• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

AOPA files complaint with FAA on 100LL ban

By General Aviation News Staff · October 20, 2022 ·

Reid-Hillview Airport. (Photo Courtesy of Santa Clara County/San José Spotlight)

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) filed a formal complaint with the FAA on Oct. 14, 2022, claiming the decision by officials in Santa Clara County, California, to ban the sale of 100LL causes a safety issue for pilots and violates federal regulations.

Santa Clara County officials banned the sale of 100LL at Reid-Hillview of Santa Clara County Airport and San Martin Airport starting Jan. 1, 2022.

AOPA officials note that pilots and aviation businesses have joined the organization in the complaint.

Commonly referred to as a Part 16, a complaint can be filed by those “who are directly and substantially affected by an airport owner or operator’s alleged noncompliance with several requirements that the airport agreed to as a condition of receiving and using federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds,” AOPA officials explained.

They add that Santa Clara County has received millions of dollars in federal funding, agreeing to federal grant assurances, “which requires Reid-Hillview to operate as a safe airport through 2031.”

“We all want lead out of aviation fuel, and the entire industry, in cooperation with the FAA, is working on a safe and smart transition to an unleaded future, which we believe will be no later than 2030 if not sooner,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “Unfortunately, Santa Clara County officials have decided to put politics ahead of safety, and we call on the FAA to enforce the rules on the books to ensure pilots have access to the fuel their aircraft require in order to fly safely.”

The latest filing follows an informal Part 13 complaint, which prompted the FAA to investigate multiple potential violations of grant assurances by Santa Clara County.

“With Santa Clara County’s unwillingness to ensure safety for pilots and comply with federal rules, a formal Part 16 complaint became necessary,” AOPA officials stated.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. Christian W Barlow says

    October 24, 2022 at 8:33 am

    Just because a type fuel is approved for use as an alternative to 100LL av-gas, it is however not necessarily approved to be used in type Engines!

    It simply not like putting cheap or grain alcohol in a car, drive down the road and it may or may not cause a problem with your classic car!

    Newly designed engines can and are being designed to fly with UL100 fuel.

    But older Classic aircraft, relie on 100LL, as the lead additive, does more to protect the Engine from wear due to needed lead lubrication, and to provide Anti – knock or pre destination caused by running the engine lean at different altitudes. Both conditions that can cause the death of a operational engine.

    I dont know about you, but as long as that Engine is humming at 100% max efficiency…The last thing I need or want is Engine failure at Murphys worst possible location. IE: over water, over desert. Over a congested city, over a mountain… again, unlike cars that drive on roads…aircraft simply can not pull off the highway into ditch if something goes wrong…

    We rely on our aircraft to be fully serviced, maintained by professional and skilled mechanics, and flown by top of the game pilots and AV8Rs.

    Classic Aircraft require money and hours of engineers to test and study aircraft engines untill damage and destruction are achieved to determine if a product is safe to use in their aircraft.

    I do not know about you, but there are not to many B-17, B-25, B-29 & P51 mustangs left to simply destroy an engine to see if some California hippy juice will work in a multi million dollar AC

    The Amount of time these small AC are in the air combined around the globe in a single year, the pollution would not even come close to what LA produces in one hour of car emissions.

    The demand simply is not there to demand all AC convert to this new fuel.

    Non aviation people need to but out of Aviation world business!

    Reminds me of those idiots who buy a house attached to a runway…then bitch about airplane noise and aircraft flying to close to their home!

    Stay in your own lane Karren!

    • Pat says

      October 24, 2022 at 1:26 pm

      Christian W. Barlow – sorry buddy but you do not show up on any FAA data base – so as you put it for non aviation people – please – “butt” – out.

      The UL100 that we have been waiting for has been fully tested for many years and proven to not harm any aircraft engine requiring 100LL – and it certainly has some wonderful benefits – with no known draw backs – (except a price increase) – but an actual pilot who cares or wants to know – would know that.

      If you have legitimate questions or comments – an excellent source would be Ben Visser – the guy knows more about fuels and lubes than most – and if you really are a pilot and you pay attention to General Aviation News you would know that – plus here is a link to an excellent video regarding – “TEL” – with proven facts and results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HlUm7dXq5s&list=WL&index=11

      Here is something for you to consider – as you lay in your hospital bed breathing your last breath from a TEL caused disease – will you be receiving any get well cards – flowers – and/or – assistance from the owners of the Rolls Griffon or a big Pratt ? – I’m guessing you won’t.

      Pat

      • Christian W Barlow says

        October 24, 2022 at 4:25 pm

        30 year A&P, You break’em…I Fix’em!

        Hey what do I care, its your money, Its my love and devotion to keep’em in the air!

      • MikeNY says

        October 24, 2022 at 5:18 pm

        You don’t appear in my database so you don’t count, is not a fact based argument. This, for me, brings into question everything else you espouse.

    • James Hawthorne says

      May 5, 2023 at 12:42 am

      Then it sounds like you need to buy a new aircraft. It’s not our responsibility to make sure regulations comply to you, it’s your responsibility to comply with regulations. We’ve known about this for at least the past two decades and if you haven’t made accommodations or at least planned for this to happen then it’s your fault and yours alone.

  2. Pat says

    October 24, 2022 at 6:49 am

    Hallelujah !!! – No more lead fouled spark plugs – no more lead sludge in the crankcase – (which took out a bunch of engines that were using Mobil full synthetic oil) – no more excuses from idiot politicians and down-winder people wanting to close much needed smaller airports because they believe that they have absorbed enough lead to make them stupid – (Hmm – maybe they’re right???) – .

    The political – (and perhaps) – well meaning folks at AOPA have shot themselves in both feet before – and even though the UL100 has been tested for years – (and is fully proven and needed now) – it appears that AOPA wants to try and get themselves in the headlines – but this won’t help them – it will cost them even more members and revenue.

    We do have alternatives – for those who can – (and should) – Diesel powered aircraft and Diesel conversions are looking better all the time – (if only they made a 350 HP Diesel for Malibu’s) – depending on how much one flies – the savings in fuel costs and maintenance pays for itself – plus – Diesel’s run forever – if you’re non commercial – you don’t have to replace or rebuild – (unless they need it) – and that definitely pays in dividends.

    You can even purchase and use off road Diesel for around $ .50 less per gallon than over the road Diesel – or you can purchase Jet-A – (which is available at almost every airport around the world.

  3. Paul says

    October 22, 2022 at 4:27 pm

    There is absolutely no need to get rid of 100LL to begin with! The Hero incredibly minor amount of lead exhausted by the planes that use this fuel is insignificant and has no negative impact on anyone.

  4. Cassidy McKusick says

    October 22, 2022 at 10:18 am

    This makes zero sense to me. 100UL was approved already, the airport should be pushing to supply it. Everyone would still be able to get their fuel & use the airport. No matter what, this is *better* than the airport being closed entirely.

    I’d rather see the sale banned than the use of it entirely, for now. It will take time to transition completely to unleaded gas, but it can’t happen too soon. Anyone who thinks leaded gas should stick around is more interested in egotistical games than societial progress.

  5. John says

    October 22, 2022 at 9:35 am

    Just use San Jose. Signature fbo includes 100ll. . They give you a weekend discount and great service. I come in from KSNA a few times a year. Sad to see “Tribalism” ruin our country. I’m excited for the approved 100ll replacement.

  6. Sandra Stahl says

    October 21, 2022 at 11:18 am

    There is no FAA requirement that an airport offer any fuel sales at all. FAA Airport Compliance Manual — Order 5190.6B – that ..sets forth policies and procedures for the FAA Airport Compliance Program has no mention of any requirement to offer fuel.

  7. Barbara Fioravanti says

    October 21, 2022 at 7:07 am

    Mogas is a great solution for those low-compression aircraft engines approved to run on it. That does not include, for example, my Lake Amphibian’s Lycoming IO-360, a very common engine for many types of aircraft. We have known for many years that the day would come when a lead-free replacement for 100LL would be mandated. It is shameful that it has taken so long for the issue to be taken seriously.

  8. Kent Misegades says

    October 21, 2022 at 5:47 am

    It is a bit hard to find sympathy for those in the AOPA now complaining about the 100LL ban. A decade ago a small group of knowledgeable, dedicated volunteers worked to expand the use of Mogas at GA airports. We were somewhat successful and even advised pilots at Reid-Hillview on this. We urged all aviation alphabets to support this grassroots initiative. The only person who did was Dan Johnson of LSA fame. You reap, what you sow.

    • Barry L says

      October 21, 2022 at 10:03 am

      MOGAS is not the answer for a fleetwide safe solution.

      • DC says

        October 21, 2022 at 12:29 pm

        According to AviationPros, “….. It (Mogas) is capable of powering 70-80 percent of all legacy piston aircraft, most radial-engine, vintage, experimental and LSA category aircraft. “. That is a substantial part of the fleet. The FAA, in approving the STC decades ago, determined it is a safe fuel for specific aircraft. If there was a problem using Mogas, the FAA would have rescinded the STC long ago.

        • Lee B says

          October 22, 2022 at 1:29 pm

          Not a complete analysis, or answer. Over half of the 100ll consumption is by engines of higher compression – eg, anything with 6 cylinders. Bonanzas, most higher powered Cessna’s, nearly all of AK general aviation. This is why mo-gas is offered at only a few FBOs. It’s not economically viable to offer two fuels, and all aircraft can use 100ll. Gami’s G100 will solve all of this.

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines