The FAA is staying out of the controversy over warranty issues concerning the use of GAMI’s G100UL. Cirrus Aircraft and Lycoming have both said they don’t consider G100UL an approved fuel and confirmed its use could affect warranty claims. Continental Aerospace has not yet commented to AVweb on the issue. The warranty debate arose from Cirrus’ issuance of a service advisory describing G100UL as unapproved because of inconclusive data on materials compatibility. The FAA has approved STCs for every gasoline engine on its registry but says warranty coverage is up to the manufacturers.
“The FAA does not comment on manufacturers’ warranty-related policies,” the agency said in a statement to AVweb. “A Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) is the FAA’s approval of a major change in the design of a previously type-certificated product. An FAA-approved model list STC for 100 Octane unleaded fuel (G100UL) is on the Building an Unleaded Future by 2030 webpage.”
Staying out of it and never should have gotten pulled into it. FAA STCs and a company’s prerogative on what it will or will not warranty are not related in the slightest.
Ahh, yes and no. The FAA has no authority regarding warranties, but a company does not have a “prerogative” over a warranty AFTER their product has been sold. They can’t just decide what is or isn’t under warranty if the consumer relied on a specific interpretation before he paid for the product. If I buy one of their engines and have a reasonable expectation that the warranty covers something, and the company disagrees, it’s up to the courts to decide, NOT THE COMPANY.
The problem is that very few will read the warranty. Those that don’t seldom understand. Most folks think a warranty is a warranty. Like you get from Walmart. Don’t like it? Take it back.
A number of warranties cover only defects due to materials and workmanship. The use of an oil or a gasoline that harms the motor does not rise to the level of a defect that occurred during the manufacturing process.
The FAA issued STCs for use of G100UL in engines, not airframes. If I’m not mistaken, Cirrus’s concern centers around material compatibility between G100UL and the sealant used in the airplane’s fuel tanks. I believe GAMI adequately addressed these concerns in a meeting with Cirrus and FAA reps, also documented in a video it posted on YouTube.
Wrong! You need two STC’ (minimum) in order to use the G100UL fuel. One is for the aircraft and the other is for the engine(s).
The FAA had to remind the public to do your due diligence about warranties. I’m curious about what would trigger a FAA or similar interpretation AD against a fuel STC. GAMI will have to get ASTM certified because the next fuel manufacturing company that gets that rating will start being listed (by ASTM) as an authorized fuel by OEM’s putting GAMI in a sink or swim position. Someone’s position has a perception of greed permeating the air.
I don’t think so. Or at least I don’t see why a new fuel that gets a new ATSM spec approval would have any better luck of being included on Lycoming or Continental internal approved-fuels lists than the current STC-approved fuel option. The manufacturers have NO REASON to expand their warranty coverage lists beyond what it was when those engines were certified.
I also think that they will have a hard time avoiding warranty coverage in the real world if an operator is using an FAA-approved fuel, even if that fuel isn’t on the engine manufacturer’s list of their approved fuels.
Exactly, the FAA is just dodging responsibility here. IMO, they should have pointed out that denying a warranty claim requires a causal factor. One might ask why are our government institutions seem so busy ignoring each other’s work. I’m pretty sure it’s there’s too much government for them to keep track of despite the fact they expect all of us to do it.
Even lawyers can’t keep track anymore.
“Someone’s position has a perception of greed permeating the air.”
Hey, we’re a capitalocracy, remember? “Greed is good! Bring it on! Nothing else matters.”
I love how a Marxist can write a caricature of a fictional businessman, and then a bunch of people act like the caricature is real.
Greed is not good. It’s a human flaw. You cannot get rid of it. The strength of free market systems is that they turn a lot of the sociopaths into value creators instead of just takers and tyrants.
The FAA has spoken on this quite a while ago.
There is an old saying. If you want something, you search for solutions. If you don’t want something, you search for reasons and excuses.
I am having a very hard time comprehending the apprehension of industry players to get our completely antiquated engine-landscape at least somewhere close to the 1980’s.
We’re shooting stuff into space, which then turns around and lands back on planet earth, but we can’t fly without lead? AI will fight wars and fly planes, but we need lead to keep our engines alive and ticking? I genuinely do not get it!
Jason, if you want to comprehend it, become the owner of a certified aircraft!
The FAA is directly responsible for our aircraft becoming time capsules. The unintended consequence of mountains of safety regulations, documentation, testing, certification is that “change” is insanely expensive.
Dearest Arthur, low and behold, I have been an owner of one or more certified aircraft, but also flown airplanes which operate perfectly fine on unleaded fuel. I know, its Un-American and not very patriotic to fly anything with a fuel burn less than a Kenworth W900, but still… its possible.
The FAA has given a regulatory frame under which these fuels can be operated. Why is it the FAA’s fault or problem to solve that greedy people and greedy companies can’t get stuff done? Whats so darn tough or insanely expensive, knowing that we have had our head in the sand for 5 decades? Nobody wants to pay for it? Alright then.
Seriously, I’ve been around planes ever since I was 4 years old (I have the pictures to prove it). From age 10 on and up, I remember the discussion about just how long this 100LL saga could continue until progressives and green people would put an end to it.
Now, we have the problem defined down to a T. I’ve been around AVweb for a day or two and with all this huffing and puffing and rattling and lawyers and legal departments, none of this is remotely new. What needs to happen to get everyone on one table and get this cow off the ice?
Are we seriously going to survive 100+ years of rapid aeronautical development and fail at building affordable and powerful piston engines which can run on anything other than Tetraedryl Lead?
Maybe I need to go shopping for another plane, to join the club of the enlightened…
“Maybe I need to go shopping for another plane, to join the club of the enlightened…”
Like maybe the EAA? No shortage of innovation there. Without Type Certificates, warranties, and the endless trail of tort lawyer litigation, it’s amazing what can be accomplished.
I’ve been an owner since the early 80’s. You cannot just “be on your own” and make your own changes and put in any fuel you want into a certified aircraft. It’s not just about lead, it’s about the entire chemistry of the fuel.
Like Be02drvr said, build your own plane and innovate all you want. Better yet, you’re so smart, manufacture your own 100 octane fuel and sell it. Should be child’s play for you and you will certainly make a fortune, LOL.
It’s not greed, it’s the FAA. Commercial investment and innovation in light aircraft is pretty much inversely correlated with the growth of the FAA even back to when it was just an agency.
They pretty much have avoided the responsibility of getting rid of lead because it would force them to expose their responsibility in the destruction of a once thriving American industry.
“I am having a very hard time comprehending the apprehension of industry players to get our completely antiquated engine-landscape at least somewhere close to the 1980’s.”
It is all about the bucks.
And a mind numbing regularity framework the FAA has largely outsources to private contractors and companies. eg. DER’s & DPE’s to name two.
“Cirrus Aircraft and Lycoming have both said they don’t consider G100UL an approved fuel and confirmed its use could affect warranty claims.”
Stated another way;
Cirrus Aircraft and Lycoming have both said they don’t consider G100UL a company (Cirrus Aircraft and Lycoming) approved fuel and confirmed its use could affect warranty claims.
@jethro B: Absolutely priceless! 😂
The problem as I see it is that aircraft manufacturers could not have designed, certified and produced an aircraft for a fuel that did not exist.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to not warrantee the aircraft and engine when a fuel not on the certification is used.
R&D + certification for updating the aircraft to use the new fuel would be very expensive and take at a minimum several years maybe one year for R&D, one year for setting up supply chain and the 3-7 years to obtain FAA certification.
So the owner of a $1M aircraft (say Cirrus) now is asked to shell out another $300K for modifications that may take the aircraft out of service for months and be faced with the questions that always arise after such a major alteration.
I haven’t looked into why Cessna, Continental and the FAA had no problem with older cessnas running an O-470 using UL94. But then those aircraft were certified for 80 octane AVGAS when produced.
Maybe a path could be introduced where rather than a STC the aircraft could simply be entirely recertified to use an ATSM approved unleaded fuel. That of course would require a number of rather large bureaucracies to work together. Also an unlikely scenario
3 things are going to have to happen to get the 100UL to the market;
#1 The FAA has to stop certifying any piston powered plane that runs on 100LL, or any other leaded fuel. As long as the FAA keeps certifying planes and engines running on 100LL, not much will change.
#2 The EPA needs to quit dancing around the issue and ban 100LL now. The longer this is delayed, the harder it will be to get 100UL out to market.
#3 The liability issue also needs to be dealt with. The longer this issue remains, the longer it is before someone takes the plunge and starts marketing, selling, and using 100UL.
Sounds like three different organizations all with differing objectives.
Agreed. An outright ban of 100LL seems like the end-all solution. That will spur development into high gear and with 87% of the GA fleet grounded (environmental hazard even if used as a flower pot) the issue of reading AVweb daily, will be solved before too long. Off to Knitting For Former GA Pilots dot com….
Save the patient by killing the patient? The government wouldn’t let a car manufacturer die simply because there was “no one to buy it” which is a big lie told in earnest by people who just couldn’t see the industry operating differently than they understood it.
Oddly, it’s getting easier, not harder. I’m suspect more aircraft that need 100LL leave the fleet each year than are added to it.
It very well might be a good idea to stop letting aircraft be sold new, but for some odd reason that’s the opposite of their mindset. They let Cessna and Piper and others still sell planes as certified despite not meeting a lot of modern standards.
The only way to get to a unleaded fuel maybe to just ban it at a certain dropdead date. People will just keep coming up with excuses and it will never happen unless we do this. California will probably need to lead once again and just outright band lead and see where we are once it shakes down in California