GA Avgas Coalition mischaracterized in blog post

By Chris Dancy, Media Relations Director, AOPA

A recent GAfuels blog post in General Aviation News mischaracterized the position of several GA Avgas Coalition members with regard to automotive gasoline, or mogas.

The aviation members of the GA Avgas Coalition have never been opposed to having mogas available as an alternative to aircraft owners and pilots for whom it’s appropriate. EAA has long maintained one of the supplemental type certificates for mogas use. AOPA and EAA have lobbied state legislatures when state blending requirements have been proposed to allow for the non-blending of premium mogas with ethanol for aviation and other uses. In recent months EAA has also been working on Capitol Hill seeking support for national availability of premium ethanol-free mogas.

What the coalition does not support is a nationwide two-fuel mandate from the government, requiring that airport operators must make multiple grades, or both leaded and unleaded fuels available on all airports. This method was used in phasing out leaded automotive fuels, and was discussed by environmental petitioners of the EPA. The coalition believes the two-fuel mandate would leave the industry in an untenable financial position. This is not to say the coalition members oppose auto fuel. It has been approved by the FAA in many aircraft and continues to be an option for those who can find supplies which have not been blended with ethanol. If an airport operator can make a business case for doing so, then, as they have always been able to do, they have the option of making both fuels available. But for many operators, the economics simply do not support making both fuels available.

The GA Coalition is seeking the best replacement for leaded avgas that minimizes the impact on the existing fleet of piston-engine aircraft. Although mogas is an acceptable fuel, it is not a replacement for 100LL.


  1. David Gaeddert says

    OK, helps find E0 gas. Personally, I go around the corner and get 91 octane E0 for my car, Harley and snow blower. Swift Fuels, USPTO #8,556,999, 100SF, when will FAA, big oil and ethanol lobby take their iron heel off sheeples’ neck?

  2. says

    The authors of GAFUELS blog appreciate Mr. Dancy’s comments and the encouraging news that the GA Avgas Coalition now also supports the other FAA-approved aviation fuel, ethanol-free Mogas. We’ll be making a detailed reply to his comments in our next posting at GAFUELS.

  3. says

    I believe a single solution to the 100 Low-Lead aviation fuel dilemma may be short sighted. While I have empathy for those aircraft owners who need high octane fuel for higher performance aircraft, a large majority of all aircraft can be well served by a zero ethanol automobile fuel approach (E0 mogas). I see no reason why both solutions cannot be pursued simultaneously. While acknowledging airports may find limits to their ability to serve two kinds of fuel, more creative solutions may be required and organizations like the Aviation Fuel Club are working to provide them. Requiring recreational aircraft to use only a 100LL replacement fuel — surely at a substantial price premium over auto fuel — will likely reduce aircraft use. Contrarily a lower cost fuel can encourage more flying and therefore greater airport utilization. Additionally, given the support of marine, antique, and motorsports enthusiasts numbering in the millions of Americans, E0 mogas can deliver more political clout while also enjoining aviation with many other recreational vehicle users, an option I believe all of aviation should embrace. As such, I am personally enthusiastic and passionate in my support of all actions to assure supplies of E0 mogas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *