G100UL unleaded avgas approved

[Jim K]

In case you haven't heard yet...
Yesterday George Braly of GAMI announced the FAA approved an STC for their unleaded 100 octane avgas.

https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative-Fuels/Unleaded-Avgas#FAQ

I'm happy to see GAMI successful, but that is tempered by the fact that it looks like I'm to have to pay a couple thousand bucks to have the privilege of buying a more expensive fuel. The claimed oil change and tbo savings will not come close to making up the $10-15/ hour fuel cost increase, all to fix an arguably non- existant problem.

The comparison to an auto- gas stc falls flat as that is an stc to use a cheaper fuel, not a more expensive one. I have no doubt the fuel will pass its additional testing, and I have no doubt the epa will ban 100ll within days of it doing so. Pandora's box has been opened and we're going to shoulder the cost.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I am happy to see people make money off of brilliance and perseverance. But I draw the line when I'm compelled to purchase an item or stop doing what I have done for years, with no true benefit. That's either theft or extortion, and not "good on them."

Well, of course, not really either on GAMI’s part. The FAA and EPA on the other hand…

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

And nothing prevents some other company from creating their own product and seeking incorporation into the STC.

And once a competitor knows this can be done, it becomes much easier to figure out a formulation that works around a patent.

Competition is good for the consumer.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Flying is a privilege

Honestly I do not understand why people say this as a distinction from a right.

Why should one not be able to travel freely through the air so long as one is not endangering others by doing so? It is not like the danger to others from flying small aircraft is so vastly much greater than say driving a car on the street. Both activities endanger others to some small degree.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

This study attempts to account for other lead sources, but I don't have the expertise to evaluate the methodology.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_Aviation_Gasoline_on_Blood_Lead_in_Children

Quick read of this study suggests it is a pretty good case. There is a fall off with distance from the airport, even after linear controls for other lead sources, as well as a temporal correlation with the drop off of flights after 9/11.

An observational study will never be as certain as a randomized trial (which would not be ethical to perform in this case). And while mere correlation does not establish causation, as more and more correlations are observed across different independent variables, the argument for a causal relationship becomes stronger.

Interestingly the authors use estimates of the economic effects of IQ decreases due to lead exposure to estimate a $6/gallon price at the pump economic cost of this damage.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Say it triples my oil change interval. My oil change costs me around $80. (Disposal costs me nothing) So my oil changes costs now for 150 hrs is $240 and would be $80. So it would save me about $1.07 per hour. This fuel is going to cost me at minimum $7.50/hr more. I doubt the TBO will be bumped to 4000 hours, TBO doesn't matter for part 91, and lead isn't really getting into the crank case and on the cams and crank anyway. We're still behind in cost no matter how they spin in.

That may well be true. But if the economic costs of damages to others are actually $6/gallon, then $7.50 per hour would be a bargain. If the estimate of the damages due to 100LL are correct, then those of us flying these have basically been polluting and externalizing part of the cost of our activities.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

These sort of fairly subtle and distant effects are hard to be certain about. If one is serious about understanding this, a quick search on Google Scholar using the terms “lead aviation fuel iq” shows a number of peer-reviewed articles in the last 5 years. One would likely have to read and understand them to accurately judge the strength of this causal association.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Peter, this has been covered before. What does it say about flying in the constitution? In the constitution it says you have the right to freely navigate the navigable waterways of the nation. This is why we don’t have to have a recreational boat license from the national government. In spite of the fact that recreational boating kills a lot more people than recreational flying. Navigating around the United States in an airplane is not mentioned in the constitution, Or in the motor car. This is why we have to have licenses for those activities. I am not disagreeing with you in your thought but this is how I look at it from a legal point of view.

Of course it says nothing in the Constitution about flying or driving. In general I think the idea is that we have a set of rights and the Constitution is designed to help protect some of them, but does not grant them or enumerate all of them.

You are correct that the legal situation is complex. In the case of flying, the CAB was created and simply asserted Federal control over flying without much real consideration of rights. I have not studied the history of any legal challenges to that imposition at the time.

To the point here, I have not seen a good argument, from a natural rights perspective, for why flying should be regarded as any less of a right than traveling by any other mode. This is usually just asserted as a fact that it is a “privilege”.

I guess what you say here is an argument about it of sorts. That the only rights we have are those enumerated in the Constitution and that everything else is a privilege. I hope that is not the legal regime we are living under, but granted that premise, the argument seems valid.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Is there an example of any other STC which is required merely to use an aircraft in a particular way which involves no material change to the aircraft itself?