fuel developed by Lyondell/Basell and VP Racing is expected to be ready by the end of 2025. It’s not clear when the California measure will reach the full State Senate but SCAUWG is urging members to contact their representatives now.
See Facebook site “ Leaving California”
From the “only in Merica” files….. Good Grief!
“Airports in ‘disadvantaged’ areas.” Here we go again with more of that WOKE/DEI crappus maximus. So … what … if the airport is in Beverly Hills being used by rich actors with bizjets it’s OK? And just which Kalyfornia airports are in ‘disadvantaged’ areas? Oh well … I guess it’s a way to garner votes … from those very same “disadvantaged” types being spewed upon …
And just where is AOPA on this specific issue? OH … flying a bunch of airplanes over DC and busy printing fake news about how it is successfully collaborating on EAGLE so don’t worry … be happy.
Lost me at KALIFORNIA,which is the Titanic of the US.
FYI: I went to NoCal in 1970 when I was a young guy in the USAF. At that time, I thought I had found the Pot O’ Gold at the end of the rainbow … and had. After 3 years, I wound up in the SoCal desert and spent a 27 year run there … escaping in 1999. In that 30 year span, I watched the place descend into chaos, disarray and ‘madness.’ In 1970, the schools were at the top of the US heap. Everything about the place was good; everyone wanted to BE there. California is a beautiful State geographically but has now descended to near the bottom of the heap in terms of places people WANT to move TO (unless you’re a vagrant). So I have a lot of experience — ergo, the right — to call the place whatever I want … and do … sadly. It’s not even safe in many places. And don’t get me started on that lunatic that calls himself the Governator. The people who USED to live there are now running all over the US to spread their madness elsewhere, too. SO … yeah … it IS “the Titanic.” You called it right (or is it left?).
If you’re in Granbury … I trust you’ve seen a Kalifornian, or two … moving in?
“The Govinator
“The Governator” was Arnold Schwarzenegger who did a hell of a lot better job than the current clown.
Where in California can I go buy some 100UL avgas today? If I can’t buy it now it is not yet commercially available.
Most pilots won’t choose to pay for the GAMI STC and more expensive 100UL as long as cheaper 100LL is still widely available. FBOs won’t stock and sell 100UL until pilots will buy it.
What would make pilots willing to pay for 100UL and FBOs willing to stock it? If leaded avgas was not available.
Perhaps the point is that the people making these rules do not care at all if every aircraft not burning Jet A just went away. And they can probably achieve it with just a couple of regulatory rules.
It does seem that way. It’s fine for the rich and powerful to have their jets no matter who might need to make political points by complaining about them. When it comes to actually writing laws and regulations, the airplanes that get attacked are the ones that mostly cost less than a years salary for a reasonably successful professional.
What is the actual issue here?
GAMI has produced a fuel that is approved for all piston engine aircraft;
Lead is bad for engines, and for people; proven facts; not disputable.
“When a personal belief is not supported by established facts, it is a personal delusion”.
Why do some want to continue harming their engines, themselves, and others by continuing to use a known problem compound?
Personal “Freedom” ends when it affects others, so please don’t say this is a freedom issue.
The fuel is available, more versions are on the way; why the resistance to reality?
Who among the resistance to this necessary change is more knowledgeable about fuels and combustion than George Braly of GAMI?
Please step forward; show your verified qualifications, and make your case!
(This is not about politics, this is about reality; stop with the political nonsense already!)
Finally, a thoughtful, intelligent, and moral assessment of the situation. Thank you, Brian.
I’m looking at purchasing an experimental aircraft with a Rotax 916is and was reviewing some engine maintenance videos. You can burn 100LL in the 916 but have to do more frequent oil changes. What really shocked me was how much lead actually collects in the oil reserve after only 25 hours of flight. It really is long past time to move on to unleaded aviation fuel.
Not just oil changes — just about everything associated with engine operation doubles, if not triples — including the expensive gear box overhaul. Follow the fine print, in the manuals — AVOID THE USE OF LEADED FUEL AT ALL COSTS, except in emergency situations.
I think you’ve made a great sounding argument.
