Press Brief -- State of the Transition to Unleaded Avgas

On June 5, 2023, the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative held a press briefing to provide updates and clarity on the objectives of the initiative and the work being done to support the development and deployment of high-octane unleaded fuels.

[kurthartwig]

I wholeheartedly agree with the content of this briefing and only wish it could reach a wider audience.

[Towercitizen]

Peter Bruce was celebrating Centennial in Colorado's initiative to use the Swift94 fuel. Perhaps he was highlighting how a local group took initiative. As for the fuel, my understanding is that there are two Swift fuels-one, available at a limited number of locations today (<25) is only 94 Motor Octane and does not satisfy the higher performance piston engines which burn 70% of the aviation gasoline.

The other currently under STC certification (as opposed to EAGLE/PAFI) and which specific formulation remains proprietary, contains ETBE, an oxygenate (like ethanol) which has material compatibility issues, and is low in energy content which negatively impacts the range of the aircraft. Swift has said that it also does not satisfy the octane requirements of all of the piston engines which means it is not a “fleetwide” solution. In their patent filings the highest octane formulation also contains “ferrocene” another toxic organometallic additive with severe deposit forming characteristics. It is unclear if the current formulation under STC certification also includes this chemical. At the most recent ASTM convention in June, they once again, as has been the case for years, promised to release the actual formulation “in the near future”, but for over a decade, they have said such things and failed to deliver.

[Towercitizen]

Has anyone developed an opinion as to whether the current FAA reauthorization language facilitates the development and distribution of a lead-free fuel? My read is that it hinders alternative development. How? If an appropriate lead free alternative is developed and is ready, the FBO's must maintain the availability of leaded gasoline regardless, and if they don't, federal funding can be withdrawn. How can alternative supply chains and manufacturing occur if an FBO must have two tanks; one for leaded and one for unleaded? And I don't see a funding mechanism to assist the FBO's? How can pass legislation that will incentivize alternative product and distribution development?

[johnschreiber]

Lirio Liu for FAA administrator.
I disagree with Jack Pelton with regard to E-AB, regarding GAMI fuel. Please quote the FAA E-AB fuel requirements. For example, 100LL does not appear in AC 90-89B, and AC 20-27G does not even include the word octane!
I disagree with Mark Baker, regarding misfueling related safety. How many aviators been misfueled by "mogas" where it was available on an airport. Without that quantitative data, and the associated results, his arguments are moot.
With regard to Swift fuel, the FAA should have a grant program for 94UL tanks on a first come first serve basis, for a single location on every federally funded airport. This same location should have a few tie downs and through the fence access for short term transients.
100LL should immediately transition to the 100ULL spec. If you can almost immediately reduce lead exposure, why don't you?
Finally most of you need to address the poor video quality of your remote conferencing system. It is extremely unprofessional to be as blurry as Mark Baker is, in this presentation.
Kudos to Shannon Massey (excellent content) of Lycoming with regard to video quality, (but you need a target on your camera to create audience "eye contact".)
Kudos also to Lycoming for the continuous updating of SI 1070.