"But the applicant, in this case GAMI, should have a right to know who is on the TAB and what their credentials are."
Hmm. Seems like 737 MAX was about the incestuous relationship between the FAA and Boeing, at least in part. Perhaps when there is less knowledge available about the people responsible for approving things we stand a chance of a meaningful result.
I know this from experience that when we switched from leaded to unleaded gas in the 70’s for a fleet of 50 cars, it caused spark plug fowling in every one of them due to flakes of carbon coming off piston heads. I don’t think you want spark plug fowling at 12,000 feet.
Airplane spark plugs foul constantly, primarily because of the large amount of lead in avgas. Many airplane engines (e.g., Lycoming O-360) are already approved to run on unleaded fuel and have done so for years with vastly improved plug fouling. Additionally, spark ignition engines have redundant plugs (actually, entire ignition systems) to reduce the effect of this issue.
I definitely do not want lead in any emissions but this has to be a pretty small contributor. Plus airplanes I imagine are going to spread that lead over a much larger area vs inhaling car fumes. Has to be pretty low on their list of things they need to do.
That being said I would one day like to get my pilots license and mess around a bit with flying - so common people - lets get this show on the road! ....or air?
True but leaded fuel for cars has been eliminated years ago. So this is now a major remaining source of environmental lead especially around small airports.
I used to fly 172s and I worried about inhaling the lead fumes and getting sprayed with it during the fuel drain checks. Lead exposure is cumulative and can lead to serious neurological problems later in life. And I've already had a fair share with my electronics hobby (soldering)
Unfortunately lead in fuel is used as an excuse to shut down airports. Lead, noise, "safety..." all the red herrings used by local politicans and the developers who own them, along with small-time (or big-time) land speculators to call for airport closures.
The fact remains that unless piston planes can run on ACTUAL car gas (which means gasohol) in the foreseeable future, GA is probably doomed. Or we can stop putting methanol in gas... which is also an excellent idea.
I wonder how hard it would be to adapt a plane to run on propane? You'd need to find somewhere to keep a cylindrical tank (so not the wings) and ideally you'd need a liquid-cooled engine so the coolant could heat the gas vapouriser. You'd get 115 octane fuel, and no CO / HC / NOx / SOx or other nasties in the exhaust, just CO2 and water.
Physically? A lot harder than converting it to unleaded gasoline. For one, existing aircraft are designed around storing the heavy fuel near the center of lift/mass. (One benefit, the aircraft keeps its trim as the fuel is burned.) This video by Real Engineering [0] is a great overview. You could fit a propane cylinder into the tail of a Cessna 172, but now there's a lot more weight aft, the aircraft might be difficult to trim and exhibit unsafe handling characteristics. This same packaging issue exists with hydrogen-powered aircraft. Retrofitting is infeasible, lifting body designs are one possible solution.
Administratively, getting the FAA to certify it? Hahahahahaha.
Not just a cylindrical tank. A pressure vessel. Anything that can store propane is going to weigh a lot more than a rubber bladder in the metal the plane is already made of.
The option of using an aero- Diesel engine to be able to run from Jet-A1, which is plentiful at many airports seems to be a good approach, and far preferable to having a heavy, bulky pressure vessel onboard.
Do you have a reference for lower NOx emissions from propane? My understanding is that most NOx is a product of combustion in air (although it can come from impurities in the fuel).
As for SOx, natural gas can contain H2S which produces these, is it normally significantly less for propane?
The whole point of this decades-long unleaded AVGAS saga is to develop a fuel that is a drop-in replacement for the current leaded AVGAS. A fuel that needs to be stored either in a pressure tank or chilled does not fulfill that requirement.
Now, if you're developing a new plane from scratch, I guess propane in theory could be an option. But why? For aircraft, energy density of the fuel is important, and propane does pretty well here, slightly better in fact than gasoline or kerosene (jet fuel). But in practice more than offset by the requirement to store the fuel pressurized. And then you have the whole fuel infrastructure issue, how are you gonna convince airports to stock propane considering they're already struggling to find an economic case for AVGAS due to the long-term decline of general aviation.