The reality is that there’s virtually no one who wants the lead, so that’s a big straw man. Also, it is about personal freedom if you believe the real target is not the lead, but the whole community and industry. There’s simply not that many people whose priority is getting rid of the lead in the fuel. That’s one reason it’s been there for 50 years too long, for this to all of a sudden need to be something that has to be done today.
If it were really about safety, where is the attack on the FAA from California activists? Why now? Why make it about “disadvantaged” communities? Why did they force closed so many airports thus concentrating all the activities, and thus the emissions, into fewer fields? Where is talk of funding replacement fields if it’s not about money?
Finally, I totally agree with GAMI. I’m not resistant to the change, either. There are clearly concerns from some FBO owners about liability, and also a cost issue which seems to stem from decisions at the FAA or some other laws. Why should these things be ignored?
Go and ask the engine manufacturers if they approve of this G100UL being used in their engines….. I think you’ll get a completely different answer! There is no where near enough testing evidence to show what the long term outcomes are yet, at least none that has been publicly published or publicly available showing that all sorts of stressed engines have happily reached TBO without issues. Until then, there’s NO WAY that i’d be using it.
Thank you Brian for a comment that makes sense rather than the usual California bashing Fox news Trumper recap.
The US EPA began to phase tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) out of motor vehicle fuel in 1975 and fully banned the sale of leaded motor fuel for use on public roads in 1996. At this time, TEL has been banned from motor vehicle fuel by every nation on the planet.
The health effects of tetra-ethyl lead have been known since (at least) 1924 when, in one week, five of 49 workers at the Elizabeth, NJ, TEL manufacturing plant died from exposure to the chemical. Thirty-five additional workers demonstrated severe neurological impairment.
So, I can fully understand how pilots are shocked, just shocked, that California is now planning to eliminate sale of leaded aviation fuel some 30 years after it was banned nationally from mogas. I mean, who could have possibly have seen that coming?
No one is shocked about California. Everyone is angry that it’s just one more thing being done that will cost owners big bucks because the different actors care about anything but piston aircraft owners.
They want the airport land. They want the reduced traffic. They want class warfare talking points. They want to protect or enhance their careers with little effort as possible. They care not about how that affects us.
Contacting any California state senator is peeing into the wind.
If you were to ever speak to a state representative you’d find out how wrong you actually are. Contacting them doesn’t mean they’ll do precisely as you ask, but polite, thoughtful messages from constituents does influence their decision-making.
It’s always fun to read comments here from all the out-of-staters complaining about California. Get used to it, folks. We’re going to end up with unleaded aviation fuel. Like numerous other national changes over the past 50+ years, California is going to lead that effort because no one else will. It’s going to be a complex transition. That transition will be harder for some, easier for others. Lawmakers are merely working through that transition as equitably as possible. No one is going to be perfectly happy with how it goes. That’s precisely how democracy was designed to work.
Bash California all day long if you like. The state gets stuff done that no other state can or will. And getting jobs like this done in California means others can follow with lower economic impacts on their states.
One simple questions:
If the FAA deems the fuel safe and a 100% replacement for 100LL, why have an STC in the first place. The added expense seems unnecessary.
I’m in NorCal and I asked the fuel supplier Epic, when they would begin delivering an unleaded 100 octane fuel. The answer was that it is being reviewed by their ‘risk management’ folks, ie legal folks, and it would be 1 to 2 years as of now.
The other thing to consider is that 94UL was fully approved, but a flight school using the fuel stopped when they discovered that it eroded the exhaust valve seats. Lycoming has determined that running ‘lean of peak’ and at high power settings will damage the valve seat with that fuel. They returned to using 100LL.
So, an approved fuel was NOT ready for full commercial use.
We don’t know if any of the other 3-4 fuels are safe to use, yet.!
First, the North Dakota flight school discovered valve erosion in SOME of the cylinders on SOME of engines on their fleet of planes. Unfortunately, they had not done a statistically valid test protocol to determine the actual reason for the issue. Second, Lycoming has always insisted that running their engines lean of peak is bad, in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of pilots do so with no measurable problems (me included). I suspect that Lycoming is trying to deflect any liability from themselves and onto Swift for legal reasons. The standard finger-pointing that ensues after any significant incident. To my knowledge, no other users of Swift 94UL have come forward with similar complaints. Swift probably sells a lot of their 94UL in California, so there should be a history of complaints if it was the problem. I’m not defending Swift, but just saying that there is probably more to the story than has come to light and we cannot assume that G100UL, or one of the other non-approved (yet) fuels, will exhibit similar issues. Being skeptical is good and appropriate. Just don’t make assumptions or draw conclusions without knowing the whole story.
