Recently I had a phone call with an old colleague who I visited many times while I worked at Shell and he worked at Lycoming. He was very helpful in solving many concerns and in the writing of a new SAE specification for aviation piston engine oils.
We had a great time reminiscing about old times and talking about retirement. Eventually the discussion rolled around to the upcoming transition to 100 octane unleaded avgas and any problems we anticipated with the introduction of the new fuel. We agreed there are a number of problems, but that the lack of deep pockets by the three suppliers may be the most significant.
We are not talking about deep pockets. We are talking about DEEP POCKETS and the infrastructure needed to supply the whole country with a product that meets all specifications and can fuel every aircraft in the GA fleet.
An example of the need for DEEP POCKETS was the Chevron fuel problem back in the 1990s. Chevron is a major supplier of avgas on the west coast and controls the manufacture, blending, and distribution of 100LL. But somehow, a mistake was made and the product was way off spec in the octane level. The company compounded the mistake by not reporting it and hoping no one would notice the error in the field.
When a significant number of pilots reported knocking complaints, the FAA investigated and officials were not too happy when they discovered the source of the problem. The FAA then “suggested” to Chevron that it replace almost every engine that had run on the off-spec product. This removed millions of dollars from Chevron’s DEEP POCKETS.
This was just one example of what can happen to a company that is experienced in the avgas business that has been supplying fuel for many years with experienced personnel and procedures.
When I worked for Shell, we would have monthly quality assurance (QA) meetings at our headquarters with representatives from all departments. These meetings were to iron out any and all QA problems and, believe me, there were usually quite a few.
But they were important because while the company had deep pockets, it did not want to share the contents of those deep pockets with aircraft owners who had engine problems because of a mistake the company made.
Now picture a new-to-the-fuel-industry company starting up in this legal climate.
First, there are the technical problems that must be tackled, such as fuel system compatibility with every aircraft ever produced, exhaust valve recession, and knock complaints, plus others like EPA regulations.
If a company can find solutions to those problems, then it must set up a manufacturing system, a blending system, a distribution system, and a quality assurance system for every point along the way. And they must size it to supply every FBO in the country at a “reasonable cost.”
What makes this all the more difficult is that they will need to do it with outside companies that are in it for the money and not part of an integrated company like Chevron. And they may — or may not — have an agreed upon specification that the whole industry will support in court.
By now you may be able to understand why none of the big oil companies have jumped into the mix to find an unleaded avgas, even though they are already set up in the fuel business.
Many times I am asked whether people in general aviation should be afraid for the future of GA. My answer is “no, not yet,” but it’s imperative that aircraft owners stay informed about the upcoming transition to unleaded fuels.
I am surprised at Ben’s assertion that the three unleaded avgas proponents are inadequately bankrolled. Lyondell, the FAA’s fair-haired child, had $30 billion in sales last year, which by most folks account is a substantial cash flow. GAMI’s fuel is being produced by Vitol, which had annual sales of $331 billion last year. By comparison, Ben’s former employer, Shell, had annual sales of $270 billion last year. Ben compared the newcomers to Chevron, who had an avgas quality issue in 1994. Chevron’s sales last year were $190 billion. So no basis for that assertion, Ben.
Ben went on to make a number of erroneous assertions about Chevron’s 1994 bad avgas incident. I was involved in that investigation at Chevron. Ben said:
1) a mistake was made and the product was way off spec in the octane level.
The fuel as manufactured was on specification, and carried a valid certificate of analysis. However, after manufacture and certification, a quadruple failure along the supply chain allowed the on spec avgas to be contaminated with kerosene. This dropped the delivered octane by 3 to 5 points.
2) The company compounded the mistake by not reporting it and hoping no one would notice the error in the field.
No truth at all to that assertion. No one at Chevron was aware of the kerosene contamination prior to field reports. There was no hoping involved.
3) When a significant number of pilots reported knocking complaints, the FAA investigated.
Actually, no. There was not a single complaint of knocking. One cannot generally hear knocking in an aircraft engine due to the other noises involved. What one twin pilot departing Oakland (KOAK) noted was abnormally high CHT (presumably due to detonation). He returned to the field, checked the fuel, and noted it felt oily between his fingers. The FBO shutdown sales, and alerted Chevron. Chevron then alerted all affected FBOs to stop sales and inspect fuel. The FAA investigation came much later.
4) The FAA then “suggested” to Chevron that it replace almost every engine that had run on the off-spec product.
