Sent a letter to AOPA about clear gas and got a reply.

Hello Timothy,

Thanks for contacting AOPA's Pilot Information Center! AOPA has not lobbied for this as it is part of the clean air act that was approved years ago. Part of this effort as well is the transition to ethanol added blends are by congressional mandate, and there is not the justification available. There are a few pilots that have banded together to form a coalition for Ethanol free gasoline. You can view their resources here:

http://e0pc.com/

Tailwinds,

Patrick Smith, Aviation Technical Specialist
AOPA Government Affairs -- Pilot Information Center
Tel: 800.872.2672 or 301.695.2000
Web: http://www.aopa.org

Looking for more ways to support GA? Apply now for the AOPA Credit Card. Each use delivers revenue to AOPA, which is reinvested to fund advocacy efforts.


--- Original Message Below ---

I know we are all worried about a replacement for 100LL. There are a lot of us that can use mogas in our little planes. I drive up to Medford, Oregon from the Yreka, CA area to fill a slip tank with clear mogas for my 182. Clear mogas is imposible to get in California.

How come AOPA dos not lobby to keep some mogas arround that is free of ethanol. I wouold appreciate a reply.

Timothy H Avery

You should write them back and kindly ask what would be justification for them to get behind it.
I would think that this would be more of an EAA thing as they had a lot to do with some of the auto fuel STC's way back when.
Be interesting to know what AOPA would want to try and lobby for it though.
Maybe they're looking at it as a "percentage of the fleet" thing to justify the usage of resources/personnel in pissing up the legislative rope. I'm thinking that the percentage of pure auto gas burners is small overall and the number of hours they fly inside the total number of GA fleet hours flown per year is even less and the number of gallons of fuel burnt by those engines per hour isn't much (mostly O-470 and smaller so 14 gal/hr. and less) so the total number of gallons burnt is small in comparison to the total number of gallons burnt by the fleet.
Other than some 182 jump operators I don't know of too many commercial operators running auto and the average Baron or 206 driver can't run it. I can only think of one guy locally that runs it in his 180 here and he only flies like 20 hours a year anyway so a buck and a piece a gallon savings on like 280 gallons a year ain't that much. Prolly more of a pain in the ass to haul his tank around for that and he seems to replace cylinders for some strange reason too.
It seems that many of the new engine technologies are offering high compression this or electronic ignition that or purely converted to burn ethanol this or diesel that. I'm not sure what's compatible and what isn't but possibly you are right, because of those factors they don't give a crap. But it was nice of them to point you in the direction of who does and get back to you none the less. I think the fact that some enviornmental do-gooder convinced the government that's what we should do and they all jumped on board writing rules and laws about it means that eventually that's what's gonna happen.
Too bad it's goin' away for those that want it though. It sure dries out rubber parts.

Strange that the AOPA cares about clean air, but it doesn't bother them that airplanes that could burn ethanol free auto fuel instead have to pollute the air with lead.

Tim:
AOPA is the biggest dog on the Block --- and least responsive to individual request. If you happen to be looking for a new Learjet look for a report in aopa mag. If you have a 50 year old piper /Cessna/or whatever you a scumbag to the bmw golf club jetsetters at the airport. I gave up on aopa several years back and haven't missed there trashy mag since.

kevbert wrote::shock: Strange that the AOPA cares about clean air, but it doesn't bother them that airplanes that could burn ethanol free auto fuel instead have to pollute the air with lead.

I didn't read it that they (well, we) care about the Clean Air Act as much as they/we feel that it is a foregone conclusion and feel that lobbying is not a good use of our money and time.

But that brings up a more fundamental question in reaction to his answer: what the ef does the C.A.A. have to do with ethanol?

182 STOL driver wrote: AOPA is the biggest dog on the Block --- and least responsive to individual request. ...........

I disagree. I contacted AOPA recently also to tell them that there already is a lead-free alternative fuel for many of us called "ethanol-free mogas", and asked why they haven't lobbied against the mandatory ethanolizing which will prevent it's use in the future (which is now). They responded to me inside of a couple days with a return email from one of their staffers explaining why they don't lobby for mogas. I was pleasantly surprised by the (quick) response even though I don't agree with their position, but I do have to admit that their argument has some merit.

Hotrod,
Give us a little insight as to why they have that stance, please.

I posted the answer that I got from them. Did not seem too responsive to me.

I am sure that the percentage of their members that use (or could use if available) mogas is less than one, so they do not give a crap.

Tim

My interpretation of AOPA's position, from all I've read over the last couple years, is that they are concentrating their efforts to find a 100ll replacement that works for everyone. I think they are concerned if there is a solution that works for some, it will weaken the support for finding a solution for all.

Now that makes sense. Hate to say it.

qmdv wrote:I posted the answer that I got from them. Did not seem too responsive to me.
I am sure that the percentage of their members that use (or could use if available) mogas is less than one, so they do not give a crap. Tim

There's responsive, and then there's responsive. They responded to you, I assume in a timely fashion. It's true they didn't agree with you. Probably like you said, it only works for 1% of their members, so "they do not give a crap". To be fair, they have limited resources just like all of us- should they shoot their wad for the benefit of only 1% ( or whatever) of the membership?
To me, "non responsive" is like my legislators: when I send them an email griping about ethanolized gas, they send me back a canned reply that sez "thanks for your concern about the environment". Or no reply at all.

lowflyin'G3 wrote:Hotrod,
Give us a little insight as to why they have that stance, please.