While everyone knows about UND’s decision to stop using Swift’s UL94, apparently few people know that all 4 flight schools at Reid Hillview Airport in San Jose have been using exclusively UL94 since October of 2021 without any issues. So have a majority of the private pilot owners who are eligible to use it, including our Comanche. These schools don’t fly new Archers and Seminoles (higher compression engines) and don’t fly all day at peak EGT , but have thousands of hours of experience since sale of 100LL was banned at both county airports in 2021. And the wait could soon be over, as Swift’s unleaded 100 octane fuel testing is completed, and all results submitted to ASTM and FAA for issuance of STC and ASTM Spec expected this year. The ASTM Spec approval and testing will ease the minds of the “Risk Management” folks (i.e. Lawyers…) and speed volume distribution of 100R.
The issue here is as always money. There are a lot of us who operate small low horsepower aircraft that would fly just fine on unleaded fuel if it was available at the airport. However it is not and it is a bit impractical to transport fuel especially if not at your home airport. The switch to something like G100UL or the other 100 octane options is almost certainly going to cause costs to go up. We have been dealing with costs across the board that have been going up at a rate well beyond the official inflation rate and certainly well beyond any increases in our salaries. Parts, maintenance costs, insurance etc. have all gone up significantly in the past few years. Many of us are already on the edge of unaffordability and a potentially significant increase in fuel costs could push a large number of us out of the market entirely. That would be disastrous for those who remain as it would reduce a market size that is already too small as it is.
We would love to switch to a non-leaded fuel but not if it makes it so expensive that it pushes us out of the market entirely. There are a lot of us who are rather upset that our options seem to be either continue with 100LL, pay a significant price increase for a boutique 100 octane unleaded fuel or try to figure out how to transport enough 91 or 93 octane unleaded from a gas station off airport to keep us flying.
We need another option and so far I do not see anyone giving us one. The truth is that moving off of 100LL is going to cost someone a bunch of money. There is a lot of arguing about this but it is mainly about who has to pay for it.
There. That is a great argument, and one not at all addressed by the anti GA folks. They’d rather spend tens of millions on lawyers than even consider funding an extra pump installation or reducing taxes on unleaded fuels as an equalizer, or anything else.
It’s because it’s not about the lead.
The bill has a major problem …21710 [d] [1] must state ‘ALL spark ignition engines, not ‘nearly all.’
This could exclude high compression, turbocharged engines that require 100/130 octane to prevent detonation.
70 % of the engines are low compression and can use a 94 octane fuel….which is ‘nearly all’.!
see; https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1193/id/2999857
I believe that Comifornia is trying to rush it a little too. The auto industry went through the same issues back in the ‘70’s when they first started introducing unleaded gasoline. It was pretty rough at first but it worked out pretty well for everyone. Those old vehicles would only last 120,000 miles and they were pretty much done. Now some warranties are 120,000 miles long. Just think when after aviation goes through it’s teething issues with the new fuel how much longer will the improved engine’s last?
I’m no expert, but I don’t think the move to unleaded fuel is responsible for that much of the improvement in engine longevity. Also, it seems to me the rest of the car has been made too expensive to fix simultaneously which has kept the cars from actually lasting that much longer.
There is no known safe level of lead for humans. Lead is known to interfere with the growth of children’s brains and cause lifelong loss of cognitive functions.
Aviation gasoline exposure is a daily, unabated barrage of lead.
“We should know now how criminal it is”
Since the 1970s, thousands of studies have revealed two intertwined facts: Aviation fuel adds lead to children’s bodies, and trace amounts of lead inflict permanent damage on children’s developing brains.
We all know that General Aviation serves important functions. Seems to me the local population and government might reconsider their position if the emergency evac, transplant transportation, etc. companies said they won’t service the area. There needs to be consequences to their actions.
