The FAA issued an update June 4, 2018, on its evaluation of unleaded fuels for general aviation, noting the completion of the testing is now expected in late 2019.
According to agency officials, Phase Two of the testing continues, reaching the two-and-a-half year mark since the two finalists in the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) replacement unleaded fuels program were chosen.
The flight test program of the fuels from Shell and Swift Fuels is about one-third complete, while the engine test program is about halfway complete, FAA officials report.
Differences in the two fuels as compared to 100LL are being evaluated for impacts and mitigations, FAA officials said.
“While these issues are assessed, PAFI flight testing and some engine testing have been halted,” the update notes.
Both fuel producers, Shell and Swift, are evaluating options to mitigate the impacts that these differences will present in fuel production, distribution, and operation in the GA fleet.
“These evaluations will take time and ultimately affect the schedule of the test program,” FAA officials said in the update. “Based on current projected activities and timelines, the testing completion date for the PAFI program will be December 2019.”
That’s a full year from the previous predicted completion date of December 2018.
According to FAA officials, they are interested in pursuing “all alternatives” while the PAFI testing continues, so they have invited companies that are developing unleaded avgas outside of the program to “bring their data to the FAA for evaluation and consideration for possible detonation, operability, and performance testing at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center.”
“Fuel producers offering alternatives determined to have potential viability as an unleaded replacement for 100LL will be invited to participate in a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the FAA, which will be conducted on a non-interference basis with the PAFI program,” FAA officials said.
I’ve flown my 0-320 more than 1000 hrs on 91 octane mogas with no adverse issues and I’ve also used Swift fuel a few times with no problems. On mogas I’ve been up to 17,000′ and flown on days when the OAT was above 90 F and no problems. I’ve talked with numerous pilots that have airplanes that could use mogas and they are afraid to even give it a try. Old habits are hard to change. The issue with lead isn’t just it’s effect on the environment so much as it’s effect people and especially young children. No amount of lead is good for people.
I personally think the EPA and all the stuff they put out about global warming is junk. One volcanic eruption negates everything they do, such as catalic converter, reburn systems, stuff to inject (DEF) into the exhaust system, only to just put out a different kind emission worse than it was before they started this add on crap. Who pays for all this, the customers!!! They will eventually get around to the small GA aircraft. Imagine this kind of exhaust system on your Aircraft!!!
Imagine all the piston engines in aircraft running in a year on this big earth. They would not put out a speck of anything to show up on the surface of the earth!!
One only needs to study a little earth science. It’s been doing its thing for eons going around the sun. Nothing about the tiny specks of man can change one thing!!! It’s all about the money!!!
I’m not rich but I do love to fly my 1966 PA-128-140. Just for pleasure. It’s getting more expensive to keep up with all the costs involved. I live on a fixed income now days. New requirements by the FAA with the in and out requirements, probably cost me another wad of money for a new transponder!!
In my 68 yrs of existence…when the term “pushed up” is utilized…it meant something was being accelerated, brought to a higher priority…etc…..I believe that the words needed for the article should have be “pushed back” indicating that the program now does not have a priority..or is being delayed….?????
I don’t understand how any fuel can be developed to replace the 100LL, and I don’t think it will actually happen? The FAA will finally in desperation to satisfy some politicians, declare a fuel an adequate replacement and let the chips fall where they may. These engines were designed and built to run on 100LL and 100LL is 100LL. I’m going to be reluctant to run an engine on any type of replacement since no one knows what the outcome is going to be long term even with the so called testing being done with these alternate fuels in the short term. It’s like hormone replacement therapy. This was the answer to it all until after about 10 years when the drug was found to alarmingly elevate the risk of breast cancer. Same for statins. After millions of people have taken, and are taking, statins it’s been found to do more harm than good. In some cases, serious harm. When an alternate fuel is finally chosen we’re not going to know if it’s safe or not until planes start to fall out of the sky. To me this is just another case of government bureaucrats, under pressure from some environmentalists and politicians, declaring that 100LL is ruining the environment. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve not read any studies indicating what is a minuscule amount of 100LL in comparison to other fuels is damaging the environment. When the switch is eventually made it’s GA pilots who are going to suffer the consequences, not bureaucrats and politicians. But who cares if some lives are sacrificed as long as it appears bureaucrats are doing something to “protect” the public. After all, votes are votes however a politician gets them.
I think this post is spot on. Comparing the chemistry of fuels is EXACTLY the same as medical drug therapy. This guy is an intellectual genius. There is no need for anyone else to respond from here on out.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
George Orwell
You sir are an intelligent man. May I humbly suggest you do a little digging to learn about the “ Frankfurt School “ and their critical theory ideas. It has been a long term project and this is only one of countless examples to fundamentally transform this country.
A minor correction to BJS’s comment. “These engines were designed to run on 100LL”. Most aircraft engines in the fleet today, even if manufactured last week, were designed to run on 80 or 100 octane aviation fuel. Back when leaded gasoline was still available it performed very well in my low compression (7.1) engine. NO we don’t need to remove the FAA/ATC from the government and turn it over to the airlines as some have suggested. Yes, I had hoped the new fuels would be available by now, but they will come. Just wait.
True what you say about 80 or 100LL avgas, but the column was about 100LL and it’s comparison to newer developed fuel replacements. The last manufacturer of 80 octane has ceased production according to AOPA so it’s no longer a venue for discussion. A fellow pilot tells me a few airports still have it at this writing but I personally have never flown into an airport that had the 80 octane.
Isn’t the expression “pushed back” or “moved up” rather than “pushed up?”
Government run program. This is ANOTHER reason the FAA and ATC must be privatized.
So the non-performance of fuels developed by private industry is the government’s fault?
I’m generally a fan of private industry, but not for ATC. This comment feels like it’s just a jab at the FAA with no foundation. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why it’s the FAA’s fault that extensive testing revealed concerns. Fuel is important. Finding a drop-in replacement is going to be difficult. I’m not saying the FAA is perfect, but this one seems a bit of a grab as far as a comment is concerned.
The fuel program is managed and run by the FAA. This program is no different than everything else the FAA runs and does including ATC, NextGen, Aviation standards and literature, airports etc.
In the private sector when a company outsources a project they run it as if it was done INSIDE the company…in other words, the same results in regard to setting, agreeing to and meeting goals and deadlines are expected. If they are not met employees and outsource companies get fired. Do you see that happening here? Never. The government just plods along and chews thru taxpayer cash with no accountability, no competency and no end to every wheel they are turning. And EVERYTHING they touch turns into a black hole of wasted money and often laughable results.
I agree with GLA, everywhere ATC has been privatized it has been a failure. But that is not what this article is about, it is about the fuel that I will be putting in my Cessna and the fact that is taking a little longer to get right…I am all for taking as long as you need to get it right before I put my life and my family’s life on the line with a fuel that is not fully tested.
But, the new fuels ARE being developed by private companies. Or have Shell and Swift suddenly become part of the government now?