What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

PAFI. What killed Swift Fuel candidate

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you have followed this sordid tale, not too much new information, except for this (37:30 in the video):

1.jpg
2.jpg
3.jpg

So once again, the football is being held while GAMI takes another swing at it, and George says he is optimistic that there might be a resolution by September, but may have to eat his words (again).
 
Not practical nor suggesting that, just offering that Innospec isn't the only manufacturer of TEL for avgas as you asserted.

The west already imports lots of stuff from China, TEL could be obtained as well but in any case, Innospec has said they have no intention of stopping production while there is still a demand.

I'm a proponent of unleaded avgas and would like to see TEL gone ASAP.

So does everyone else, Ross, including the FAA. The problem is there is a large number of engines out there that need >102 MON octane fuel and are certificated for 100LL minimum (which is really >103 MON on average). That's about 20-25% of the fleet but they consume >75% of the fuel. So the FAA's goal has been to go for a drop-in fuel that meets the octane need of the ENTIRE fleet and is fully compatible with 100LL to facilitate the SAFE transition to the unleaded fuel. Easier said than done. So this isn't a conspiracy against or for anyone. It's just the FAA and Industry (mainly the OEMs) ensuring they conduct due diligence before they grant ANY fuel "fleet-wide approval". Seems reasonable and prudent to me.
 
So....

So does everyone else, Ross, including the FAA. The problem is there is a large number of engines out there that need >102 MON octane fuel and are certificated for 100LL minimum (which is really >103 MON on average). That's about 20-25% of the fleet but they consume >75% of the fuel. So the FAA's goal has been to go for a drop-in fuel that meets the octane need of the ENTIRE fleet and is fully compatible with 100LL to facilitate the SAFE transition to the unleaded fuel. Easier said than done. So this isn't a conspiracy against or for anyone. It's just the FAA and Industry (mainly the OEMs) ensuring they conduct due diligence before they grant ANY fuel "fleet-wide approval". Seems reasonable and prudent to me.

But the "drop in" replacement fuel becomes the Holy Grail of the FAA; and the Monty Python characters keep on searching for it.

I like the idea of the STC; lots of time and money have gone into the STC route;

RELEASE THE DEMONS - approve the STCs.
 

Attachments

  • coconut-horse-gallop-bike-attachment-5870.jpg
    coconut-horse-gallop-bike-attachment-5870.jpg
    117.2 KB · Views: 113
  • WelltodoCleanAxolotl-size_restricted.gif
    WelltodoCleanAxolotl-size_restricted.gif
    897.9 KB · Views: 106
Last edited:
It's just the FAA and Industry (mainly the OEMs) ensuring they conduct due diligence before they grant ANY fuel "fleet-wide approval". Seems reasonable and prudent to me.

If you were following the story you would know that the due diligence was completed a long time ago. This is nothing but FAA stalling. Take the time to watch the admittedly lengthy video of George Braly speaking; a link is available in a post above. What part of that do you not believe?
 
So does everyone else, Ross, including the FAA. The problem is there is a large number of engines out there that need >102 MON octane fuel and are certificated for 100LL minimum (which is really >103 MON on average). That's about 20-25% of the fleet but they consume >75% of the fuel. So the FAA's goal has been to go for a drop-in fuel that meets the octane need of the ENTIRE fleet and is fully compatible with 100LL to facilitate the SAFE transition to the unleaded fuel. Easier said than done. So this isn't a conspiracy against or for anyone. It's just the FAA and Industry (mainly the OEMs) ensuring they conduct due diligence before they grant ANY fuel "fleet-wide approval". Seems reasonable and prudent to me.

Seems pretty clear from what's been presented by Braley but perhaps we're only getting one side of the story.

Given your apparent intimate knowledge of this topic, can you tell us what your involvement in all this is, if any? You seem to stay in the shadows here... Sorry for being blunt- is there something stopping you from telling us what we don't understand?
 
All the testing has been done and overseen by the FAA themselves, the FAA has signed off on all the testing, approved for final signature. So someone in Wichita is not signing the paperwork for the STC. George has been open about showing the emails, test results, approvals et.el. But still there is not STC.

Me thinks someone is paying someone off for the delay.

Being experimental, I am ready, and I really don’t want lead in my engine.
 
The Air Venture video update has a lot of information on how through GAMI's testing has been and the involvement of FAA technical folks that apparently know what they are doing and what the test objectives are. The test description on the high-compression turbo engine being pushed to 41 inches and not blowing up was interesting along with the discussion of 115/145 fuel vs G100UL octane ratings.

One has to wonder why the FAA moved the STC-TAB out of the technical side and to a "Policy and Innovation" group (AIR-600) to resolve what should be technical questions regarding an STC. The idea of an on-the-spot QR code STC on your phone was a great innovative idea that has fallen on deaf ears at AIR-600 P&I. You cannot make this stuff up.

Perhaps the most interesting was Exxon committing to manufacturing the required feedstock and that G100UL could be available in a couple of months after the STC approval. It will be interesting to see if any foot-dragging by AIR-1 after the end of August results in the hinted at lawsuit to compel the FAA to sign the STC as required by the FAA Reauthorization act.

It would be nice to see the Aero Club of Southern California award the Howard Hughes Memorial Award to George for his efforts and perseverance in providing a lead-free AVGAS solution for their airports. If GAMI succeeds in eliminating 100LL, he deserves to be on that list of past winners.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
 
George should be recognized for his hard work, perseverance and patience but let's also remember that the folks at Swift have also put considerable effort into UL avgas development and has been actually been selling UL94 since 2015 at many locations around the US. Though small in scale as far as the big picture of a universal drop-in replacement, it was an important first step in my view.

I don't have a horse in this race, I just hope a reliable, safe, unleaded alternative to 100LL is actually approved soon- no matter who formulated and made it.
 
Me thinks someone is paying someone off for the delay.

...Follow the money, and someone with a LOT of money does not want GAMI G100UL to go to market.

... This is nothing but FAA stalling.


...Is the govt waiting for their preferred supplier to come up with one?

This is all getting tiresome, and frankly, as a career Civil Service employee who worked in one of the many Federal Agencies, rather offensive.

Having worked in the Federal government for just shy of 35 years, I have met and interacted with countless other Civil Service workers. With the exception of a few FSDO people that seemed to operate contrary to their Agency's mission and policy, I have to say that to a person, everyone I ever encountered did their job with integrity and dedication to the mission of their Agency. Civil Service workers are not in it for the money - it is much less than equivalent private sector work (although the benefits are excellent) - they are in it because they love the work, whether it is US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NASA, DOE, USGS, NOAA, FAA, even DOD Civil Service, they all are doing it because they feel it is the right thing to do to help our country and its resources. They are constrained by the policies and procedures within their Agency, as well as all of the Code of Federal Regulations. They do their best to navigate through those constraints to do the best work they can.

For any of us in the Federal Agencies, to show favor or disfavor for a particular company over any other would always be improper, and most often illegal.

With absolutely no basis, you are impugning the integrity of Civil Service workers by suggesting that they are taking bribes, stalling to get a more favored company involved, or just not doing their job. How dare you! I find this profoundly insulting. I would ask that Moderators take a firm hand in editing posts, or deleting posts outright, that make such suggestions or accusations.

And yeah, if Moderators feel it appropriate to delete this post, fine. I would just ask that "fair is fair" and if you are going to delete this one you better be squeaky clean about deleting offending posts that suggest without basis some misfeasance on behalf of Federal Agency workers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top