Why is Texas not leading the way on the development and distribution of unleaded AvGas? My guess is that Texas pumps more AvGas than California and has a strong, diverse and active general aviation base that provides a lot of jobs and other services to both large and small communities in the state. The oil industry is huge in Texas and many oil companies are headquartered here. Why is California driving the development and implementation of unleaded AvGas when it seems like Texas has the resources, the knowledge and the economies of scale to be doing it?
Not sure why you assume that Texas should lead the nation in 100UL research. I suspect that California consumes more 100LL than Texas, but that doesn’t really matter. In fact, Shell Oil did participate in the FAA’s initial PAFI program but dropped out when the program failed to produce any useful results. If you live here, you know that Texas politics is extremely conservative, and no politician here would dare to do or say anything that goes contrary to the established oil industry. Texas, and its resident oil giants strongly opposed the banning of lead in motor fuels for years until the national EPA and Congress forced the issue. No reason to assume that dropping lead in Avgas will be any different. I used to work with one of the few Texas refineries that makes 100LL. They didn’t really like the stuff due to its known health issues and the fact that it had to be kept segregated from all other tanks, piping, process units, etc., but they did like the profit margin of the product, so they put up with it. I think that therein lies the problem. Follow the money of those that have a vested interest in the status quo.
California is not driving innovation, they are further threatening an industry. GAMI is in Oklahoma. They are doing the innovation. Texas is not the state it used to be. After decades of dealing with federal agencies motivated by political goals attacking energy companies, the locals here are knowledgeable about picking their battles.
The FAA and EPA are the ones slowing progress in a niche market. If they were not, there would be more activity.
Actually, Texas is leading the way. Both companies who developed the fuel in full-scale PAFI testing are based in Texas. California has not been involved in unleaded avgas development for a long time.
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already.”
— Tolstoy
Exactly! 🙂
So yes, the FAA created a monster by allowing new fuels to be approved via the STC process in addition to PAFI. The STCs are approved by ACOs based on supplier-generated data and do not require an industry standard such as ASTM for production or quality control. The STC testing is shrouded in mystery and is guaranteed to have missed some critical tests or conditions.
The piece of paper may say approved in all engines and aircraft but that does not mean tested in all engines and aircraft or even under all POH and operating manual conditions for those that were tested. So, pilots can rely on the fuel producer to guarantee his fuel or the FAA and OEMS to do so following the PAFI testing program.
The second group of stakeholders are those who will be left holding the proverbial bag if something goes wrong; that’s the distributors, FBOs, and OEMs. They also have a right to choose which fuel they will distribute and when they will transition. So far, most have chosen to pass on the STC’d fuels, including UL94 which has an ASTM standard. The recent issues at UND may not be fuel related, but that won’t prevent the school from blaming the OEM, fuel producer, and others.
The other STC supplier has so far refused to submit their fuel to ASTM standardization and is paying the price. No amount of belly-aching and blaming others will make this legitimate concern of liability potential go away.
It’s not that complicated after all; you get the trust and credibility you earn and those who stand to lose the most have a right to transparency and to market the fuel of their choice. For those who remember the old Paul Masson commercial: We will sell no wine (i.e. unleaded AVGAS) before it’s time.
Wow, you make a lot of assumptions here, including one that ASTM does all of their own testing for all possible issues that may occur with an approved product, and never takes any data from the supplier as being valid. I can assure you that is not the case. You also assume that the FAA took GAMI’s word for all of their data and never explored any ancillary issues of the fuel such as compatibility with aircraft fuel systems and the storage and dispensing of same. In fact, the FAA spent over a decade reviewing the fuel, including at least ten separate detailed reviews staffed by subject matter experts from various departments of the agency that covered those ancillary issues as well. They also personally observed testing of the fuel in engines under test conditions and found all of the GAMI supplied data to be valid. It would be nice if there was an ASTM spec attesting to the efficacy of G100UL, but judging from the recent events with Swift 94UL, that may not be sufficient to guarantee success.
I think you are confusing ASTM with PAFI. 100LL quality is tested against D910 specifications by third party inspectors who test the fuel according to the test protocols defined in D910. It would be reassuring to the distributors and OEMs if all unleaded fuel suppliers would publish their performance spec vs ASTM D910, so that they can judge if the fuel is truly a drop-in.
