On a recent family vacation in southern Africa, we had lunch at a resort in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, that featured a feeding of vultures at 1 p.m. every day. This is a conservation effort to save these birds because poachers have been killing them off.
The fascinating part of the show was at noon there was not a vulture in the sky. Then around 12:30, the birds started to arrive and by 1 p.m. there were hundreds sitting in surrounding trees. After a park ranger walked out with a large cooler of meat and threw it on the ground, there was feeding frenzy that lasted just a few minutes.
The thing that amazed me was how did the vultures know what time it was? I guess it is just the nature of the beast and they just know.
Now I am back in the good old US of A, and thinking about another type of bird: EAGLE.
My previous column on the EAGLE (Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions) initiative’s online briefing (The elephant in the room) resulted in a large number of comments and questions, which are always appreciated.
The most common question was: Why is general aviation basically in the same spot that it was 25 years ago when we first had a meeting on this subject at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh?
During that meeting, a representative with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) stated that it takes about three years to write and adopt a new specification or standard, but not more than five years.
A task force and committee was formed to study unleaded avgas and now, 25 years later, they are still working on a new spec for unleaded avgas.
The whole general aviation world, including our many alphabet groups, as well as the EPA and the FAA, assumed that they would write a new spec much like ASTM D910 for leaded avgas, but for a zero-lead 100 octane fuel. It would then be adopted by all the engine and airframe manufacturers so that it could replace 100LL everywhere and in all applications.
But there are a few — well, more than a few — problems. Chief among those is liability.
It is pretty well accepted by most people in the know who have a realistic attitude that there will be lawsuits following the introduction of a new fuel.
Since the EPA is forcing this on the GA community, any — and probably all — problems and accidents following the introduction of a new unleaded fuel will be blamed on the new fuel, whether it was the cause or not.
That is why the GA community and regulators want a new spec so that fuel suppliers can just claim that they produced a fuel that met that spec.
Another problem: The new spec has to be everything for every application.
But that is not going to happen, especially for orphan aircraft and other, shall we say, oddball aircraft, or even normal run-of-the-mill certified aircraft.
We must realize that if Lycoming or Continental approve a new spec fuel for their engines it automatically says to the world that the new fuel is good for all their aircraft engines in any service or operating procedure. It also implies that the fuel is OK for other orphan engines.
The same is true for airframe manufacturers, where their approval of a new spec fuel automatically implies that the new fuel is compatible with all of the old fuel lines and systems out there.
This has been the major hangup for getting a new spec approved. They have been trying to develop a spec that covers every possible use and application.
What will happen when there is a problem or accident after a new fuel is introduced? Who will they sue?
If it is an orphan aircraft or engine supplier, the manufacturer is no longer in business, so there’s no money there.
But the lawyers know what to do. They will bring a lawsuit against everyone who had anything to do with the production and the approval of the new fuel. This will include the fuel supplier, the EPA, the FAA, ASTM, plus every manufacturer that approved the spec.
They all may not lose in court, but it is going to cost a great deal in legal fees. And they’ll have to deal with juries who may feel sorry for the victims and award them $1 million or more just to help them get over their loss. And don’t forget the worn-out trope that “big companies have plenty of money and, anyway, any losses will be covered by insurance.”
Meanwhile, where is the new spec and when will it be approved? More importantly: When will unleaded avgas be available for my airplane?
The folks at General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) are foregoing the spec process by going the STC route for now. That company’s fuel, G100UL, earned an STC in September 2022. Aircraft owners who want to use the new fuel must buy an STC. This process has guarded GAMI’s proprietary formula.
GA advocates, including those involved in EAGLE, have asked GAMI to put its fuel through the ASTM process, which means the formula and other information will be available to anyone who is interested. GA advocates say this is necessary to determine if the fuel is compatible with GA airplanes.
“All the associations are begging GAMI to get their fuel ASTM approved. The ball is in their court,” Experimental Aircraft Association Chairman Jack Pelton said in a comment to my July column.
ASTM is going to have the other three companies that are developing unleaded avgas write their own specifications.
I believe that Swift Fuels will have its spec ready for first round balloting some time in 2024. This should be for a high octane alkylate/aromatic component blend.
The other fuel suppliers? They are on their own for now.
You may wonder, how does an ASTM standard or specification become reality?
The ASTM standards development process includes several steps. Once a project is initiated, it is assigned to a subcommittee, where a task group begins work on a draft of the standard or specification. For aviation piston fuels, the subcommittee is D02.J0.02, which is under Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants.
Once the draft is complete, it undergoes many rounds of peer review, voting, and then revisions.
Once a final vote is taken, the standard or specification is approved and published.
My company is in manufacturing and testing. Our A.S.T.M committees are staffed by industry people supplied by manufacturers. Their purpose is to support their individual companies and make sure that the standards meet their manufacturing standards and to help prevent competition. Some companies hire ex university professors with name appeal to represent them and provide funds for expenses and lavish holidays. If your company has a great idea or production advantage but not the money to feature it on A.S.T.M.or buck the system, then you are out.
I will have aged out of flying by the time these fuels become as available as regular avgas is now, and so will many others.
I think we are at an inflection point for GA. 1) News article says average prices of electric cars are down by 14% in one year. This tells me they’re getting electric propulsion figured out and competition is driving the prices down. 2) German company announces a solid state battery 2.5x the capacity of lithium-ion batteries, lightweight and non-flammable (hold that thought), commercial production by late next year. 3) ASTM really should mean Always Saying To-Morrow and likely won’t be even ready to deploy for five more years or in wide use for at least a decade (if ever). 4) The longer we use leaded gas, the more environmental opposition we are going to encounter, right or wrong, valid or not.
(Even if the battery guy’s product turns out to be vaporware (and there is always that possibility), there are plenty of other well funded, very competent companies working on exactly that, and somebody will put it all together.)
I want to see an STC for an electric conversion for 150/152/172/Cherokee, etc. Electric motor of say 150 hp, 10,000 hours TBO (which consists of changing two big roller bearings), a bunch of lightweight, non-flammable batteries replacing the fuel tanks (and a few fwf to keep the CG in place (because electric the motor is lots lighter than an O-200/O-320, etc.).
So what do we get for this? We lose noise, vibration, oil leaks and oil changes, expensive overhauls on 1940’s technology, no more carb ice, no need for turbochargers (no loss of power at altitude), no flammable fuel splashing everywhere in an accident, zero (local) emissions, no fiddling with mixture controls, no need for EGT/CHT gauges, no carbon monoxide problems, no more cracked mufflers, no need for warmup or cool down times.
We gain utter simplicity of operation (single lever power control), smooth, vibrationless power, less vibration means less fatigue for the pilot and passengers, a tired pilot is a dangerous pilot, less vibration also means less airframe and avionics maintenance, no loss of power at altitude (other than loss of prop efficiency), vastly lower cost of operation/maintenance/fuel, much quieter inside and out, far safer in an accident (no flammable fuel), easier to calculate W&B because the batteries weigh the same charged or not, tremendously simplified power train (very few moving parts), no problem with fuel contamination (so no more dedicated Avgas trucks and distribution systems and their attendant costs), no oil changes or used oil disposal problems, no more sumping the tanks, *instant* power when you need it, the list goes on . . . and future battery upgrades to easily increase range and decrease charging times.
Understand I am not unhappy with my airplane, but I think gasoline propulsion is becoming spectacularly obsolete and unsustainable. Is the change going to happen tomorrow? No, but it is coming. In ten years people will look at gasoline cars and say “People rode around in those things?” Electric airplanes are coming, too. Sign me up.
I own a 1956 Cessna 172 and have been using auto fuel without alcohol since I have owned the plane for the last 20 years. It runs great and oil analysis backs that up. No valve trouble or other issues caused by 100 LL. I use 100 LL when I have to, but only when absolutely necessary. I wish more airports would consider having auto fuel available. I guess the lawyers control that.
First you have to understand what role ASTM takes. This is a consensus committee formed to write a series of standards for a product. These standards can encompass Material Specifications, Test Methods, Practices, etc. These standards are NOT regulations or requirements until the jurisdiction or user requires a product to comply with the standard. Unleaded aviation fuel is a material so therefore a Material Specification is a good start to develop a standard for aviation fuel. This material standard is NOT a marketing document for the producer to compete with other manufacturers and unfortunately the ASTM process has over the years become a forum where committee members are more interested in their future vs the original intent of developing standards for an industry. This is what delays standard development and then you throw in the liability card as you have pointed out in your article above. Our world has evolved into this new normal that is very difficult to make sense of. Technology is at it’s peak but no one will take responsibility. ASTM standards do NOT contain any proprietary formulas or methods. So your comment about other companies knowing recipes isn’t technically valid. A material specification only states what properties, performance and testing results that a material has to meet. How that material meets those is up to the producer. There are Test Methods for fuels already published and on the books. Those Test Methods can be referenced in the material specification and new test methods do not have to be developed. The problem arises that a producer wants to use a NEW test method for marketing gain and this development bogs down the process. ASTM is not a place for personal gain, it is to provide a document to control the outcome of a material developed by users, producers and general interest volunteers. Keep the greed out and the system works.
Everyone I know who flies an airplane with a Rotax buys their mogas at a local gas station. And laughs all the way to the bank. Not a cent of their fuel taxes goes to support aviation. We are so stupid in this country, with our Avgas suppliers in the lead killing sport aviation, the source of most interest in aviation by our youth.