Ad-Hoc Meeting Called At Cirrus Migration 8 To Discuss 100LL
Replacement
The Cirrus Migration 8, in Dayton,
OH offered a convenient place and opportunity for a quickly
organized meeting of many of the prominent Pilot/Owner
Associations, Aviation manufacturers and trade associations to
discuss the path to a future transition from 100 low-lead avgas to
some yet-to-be determined lead-free alternative. This meeting was
unprecedented in that never before has such a wideranging group of
owner advocacy groups and aviation manufacturers gathered to voice
their concerns and represent owner/pilots interests on such a
fundamental and critical issue such as fuel.
Interest in this issue has exploded in recent weeks after
Teledyne Continental Motors released a statement interpreted by
many as endorsing 94UL (basically 100LL without the tetraethyl lead
additive resulting in 94-octane avgas) as a likely candidate for an
unleaded fuel. Following TCM’s announcement, a large number
of owner/pilots began to realize that such a solution would not
work for operators of higher performance/output engines. While
these operators represent about 30% of the general aviation piston
fleet, they consume about 70% of the fuel. Curt Sanford of COPA,
noted that selection of the wrong fuel (sub 100 octane) would kill
about 70% of the GA economy as well – fuel sales, FBO
services, maintenance, aircraft values, etc. The resulting
devastation of the GA support infrastructure would in turn
adversely impact even those aircraft owners whose engines could
operate on a lower octane fuel. Also prior to this meeting, AOPA
President Craig Fuller had released a statement on the 100LL
replacement issue, that the owner groups found encouraging:
“The new fuel must operate safely in high-compression and
turbocharged engines, and it has to be manufactured, distributed,
and sold at a realistic price.” However, the same statement
included some ambiguity because in one sentence it included 94UL as
one of “several promising unleaded
alternatives…”
A report to the Malibu-Mirage Owners and Pilots Association
forwarded to ANN indicated that the Future of Avgas Strategy &
Transition, or FAST, committee has been working to build consensus
among its wide-ranging members on the process and form the 100LL
replacement should take. They have done an excellent job of
documenting the situation and providing a framework and boundaries
for a solution. From the presentations, it became apparent that not
only in the transition inevitable, but that the very small relative
market that aviation gasoline represents (0.1% of all
transportation fuel) will dictate only one unleaded fuel solution,
not multiple grades. A dual-fuel approach is not viable. This
conclusion is re-enforced by the fact that there is typically only
one tank for Avgas at the airport.
The most desirable replacement for 100LL would be transparent in
operation for all GA piston aircraft without significant
modification, reduction in power output, or more restrictive
operating limitations. Realities concerning a transition period
would also dictate that the fuel will need to co-mingle with 100LL
in both aircraft operation and distribution infrastructure during a
transition period.
ASTM’s Coordinating Research
Council Unleaded Avgas Group(CRC) has tested more than 200 fuel
blends over the past 20 years, looking for a high-octane unleaded
alternative. Those that demonstrated adequate detonation resistance
were tested further to analyze other fuel properties as defined by
the ASTM’s D910 specification for 100LL avgas. Of course, the
assumption is that the required innovation can be found within the
constraints of the D910 spec, and after looking for it within or
near the D910 spec for 20 years, it seems far more likely that the
solution will probably be found elsewhere and that an earnest
effort outside of the constraints of the D910 spec has not yet been
conducted.
Jonathan Sisk, President MMOPA Board of Directors, who shared
the document with ANN, said it was his observation that it is most
likely that the true solution to a 100LL replacement is going to
come from a small innovator rather than a large company. It is
problematic that the FAA has so far not been responsive at the ACO
or directorate level in allowing GAMI’s STC application to
demonstrate compliance with the FAA regulations in the
turbo-normalized Cirrus SR22. The FAA has a long standing advisory
circular that fully describes in three pages what must be done to
qualify a new fuel (AC 20-24B). It would appear that despite the
regulatory authority to approve or deny the applicant’s STC
based on substantiating testing, the FAA institutionally prefers to
outsource the decision making to the ASTM and avoid the issue.
Sisk said the groups requested that AOPA direct its considerable
lobbying and advocacy efforts toward influencing the FAA
Administrator to, at a minimum, instruct its certification
management personnel on the importance of this issue and remove any
barriers to any applicant desiring to gain approval of an unleaded
high-octane fuel through the STC process.
The groups attending said they plan to re-convene for a
follow-up meeting next month at AirVenture in Oshkosh.