One thing is certain, the STC’d fuel you defend has significantly different components and properties than 100LL. So, the burden of proof is on the producer to convince those he wants to take on the liability to distribute it that it is fit-for-purpose and safe to deploy.
There is also no standard testing protocol for STC’d fuels to demonstrate fit-for-purpose properties. It’s up to the fuel producer to convince FAA DERs and ACO reps that their fuel is fit-for-purpose. How that sausage is made is not published for all to see. In contrast, PAFI relies on written test protocols as well as tests described in ASTM D7826 and the FAA, OEMs, and third parties designated by the FAA, not the fuel producer, who conduct the testing per the aforementioned protocols.
If what you say were true and believed by all, the industry would have embraced the fuel the minute it received the AML-STC, and it would have already been deployed.
Time will tell if they are any more comfortable with the PAFI results and ASTM spec for that fuel, but their statements to date support that notion.
By the way, cool photo accompanying the article, Russ. It clearly illustrates the presence of combustible vapors whenever you transfer fuel from one container to another. Static electricity can bite you when you least expect it.
I see a heck of a lot of commenters asking “why are we dragging our feet?”, and: “get used to it, unleaded fuel is coming”. I don’t believe there is anyone at all who wants to keep 100LL, but why in the world do we all have to be bullied into accepting the first thing that has been rushed out to market? If we are going to be honest with one another about the situation, we have had leaded fuel for 100 years, and our consumption of lead is .007% of what everyone else is putting out there. We consume 319 out of the 4.5 million tons put into the environment every year. The reduction of environmental lead once 100LL is gone will be undetectable and unmeasurable. You would achieve as much benefit by swatting one mosquito while your wife is being eaten alive on a hot muggy summer night. Yes, let’s eliminate lead in our fuel, but let’s do it slow, methodical and safe. I agree that none of us wants lead residues in our engines either, but we are equally concerned with what IS being put into the new fuel to boost the octane that wasn’t there before. I am certain that George Braly and all his scientists at GAMI are far smarter than I am with regard to fuel. Doesn’t mean I trust what they are selling anymore than I trust the guys at Pfizer. I don’t know how much George flies, and I don’t know how much he stands to make if his fuel gets shoved down the throat of my fuel tanks instead of waiting for VP and Swift so we can compare suitability, availability, direct and indirect costs, and industry consensus. I am not trying to be political, but did we not learn anything from the pandemic? There is no life ending emergency here that we have to put Chicken Little in charge of our safety. Pilots, the FAA and Aviation as a whole have a reputation of safe, redundant, proven, and always relying on superior decision making skills. I see none of that in this debate.
Couple of points. Aviation moving to unleaded fuel has been an issue for many decades. There’s nothing occurring fast here. And we have several viable fuels available. The complexities, as far as I understand, have more to do with safety, the regulatory process, and the fact that so many aircraft still use engine designs from 50+ years ago. The automotive industry could move faster because nearly the entire automobile fleet cycles ~20 years and newer cars had newer engine designs optimized for unleaded fuels.
On the toxicity issue, I believe the problem is more than the overall contribution of lead to the total environment. There are many points where lead has to be concentrated, handled, transported, processed… and there’s the fact that if you’re working in an airport located business, you’re exposure is certainly far higher.
Lead is just bad stuff. Everyone agrees it needs to be eliminated. The challenges revolve around how and when. It’s probably safe to assume, if you’re still an active pilot in 10 years, you’ll be putting unleaded avgas in your tanks. Eight years would be better, 6 years better than that. There will be inevitable fumbles and stumbles along the way. That’s par for the course.
I disagree. Seems to me California and some shadowy organizations are pushing for this to be done before the FAA will have a solution they will bless.
The whole thing here seems to also be crossing the bounds of the 10th amendment which normally gets stretched really hard by the Feds to cover anything, yet the FAA is not saying a thing.
I believe that the FAA has been dragging their feet on a solution for decades while the GA community were in suspense of whether the cure would be worse than the disease. Now, there are simply people in California trying to play games with bad agendas. Precious few have any integrity, and have ever attacked the FAA who is the villain here.
Once again. Who here agrees the main culprit here is the FAA? If you think so, how about directing your arguments for getting rid of lead at them? How about instead of firing shots over partisan and cultural points, we get some unity here?
1. Aircraft owners are not the problem here, but the victims.
2. Aircraft owners should not be forced to pay higher and higher prices for fuel on top of all the other incredibly high prices all made unnecessarily high by the FAA and other government institutions which continue to attack our right to use the great blue ocean that is our sky.
3. Aircraft owners should be treated equivalently to car owners and boat owners as should the industry that supports them.
4. The FAA and other institutions have squelched innovation and the industry for decades, and GA needs relief, not more attacks.
5. All public airports now operating, and all former airport land not yet developed that is owned by public institutions and governments should be immediately set aside as permanent airport land not to be used for other purposes. Any airports privately owned should be similarly protected against lawsuits and regulations which would prevent their use by general aviation aircraft and any other aircraft type currently used there.
6. The rights of individuals to the use of the sky should be protected.
Imagine being mad at anyone except Lycoming and Continental, who have steadfastly wrung every possible cent of profit out of the same designs without any appreciable r&d for 50 years.
There is no excuse for these things to not run on 91 octane e0 mogas. Literally none. Blah blah blah it all comes down to absolutely no development.
Why would they? Why didn’t you? Because it wasn’t worth it. And why wasn’t it?
So, imagine not blaming the FAA.
Unleaded gasoline was introduced in the 1970s when health problems from lead became apparent. In the United States, leaded gasoline for use in on-road vehicles was completely phased out as of January 1, 1996. (Source: Google Query)
At the age of nearly 50 years, I vividly remember discussions (in the 90’s!) with people, who seriously wondered for just how much longer the GA industry could remain ignorant to unleaded fuel and – given the tremedous fuel inefficiency of these engines – afford to keep this elephant in the room. One does not have to be WOKE, in order to question any justification for cooling an engine with the fuel it burns.
I am as anti-electric as they come, living in Europe – where politically forced and over- hyped E-Mobility is all but religion, however – one would ass-u-me we had more than smoke and mirrors in the development of unleaded aviation fuel in the year 2024. I am not sure that writing your congressional delegate will be of much help.
The current discussion/ subject matter hype appears insincere at best. We should not forget that 50+ years of writings on the wall are barely enough time to react. We fly planes stuffed with electronics, painted like Lambo’s, yet we run a dinosaur engine that seems to have been around since before Crocodiles were invented.
Make no mistake about it, the end goal in the western part of the (not so united) U.S. is not unleaded fuel for GA – it is NO General Aviation. We as a collective industry ought to wake up to this fact and start to smell the roses. Lets get real and stop the huffing and puffing about those bad people in CA.
Please don’t get me wrong. I love to sound and smell of Lyco’s & Conti’s just as much as the next passionate person – but Jesus Peeps – we had 50+ years to get this cow off the ice.
Agree completely. The unleaded discussion in aviation has been going on since the 70s. It’s honestly hard to have a lot of sympathy for us since we’ve had literally half a century to solve this problem. It seems humans don’t take problems seriously until they are really face to face with them – perhaps part of our survival instincts are doing us wrong on this kind of “long term” problem. We should be thankful that the greens are pushing us to get lead out, putting aside the clear health issues, but just to take another issue off the table for closing airports.
Next issue will be noise – we’ve still got our heads in the sand on that topic.
Really? Us? Seems to me we’ve all been ready for unleaded fuel that actually worked, or engines that burned alternative fuel. The problem is the FAA demands to have their little fingers all over everything.
Now, someone has actually followed their rules, made a good product, and the FAA is STILL not cooperating with them.
Diesel engines have been hampered by the low volumes and high certification costs of new airframes. Both of those things are directly caused by FAA policies.
How is it anyone looks at the airplane market and does not see the symptoms of government externalities all over it?
“You can always count on America to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other options.” Winston Churchill
Enough moaning.
Can we get one, just one, FBO to commit to selling G100UL?
Maybe we can get a tanker at Osh this year and we can all try it.
Hand out 5 gal samples even.
Or ask the FAA / Ca to offset the price of the fuel by $1 a galloon. If Cali wants to get rid of 100LL, take some of the high speed rail money and sunsidize G100UL fuel sales. No one cheaper than a pilot.