I think if you're going to develop a new plane, it would make sense to make it use the fuel that's available, namely Jet A1 (well, maybe electric for some usecases). Sure, it's not usable in an Otto engine, but since you're developing a new plane anyway, power it by a diesel engine or turbine.
If I were to put on my conspiratorial hat, I would guess the reason for stalling is that approving the G100UL fuel from General Aviation Modification, Inc. (GAMI) will divert profits from Shell and ExxonMobil, both of which provide significant funding for the two US political parties.
In fact, I would not at all be surprised to see approval delayed until such time as Shell or ExxonMobil can develop a competitor -- not an exact copy of GAMI's fuel, but something close enough to not violate the patent.
While I'm not disagreeing, according to WikiPedia the amount of 100LL sold per year is 0.14% of that of MoGas (2008). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Consumption Shell, Exxon, etc. probably see AvGas as a pain.
Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no. Permit housing? No. Permit power lines? No. Permit a nuclear plant? No. Permit an aviation fuel? No. Permit cross-laminated timber? No.
Nobody gets fired for saying no. This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant.
In my experience (decades of direct interaction) most of the FAA is a model of professionalism in civil service. But there are pockets of sheer insanity, usually due to perverse incentives like what you're describing. This whole fiasco has all the hallmarks of pathological risk-aversion. No one wants to be the one who said "yes" because there's no punishment for saying "no." The FAA's approach to risk management is, in general, second-to-none, but when it isn't paired with a mission assurance mindset, you get pathological outcomes like this.
Spot on. I've worked govt adjacent. It's basically a "can't do" mentality vs a "can do" mentality. Politically same issue. Endless politicians "outraged" and "offended" by various things - so keeping your head down, doing it the same way you've done it before is seen as the safest internally. Now layer in a ton of non-performance or deliverables oriented goals and things just grind down to a total halt.
> Nobody gets fired for saying no. This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant.
Where does this come from? Things are permitted and developed all the time. In fact, many perceive government as overly lenient to big business, leading to disasterous results (like the Boeing plane crashes).
> Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no.
This is not always true. I'm a former patent examiner. At the US patent office, sometimes granting a patent (answering yes) is the safest response. If an examiner can't find a reason to reject the application in the time they are given, what choice do they have? Their decisions can't be arbitrary.
It all makes much more sense if you consider the world from the following hypothetical utility function of the FAA: to maximize net present value of funding.
If they are 50% efficient, or even 10% efficient, they won't be eliminated. They're still needed for certain basic operations in aviation.
However, if they do something with a 30% chance of a great outcome from aviation, and 1% chance of a negative scandal, that negative risk outweighs any positivity.
Is is telling that aviation’s “sustainable fuel” vision is the same Fischer-Tropsch chemistry that’s been abandoned for everything else because the capital cost of the machinery is too damn high.
Ground transportation has moved on to single-entity fuels that are synthesizable like 1-butanol and dimethyl ether. I can’t for the life of me see why the industry isn’t developing methane as an aviation fuel as it could even be the low cost solution in 2022 if Airbus had developed that instead of the thoroughly pizzled A380.
Technocracy + bureaucracy = sloth. There's no incentive to risk anything. You aren't directly answerable to the people whom you consider beneath you anyway. Nothing improves.
If FAA won't do their job, then that power (such as it is) needs to be stripped from them and invested back in Congress.
The delegation of authority from Congress to the FAA doesn't stop Congress from telling the FAA what to do. Congress can still pass, and has passed, legislation directing the FAA to take specific action on specific matters, and there's absolutely nothing the FAA can do about it other than comply. Congress can absolutely step in here if it wants to.
The FAA is an agency within the DOT, under the executive branch, answerable to the legislative and judicial branches. Congress has pretty significant supervision legislatively and budgeting-wise.
Presumably GABI has talked to some congressional reps. So the question is: why aren't they lighting a fire under the FAA's ass to at least follow their own regulations? This seems more than worthy of a congressional hearing. Frankly, AOPA should have demanded as much, but they're probably too worried about pissing off Lycoming and Continental.