This simply did not happen. Instead, Chevron decided, out of an abundance of caution, to replace those engines. The total cost for 4,000 engines was over $100 million in 1994 dollars.
There are real issues to be discussed with the transition to unleaded fuel. Let’s stick to the facts, there’s already enough fear, uncertainty and doubt being spread around without further contributing to it.
Paul
I will read to get an update every year, but I’m so done with this. The switch will happen someday, but probably many years away. It seams reason and compromise was been thrown out years ago.
Why are we concerned about replacing 100 Low Lead for aviation—especially now when the Trump administration is relaxing the emissions requirements for auto makers and while most drivers have rejected electric automobiles?
Since so far there is no single product that directly replaces 100LL without some additional changes and the producers are unwilling to get together so that the product is universal coast to coast, I think there should be at minimum a 10 year extension on the 2030 mandate. The single producer of tetraethyllead has already stated they will end production in 2030. Therefore an immediate change needs to take place or we face the possibility we will have no universally access to fuel our aircraft.
I believe we are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of spending millions of dollars trying to develop a new fuel, I think we should be challenging the bunch of unelected bureaucrats who make these laws to make a mountain out of a molehill. I am sure that lead for gasoline will still be manufactured as long as there is a firm demand for it.
Another good point by Ben!
In prior fuel an oil issues mentioned above, the DEEP POCKETS came into play because pilots literally ran their airplanes into the ground so to speak.
We have perfect SA in the cockpit WRT terrain, obstacles and weather but our engine SA is some 50 years behind the existing technology!
If we had:
Lambda sensor for mixture control
Knock sensors for timing and mixture limiting
Crank case pressure information for early trouble indication
Vibration sensors for engine analysis……..
Then a lot of the bad outcomes could be prevented, like in the automobile industry and especially in racing.
KS
There is no reason unleaded AVGAS suppliers cannot (or will not) license their technologies to established producers who already have an established infrastructure and distributors to blend, distribute, and qualify the fuel all the way down to the aircraft wing. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, as you suggest, and the Eagle program is designed to address any deployment issues.
That said, your admonition to stay informed is warranted. There is a lot of misinformation floating around the web about this and that unleaded fuel and how they are being tested. If you want to know more about the UL100E fuel from LyondellBasell/VP Racing Fuels and the PAFUI test program, I urge you and your readers to go to Flyeagle.org/resources,
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZjg3Y2ExY2EtODY4ZC00ODA4LWEwOGQtMDAyNWJkOTViMTRmIiwidCI6IjRiYjdlYzcwLWJjOTAtNDI5Ni05NTUxLWQ4ZGY1MDg0MDllMyJ9
and
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZjg3Y2ExY2EtODY4ZC00ODA4LWEwOGQtMDAyNWJkOTViMTRmIiwidCI6IjRiYjdlYzcwLWJjOTAtNDI5Ni05NTUxLWQ4ZGY1MDg0MDllMyJ9
So what you’re saying is, when the new unleaded fuel suppliers start selling an inferior product because they can’t really get it to be 100% compatible with 80 year old engine technology, but they have to do it anyway because the gov’mint is making the users take it anyway, whose fault will it be when it turns to …. ??
Best get ya lawyer fund ready.
This is a crazy scenario. If the fuel is good, and made properly, no law suits required.
I don’t think there is enough 100ll exhaust in the atmosphere to affect anything. And getting less and less every year.
I remember years ago Mobil Oil introduced a full synthetic aviation oil. It was called AV-1
My Pa-28-151 had a 150hp 0-320 that could run on low lead 80 octane (red) aviation fuel. .
I had an auto gas STC and used Amoco 94 octane (white gas) and used the new Mobil AV-1. It was superb…..and the synthetic oil flowed well in cold weather. No more stuck valves and rings and clean plugs. However Mobil started selling a lot of AV-1 and other aircraft that required 100 octane used the new oil also. At first, all was well. Soon, aircraft with larger engines requiring 100 started to fail in flight!. Emergency. landings were increasing. It seems that Mobil did not know that the 100 octane fuel and synthetic oil caused “SLUDGE” to form in engines and constant speed props….!
Mobil had to remove AV-1 and many engines were damaged.
So with that being said, the new UL100 will be a win, win when and if it hits the market. The advantage, obviously will be no more stuck valves and better flowing oil in cold weather…
The problem i see is those higher compression turbo charged engines still need the 100LL