25 ms·
FAA Continues to Stall on G100UL
- sklargh 4y agoA follow-up by Paul.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- c-linkage 4y agoIf I were to put on my conspiratorial hat, I would guess the reason for stalling is that approving the G100UL fuel from General Aviation Modification, Inc. (GAMI) will divert profits from Shell and ExxonMobil, both of which provide significant funding for the two US political parties. In fact, I would not at all be surprised to see approval delayed until such time as Shell or ExxonMobil can develop a competitor -- not an exact copy of GAMI's fuel, but something close enough to not violate the patent.
- dylan604 4y agoHow big is GAMI, as in, could Shell or ExxonMobil not just buy them?
- sokoloff 4y agoGAMI is tiny (and privately held). You could tour their entire facilities in a fascinating afternoon. Whether they could be bought is a matter of choice by the owners. It’s not that Shell or Exxon couldn’t afford them, but the principals might choose not to sell for a price that’s attractive to the oil companies.
- dhuk_2018 4y agoGAMI would probably have to license the tech to the big boys for production in high volumes.
- dhuk_2018 4y agoWhile I'm not disagreeing, according to WikiPedia the amount of 100LL sold per year is 0.14% of that of MoGas (2008). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Consumption Shell, Exxon, etc. probably see AvGas as a pain.
- GekkePrutser 4y agoThey do indeed. A lot of gas providers at airports here in Europe don't even want to bother stocking it anymore.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zbrozek 4y agoRegardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no. Permit housing? No. Permit power lines? No. Permit a nuclear plant? No. Permit an aviation fuel? No. Permit cross-laminated timber? No. Nobody gets fired for saying no. This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant.
- devmor 4y ago> This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant. It's also how stability is maintained and a nation remains safe and trustworthy.
- Sargos 4y agoHistorically this has not been true. The more ossified the bureaucracy becomes the less able it is to adapt and innovate which eventually leads to replacement or revolution.
- vajrabum 4y agoDo you have some historical examples?
- cnlevy 4y agoThe Roman Empire would like to have a word with you https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from-rome/ https://fee.org/articles/bureaucracy-kills-a-lesson-from-rom...
- wolverine876 4y agoWho is FEE? They look like a libertarian advocacy organization, complete with an 'education' wing.
- retcon 4y agoThe Fabian Extend and Embrace Society?
- PaulHoule 4y agoThis is completely connected with the FAA holding 5G frequencies hostage because it can’t make airlines replace faulty altimeters. Phone companies should have sued the manufacturers of those things.
- p_l 4y agoAnd would have no success, because under FCC rules the telecoms are the closest ones to violating the rules (their emissions are causing problems for others, receiving is not regulated) and moreover, it was FCC decision to go with much smaller guard band and not require various preventive measures. The altimeters aren't faulty, and everywhere else the regulatory bodies for aviation, radio spectrum, aviation industry and telcos cooperated on figuring things out. Unfortunately for USA, physics doesn't bend just to accommodate bad management of radio spectrum and hilariously bad mobile telco market.
- edrxty 4y agoIt wasn't really the FAA, the FCC just blindly started auctioning off spectrum before thinking to test anything. If they'd left a larger buffer between the bands this wouldn't be an issue but $$$.
- bushbaba 4y agoTo me, this is yet another case for reducing the number of large federal governing bodies. Shouldn't the fuel approved for use be a state (or local airport) decision in all but federal military airfields?
- sokoloff 4y agoIt would be an overall nightmare if aviation was regulated state-by-state. I’m generally in favor of “as local as practical”, but I think that the FAA, FCC, CDC, EPA, and a few others are cases where “as local as practical” ends up being federal.
- _moof 4y agoAbsolutely not. Fuel approval is an engineering matter, not a political one.
- akira2501 4y agoThe better question is, if this an obvious improvement over the current solutions, then what is it specifically that prevents this governing body from allowing the change? And, wouldn't that same issue be a worse problem for a smaller and less well funded governing body?
- sokoloff 4y agoWhile I believe G100UL is an improvement over 100LL in every important dimension except cost (where the delta is small enough to be accepted) and a small density penalty (a gallon is 5% heavier than 100LL, but contains slightly more energy as an offsetting factor, but “full tanks” will now be heavier and if the fuel has been mixed, it’ll be heavier by an unknown amount), it still needs an amount of test cell and flight testing to demonstrate that it’s equal or better. Right now, the law says “these airplanes are allowed to use these engines”, “these engines are allowed to use 100LL”, and “100LL has the following composition”. To be legal, you need paperwork that breaks one or more of those constraints, which is what GAMI is in the process of pursuing. To get that paperwork, they have to demonstrate functional equivalence and convince the FAA to issue a supplemental type certificate (the legal paperwork that would alter the second condition above). It’s not unreasonable for the FAA to need proof. Whether they need more proof than they have is self-evidently a point of disagreement between GAMI and their supporters (I count myself among this set) and the FAA.
- nimish 4y agoTechnocracy + bureaucracy = sloth. There's no incentive to risk anything. You aren't directly answerable to the people whom you consider beneath you anyway. Nothing improves. If FAA won't do their job, then that power (such as it is) needs to be stripped from them and invested back in Congress.
- KennyBlanken 4y agoThe FAA is an agency within the DOT, under the executive branch, answerable to the legislative and judicial branches. Congress has pretty significant supervision legislatively and budgeting-wise. Presumably GABI has talked to some congressional reps. So the question is: why aren't they lighting a fire under the FAA's ass to at least follow their own regulations? This seems more than worthy of a congressional hearing. Frankly, AOPA should have demanded as much, but they're probably too worried about pissing off Lycoming and Continental. GABI also has the option to pursue redress via the courts. I don't know whether they've attempted to do so or not.
- wolverine876 4y ago> The FAA is an agency within the DOT, under the executive branch, answerable to the legislative and judicial branches. Also answerable to the elected leader of the executive branch!
- _moof 4y agoThe delegation of authority from Congress to the FAA doesn't stop Congress from telling the FAA what to do. Congress can still pass, and has passed, legislation directing the FAA to take specific action on specific matters, and there's absolutely nothing the FAA can do about it other than comply. Congress can absolutely step in here if it wants to.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bruce511 4y agoCongress can, but won't. Congress delegated the authority to the FAA because (in concept) the agency is staffed by people who are knowledgeable about aviation, and are better equipped to make smarter aviation related decisions. For Congress to override the FAA you'd need some majority, in both houses, willing to make a technical decision which is directly related to airplane safety. That would require enormous amounts of time to educate Congress people, time which Congress has no interest in providing. They created the FAA specifically to remove all aviation issues from their docket. They are not now going to medle with this one issue - that's not how the system works. Obviously, like all good govt beaurocracies the FAA has grown big and slow and cautious and so everything takes forever. They are pretty much incentivized to keep kicking the can down the road, it is quite literally their business model.
- topspin 4y agoFrom the story: "But the applicant, in this case GAMI, should have a right to know who is on the TAB and what their credentials are." Hmm. Seems like 737 MAX was about the incestuous relationship between the FAA and Boeing, at least in part. Perhaps when there is less knowledge available about the people responsible for approving things we stand a chance of a meaningful result.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoI wonder how hard it would be to adapt a plane to run on propane? You'd need to find somewhere to keep a cylindrical tank (so not the wings) and ideally you'd need a liquid-cooled engine so the coolant could heat the gas vapouriser. You'd get 115 octane fuel, and no CO / HC / NOx / SOx or other nasties in the exhaust, just CO2 and water.
- mulmen 4y agoNot just a cylindrical tank. A pressure vessel. Anything that can store propane is going to weigh a lot more than a rubber bladder in the metal the plane is already made of.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoIt's not really under much pressure, about 8-10 bar. It's in the same ballpark as a light truck tyre pressure.