GABI also has the option to pursue redress via the courts. I don't know whether they've attempted to do so or not.
This is completely connected with the FAA holding 5G frequencies hostage because it can’t make airlines replace faulty altimeters. Phone companies should have sued the manufacturers of those things.
And would have no success, because under FCC rules the telecoms are the closest ones to violating the rules (their emissions are causing problems for others, receiving is not regulated) and moreover, it was FCC decision to go with much smaller guard band and not require various preventive measures.
The altimeters aren't faulty, and everywhere else the regulatory bodies for aviation, radio spectrum, aviation industry and telcos cooperated on figuring things out. Unfortunately for USA, physics doesn't bend just to accommodate bad management of radio spectrum and hilariously bad mobile telco market.
It wasn't really the FAA, the FCC just blindly started auctioning off spectrum before thinking to test anything. If they'd left a larger buffer between the bands this wouldn't be an issue but $$$.
To me, this is yet another case for reducing the number of large federal governing bodies. Shouldn't the fuel approved for use be a state (or local airport) decision in all but federal military airfields?
It would be an overall nightmare if aviation was regulated state-by-state.
I’m generally in favor of “as local as practical”, but I think that the FAA, FCC, CDC, EPA, and a few others are cases where “as local as practical” ends up being federal.
The better question is, if this an obvious improvement over the current solutions, then what is it specifically that prevents this governing body from allowing the change? And, wouldn't that same issue be a worse problem for a smaller and less well funded governing body?
What engines really don't like is constantly switching between leaded and unleaded fuel. Deciding that on a per-state basis would mean you'd need a California plane that only operates in California, and another Nevada plane for Nevada. Crossing the state line would become dangerous. Cross-country GA would quickly die that way.
Not in the slightest. Aviation gasoline is heavily regulated because it has to work flawlessly in every (piston) aircraft engine. 100LL exists because it has an extremely low knock rate; any new regulation needs to maintain that. This is a safety issue, not a political one.
Air travel sure seems a lot like interstate commerce - will planes need different fuel at each state border? Plus, I'd rather have the professionals at the FAA rather than whoever works in each state government.
[+] [-] topspin|3 years ago|reply
"But the applicant, in this case GAMI, should have a right to know who is on the TAB and what their credentials are."
Hmm. Seems like 737 MAX was about the incestuous relationship between the FAA and Boeing, at least in part. Perhaps when there is less knowledge available about the people responsible for approving things we stand a chance of a meaningful result.
[+] [-] radar1310|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericpauley|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kadoban|3 years ago|reply
They need to figure it out eventually here, not like they haven't had time.
[+] [-] Melatonic|3 years ago|reply
That being said I would one day like to get my pilots license and mess around a bit with flying - so common people - lets get this show on the road! ....or air?
[+] [-] GekkePrutser|3 years ago|reply
I used to fly 172s and I worried about inhaling the lead fumes and getting sprayed with it during the fuel drain checks. Lead exposure is cumulative and can lead to serious neurological problems later in life. And I've already had a fair share with my electronics hobby (soldering)
[+] [-] kadoban|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NonNefarious|3 years ago|reply
The fact remains that unless piston planes can run on ACTUAL car gas (which means gasohol) in the foreseeable future, GA is probably doomed. Or we can stop putting methanol in gas... which is also an excellent idea.
[+] [-] Gordonjcp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismartin|3 years ago|reply
Administratively, getting the FAA to certify it? Hahahahahaha.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_BK7PRugK4
[+] [-] mulmen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephen_g|3 years ago|reply
Do you have a reference for lower NOx emissions from propane? My understanding is that most NOx is a product of combustion in air (although it can come from impurities in the fuel).
As for SOx, natural gas can contain H2S which produces these, is it normally significantly less for propane?
[+] [-] jabl|3 years ago|reply
Now, if you're developing a new plane from scratch, I guess propane in theory could be an option. But why? For aircraft, energy density of the fuel is important, and propane does pretty well here, slightly better in fact than gasoline or kerosene (jet fuel). But in practice more than offset by the requirement to store the fuel pressurized. And then you have the whole fuel infrastructure issue, how are you gonna convince airports to stock propane considering they're already struggling to find an economic case for AVGAS due to the long-term decline of general aviation.
I think if you're going to develop a new plane, it would make sense to make it use the fuel that's available, namely Jet A1 (well, maybe electric for some usecases). Sure, it's not usable in an Otto engine, but since you're developing a new plane anyway, power it by a diesel engine or turbine.
[+] [-] p_l|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sklargh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] c-linkage|3 years ago|reply
In fact, I would not at all be surprised to see approval delayed until such time as Shell or ExxonMobil can develop a competitor -- not an exact copy of GAMI's fuel, but something close enough to not violate the patent.
[+] [-] dhuk_2018|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zbrozek|3 years ago|reply
Nobody gets fired for saying no. This is how greatness fades away and a nation becomes uselessly sclerotic and irrelevant.
[+] [-] _moof|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onphonenow|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolverine876|3 years ago|reply
Where does this come from? Things are permitted and developed all the time. In fact, many perceive government as overly lenient to big business, leading to disasterous results (like the Boeing plane crashes).
[+] [-] btrettel|3 years ago|reply
This is not always true. I'm a former patent examiner. At the US patent office, sometimes granting a patent (answering yes) is the safest response. If an examiner can't find a reason to reject the application in the time they are given, what choice do they have? Their decisions can't be arbitrary.
[+] [-] metacritic12|3 years ago|reply
If they are 50% efficient, or even 10% efficient, they won't be eliminated. They're still needed for certain basic operations in aviation.
However, if they do something with a 30% chance of a great outcome from aviation, and 1% chance of a negative scandal, that negative risk outweighs any positivity.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] devmor|3 years ago|reply
It's also how stability is maintained and a nation remains safe and trustworthy.
[+] [-] PaulHoule|3 years ago|reply
Is is telling that aviation’s “sustainable fuel” vision is the same Fischer-Tropsch chemistry that’s been abandoned for everything else because the capital cost of the machinery is too damn high.
Ground transportation has moved on to single-entity fuels that are synthesizable like 1-butanol and dimethyl ether. I can’t for the life of me see why the industry isn’t developing methane as an aviation fuel as it could even be the low cost solution in 2022 if Airbus had developed that instead of the thoroughly pizzled A380.
[+] [-] chrismartin|3 years ago|reply
- Find people who own property with lead in the ground
- Pay them for a pinky promise to never ever mine the lead
- Sell the resulting "lead offsets" to private aviators, who can
- Continue burning 100LL while claiming on social media that they have achieved "lead-neutral" flight!
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nimish|3 years ago|reply
If FAA won't do their job, then that power (such as it is) needs to be stripped from them and invested back in Congress.
[+] [-] _moof|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KennyBlanken|3 years ago|reply
Presumably GABI has talked to some congressional reps. So the question is: why aren't they lighting a fire under the FAA's ass to at least follow their own regulations? This seems more than worthy of a congressional hearing. Frankly, AOPA should have demanded as much, but they're probably too worried about pissing off Lycoming and Continental.
GABI also has the option to pursue redress via the courts. I don't know whether they've attempted to do so or not.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PaulHoule|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p_l|3 years ago|reply
The altimeters aren't faulty, and everywhere else the regulatory bodies for aviation, radio spectrum, aviation industry and telcos cooperated on figuring things out. Unfortunately for USA, physics doesn't bend just to accommodate bad management of radio spectrum and hilariously bad mobile telco market.
[+] [-] edrxty|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bushbaba|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sokoloff|3 years ago|reply
I’m generally in favor of “as local as practical”, but I think that the FAA, FCC, CDC, EPA, and a few others are cases where “as local as practical” ends up being federal.
[+] [-] akira2501|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] db65edfc7996|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DocTomoe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nameless912|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolverine876|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _moof|3 years ago|reply