Late in 2011, a little known environmental organization, perhaps totally unknown in aviation circles, Center For Environmental Health (CEH) filed a lawsuit against “30 companies that sell and/or distribute lead-containing aviation gas (avgas) at 23 California airports, calling on the companies to provide safer alternative fuels.”
When I received this link to an article about “Refurbishing A Fuel Truck” by EAA Chapter 725 over at Grants Pass Airport (3S8) in Oregon, my immediate reaction was: “There’s an untold story here.” My curiosity was primary piqued because the story implies that Grants Pass Airport was now providing commercial mogas service for aviation from a truck through the auspices of the EAA.
This was truly bizarre on a number of levels. [Read more…]
Was it only me, or did anyone else find the press release by the FAA announcing that it has selected four fuels for further testing to replace 100LL this fall to be a bit peculiar? In case you you missed it, the official press release from the FAA is here. Articles also appeared on this site, General Aviation News, and from the EAA.
None of the articles answered any of the obvious questions that came immediately to my mind, for instance:
In the May 15, 2014 EAA Hotline email there was an interesting article in the Member Benefit Spotlight section. It reported the results of a Fuel Survey purportedly taken in March by the Experimental Aircraft Association with 13,000 replies by members. The findings were rather interesting: 87% of members are using primarily 100LL and 12% are using autogas.
As I digested this finding, a pertinent question came to mind: If 12% of members are tenacious enough to use mogas when only 3% of our airports carry mogas, why didn’t EAA ask the membership: “How many members would use mogas if it was as available at the 3,000+ airports that carry 100LL?”
On Jan. 19 your bloggers posted a rebuttal to an article in EAA’s Sport Aviation titled “Avfuel Takes on Fuel Challenges” by J. Mac McClellan that deals with the never-ending saga of a replacement for leaded avgas. We did our best to correct the fallacies in the article. Judging from the numerous positive comments we received, most of you agree with the facts that we presented.
In the immortal words of then-candidate Ronald Reagan during the 1980 debate with president Carter, “There you go again.” Incredibly, the February issue of Sport Aviation included a new article (“Fueling the Future of GA” on page 10) that contained even more misleading statements on aviation fuel that demand correction.
The January 2014 issue of EAA’s Sport Aviation includes an article titled “Avfuel Takes on Fuel Challenges” by J. Mac McClellan that deals with the never-ending saga of a replacement for leaded avgas.
While Avfuel’s president and CEO, Craig Sincock, deserves great credit for building the company into a leading aviation fuel supplier, his comments and those from the article’s author show that some of the vast information archived on this blog has not yet reached the good people in Oshkosh and in Ann Arbor, Avfuel’s home base.
GAfuels reader Pete Howell of the Minneapolis area recently posted an article in the newsletter of the Minnesota Wing of Van’s Air Force describing his experiences burning mogas in his Lycoming O-320 – powered RV-9A. Here is an excerpt:
“Why would anyone want to burn anything other than aviation fuel? [Read more…]