Unleaded AVgas Holdup
I just received my October 2024 issue of Aviation Consumer and went straight to Rick Durden’s unleaded avgas update article. I operate an U.S.-registered Cessna R172K with a Continental IO-360-KB, based in Switzerland, and have been an Aviation Consumer subscriber since the 1990s.
I am hugely frustrated by how little the normally very environmental-conscious authorities—and even aviation groups such as AOPA— have not jumped on the G100UL bandwagon and are just waiting for G100UL to be generally available in the U.S. I have purchased the G100UL STC as a demonstration of support since there is no likelihood of being able to put it in my tank in the near future. GAMI is focusing entirely on the U.S. market even if the path of least resistance to getting G100UL into aircraft in Europe might be more resource efficient.
Be that as it may, I feel your article is of such importance that it should be made widely available to the public and not limited to Aviation Consumer subscribers due to copyright restrictions. In the article under “Where is the fuel?” you state: “Right now, there are pilots and FBOs trying to have G100UL on their airports, but distributors won’t deliver it. Vitol Aviation, who is making G100UL, has more than a million gallons ready to go but no distributor as yet will deliver it.”
Later in the article you quote George Braly saying that “each of the distributors have reviewed the G100UL avgas FAA-approved specification and told GAMI that they had no objection to that specification—and none of them have stated to GAMI that they have any reason to disapprove G100UL avgas.”
So which is it? Why won’t the distributors deliver G100UL? It’s double-speak if you ask me. As you mention in the article, NATA is an organization that includes FBOs and fuel distributors. And toward the end of the article you suggest that NATA actions “appear” to be stopping delivery to willing buyers (including FBOs who are part of NATA itself). If distributors see no reason to not deliver G100UL and FBOs are demanding it, and both of these groups are part of NATA, then the question begs—what NATA actions (management actions?) are preventing the delivery? This is an area that you could have developed further in the article, as it seems to be at the heart of the blockage. If NATA management have put in place policies that are hindering delivery, why are distributors and FBOs, as members of NATA, not applying pressure to have those policies changed?
I suggest that some hard questions should be put to the distributors and FBOs about their role behind the coattails of NATA management. Something stinks here.
—Vince Fischer, via email
From what we can determine from the research we’ve been doing over the last two years, the FBOs have contracts with the distributors that lock in the type of fuel they can sell—100LL. The contracts also provide a variety of benefits that include what we understand to be a $50 million umbrella insurance policy and such things as fuel trucks and fuel tanks. The small group of distributors (we can’t help but wonder if a law school professor would use them in a law school exam and ask if they were an oligopoly) provide talking points to the National Air Transport Association, their lobbying group and public relations source. NATA goes to airport managers with those talking points essentially saying that ASTM is ordained by the almighty and G100UL isn’t ASTM so it does not meet the requirements of the holy of holies. The airport managers listen to what is being said to them over and over by NATA.
In a previous editorial we looked at the actions of the alphabet groups, including NATA, against G100UL and raised the question as to whether it is concerted action and potentially illegal.
We certainly don’t have an answer and wonder whether the pending litigation in California will get to the bottom of the issue. As for now we notice that 100LL seems to be bringing in a lot of money for the distributors. A fellow pilot said that he was recently at an FBO at a Dallas-Texas-area airport and 100LL was priced at $8.50 per gallon and jet fuel at $5.50. That’s contrary to what we usually see, and wonder if it’s going to be a trend.
Insurance for Old Guys
Thank you for keeping the insurance dilemma that us old guys are facing front and center. In the October 2024 Aviation Consumer, Larry Anglisano’s report on SkyWatch Aviation Insurance gave me at least some hope that this nonsense of doubling and tripling of premiums simply based on age alone will stop.
While the insurance market isn’t the only reason why I sold my Twin Comanche, it certainly played a role in my decision. I’m currently building an experimental kitplane (it should be ready to fly late next year) and hope that its fixed landing gear and low-horsepower engine will make me less of a risk in the eyes of insurers who would otherwise run away from insuring me.
—William Paterson, via email
After covering that SkyWatch story, we think there is hope for a better way in assessing insurance risk—and not just for senior pilots, but for younger less experienced ones, too.