- mulmen 4y agoHave you seen the payload numbers for light aircraft? Payload with full fuel on a Cessna 172 is only 369lb. How much does a vessel that can withstand 10 bar weigh? A light truck tire weighs about 50lb. Recall that this vessel must withstand the temperature, pressure, and vibration extremes of aircraft application. Light truck tires aren't typically filled with flammable gasses. 10bar is a terrifying amount of pressure when it comes in your direction.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoNot sure, to be honest. I can lift the 95 litre tank in my Range Rover with one hand, so probably about 20-30kg? When it's full there's about 40kg of gas in, so that's very much a two-man lift. But bear in mind that's something like 6mm steel and intended to be literally indestructible. The dinky fibreglass gas bottles you get for patio heaters and forklifts are about 5kg and take an 11kg fill, which isn't a lot. 10 bar is not much more than the pressure in your car tyre, and roughly same as the average road bike tyre (currently running about 12 in my road bike). If you disconnect a 10 bar compressed air line, it hisses a bit. If you disconnect a 10 bar LPG line you get a lot of very cold gas on your hand, and it'll take ages to get the mercaptan-y smell off you.
- Melatonic 4y agoI definitely do not want lead in any emissions but this has to be a pretty small contributor. Plus airplanes I imagine are going to spread that lead over a much larger area vs inhaling car fumes. Has to be pretty low on their list of things they need to do. That being said I would one day like to get my pilots license and mess around a bit with flying - so common people - lets get this show on the road! ....or air?
- NonNefarious 4y agoUnfortunately lead in fuel is used as an excuse to shut down airports. Lead, noise, "safety..." all the red herrings used by local politicans and the developers who own them, along with small-time (or big-time) land speculators to call for airport closures. The fact remains that unless piston planes can run on ACTUAL car gas (which means gasohol) in the foreseeable future, GA is probably doomed. Or we can stop putting methanol in gas... which is also an excellent idea.
- NonNefarious 4y agoMeanwhile, Rotax actually does have an engine that'll run on gasohol (10%). And there's this interesting news: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/11/study-finds-no-elevated-lead-levels-in-reid-hillview-airports-soil/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/11/study-finds-no-elevat...
- BenjiWiebe 4y agoIt's ethanol that makes gasohol. And why would GA be doomed if it can't run on automotive gas? It hasn't _been_ running on automotive gas.
- edrxty 4y agoThe implication is that leaded gas will eventually be outlawed. It's also significantly more expensive and as such is putting pressure on an already expensive market.
- NonNefarious 4y ago
- chrismartin 4y agoThe private sector can solve this entirely. We just need to: - Find people who own property with lead in the ground - Pay them for a pinky promise to never ever mine the lead - Sell the resulting "lead offsets" to private aviators, who can - Continue burning 100LL while claiming on social media that they have achieved "lead-neutral" flight!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- radar1310 4y agoI know this from experience that when we switched from leaded to unleaded gas in the 70’s for a fleet of 50 cars, it caused spark plug fowling in every one of them due to flakes of carbon coming off piston heads. I don’t think you want spark plug fowling at 12,000 feet.
- kadoban 4y agoHow many people do you think have died or had their quality of life significantly reduced due to lead? They need to figure it out eventually here, not like they haven't had time.
- oh_sigh 4y agoIs the amount of lead that airplanes put out actually relevant for lead poisoning?
- kadoban 4y agohttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230438/ Yes. It's not the _worst_ thing we're doing to the general populace, by probably a decent margin, but it's not good.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y agoAll lead exposure is bad. Lead bioaccumulates and causes irreversible damage. The bioaccumulative effects are well researched in all the places you’d expect to undertake expensive and generational health research.
- buck4roo 4y agoYes. https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA The Man Who Accidentally Killed The Most People In History - by Veritasium
- Glawen 4y agoWell, during dieselgate the experts apparently found a way to count deaths. Maybe we could call the same experts