Here's their response followed by my email to them:

Thank you for contacting AOPA. Auto fuel without ethanol is an option for many lower compression aircraft as has been shown by the large number of STC's on a variety of aircraft. We would prefer to see non-ethanol fuel available and many industries including AAA, auto manufactures, boating industry and even refineries have been against ethanol fuels.
The boating and aviation industries consume a small portion of fuel produced so many refineries do not find it cost effective to produce and ship a non-ethanol fuel for the smaller market. At this point there is not a direct fuel replacement available but our goal is to see a replacement fuel which will work in all aircraft from low compression to high compression aircraft. A two fuel system is possible but this could drive the costs even higher as FBO's will need additional storage and transportation costs will increase for the separate fuels.

Pure-gas.org is a website with a listing of available stations with non-ethanol fuel listed by county and state. This may be helpful in reducing the cost of flying with the current cost of avgas.

Pure-Gas.org
http://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=WA

Best regards,
Chris Prichett
Aviation Technical Specialist
Government Affairs –Pilot Information Center
800-USA-AOPA
Looking for more ways to support GA? Apply now for the AOPA Credit Card. Each use delivers revenue to AOPA, which is reinvested to fund advocacy efforts.

--- Original Message Below ---

AOPA:
Regarding today's article about the search for an lead-free alternative to 100LL-- one already exists that a lot of us are using or would be able to use. It's called 92 octane premium car gas. Ethanol-free car gas is a viable alternative to 100LL avgas, I have been using it with great success for over 15 years and 2400 hours in three different airplanes.
Unfortunately, the government has seen fit to mandate the use of ethanol as an automotive fuel, the result being that E10 gasohol is phasing out "clear" (pure) gasoline at the pumps in most western states. Adding ethanol to the mix voids the approval to use automotive gasoline in aircraft due to ethanol's undesirable properties.
I have yet to see AOPA or any other aviation group step up to the plate & take a stand in favor of prohibiting the ethanol blending of premium grade automotive gas so that it can continue to be used as a 100LL-alternative in suitable aircraft. Perhaps some thought should be given to doing so.

Thanks Hotrod.
I was figuring something along those lines.
Unfortunately your average of 160 hours per year is probably above average in comparison to the average mogas burners consumption (at least the ones I know) so you do realize real savings from burning it consistently over a long period. Sorry.
I think the FBO storage issue is a good one. Cost per gallon of sales for initial fuel farm aquisition, maintenance, and potentially added liability insurance premiums compared to profit for carrying it.
I just don't see a large quantity of low compression engines that fly a lot of hours consistently grouped in any one spot. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen but I get around a bit to different airports and don't see that much. I think that's what it would take to have the expense of maintaining it at an FBO. The one guy who passes through to buy 36.4 gallons once or twice a week, 20 weeks a year wouldn't cut it.
So it would appear they DO give a crap, they just give a crap for the whole fleet and recognize the downside to the industry when trying to break us up in the eyes of refiners and retailers.

Maybe the storage issue wouldn't be that big a deal- lots of airports used to sell both 87 & 100, so there is already 2 tanks in place -- assuming of course that both are considered servicable EPA-wise. There are different sized above-ground tank systems available, don't know the price but like any other investment it would have to be anmortized out. The stumbling block now seems to be supply & demand-- unfortunately, even if there's a demand for E-zero mogas, the supply side comes up short (at least out west).

qmdv wrote:> ... There are a few pilots that have banded together to form a coalition for Ethanol free gasoline. You can view their resources here:

http://e0pc.com/

Tailwinds,

Patrick Smith, Aviation Technical Specialist
AOPA Government Affairs -- Pilot Information Center

I find it pretty darned hilarious that AOPA references my web site to spread their "we can't do anything about it" excuse for ethanol free mogas disappearing. They completely missed the point. It is clear that AOPA could do something about it if they wanted too. E10 is spreading everywhere because of the unintended consequences of a seriously flawed federal law that had nothing to do with E10 and everything to do with E85.

And the real point is, ethanol free mogas is an approved aviation fuel and AOPA and the aviation alphabets and the FAA should be fighting just as hard to insure its availability as they do for 100LL through the General Aviation Avgas Coalition. Please write the FAA and AOPA and ask them why they are not doing their job. My letter is right there on the http://www.flyunleaded.com web site that is linked on the e0pc.com web site. They could have done a little more research and gotten the point.

I left AOPA several years ago when the past president, Phil Boyer, told me personally that there would only be one avgas, 100LL or whatever replaced it and they wouldn't lift a finger for mogas. In fact when they published reviews of new GA airplanes that could use mogas, the article would disparage mogas. So it was pretty damned ironic that the AOPA sweepstakes airplane they gave away last year was an LSA that had an engine for which premium unleaded mogas is the recommended fuel and if you use 100LL it doubles your periodic maintenance costs. I seriously doubt anyone at AOPA understood that.

Many aviation minded congressmen were lost in this past election and I believe the aviation caucus is not as well positioned now as it was even a year ago and every time an organization like AOPA or EAA takes a stand on an issue they find who their friends are and/or alienate part of their support base. They have to pick their fights. Look how fast you and many of the rest of us dropped support of them over just one issue dear to us. Look how some issues divide even this group of pilots.

Very possibly this is one fight that AOPA and EAA do not choose to burn up their good standing with for what they have left in Washington. Broad support for anything is hard to get today and to them, saving premium mogas for part of the fleet is a minor issue with small numbers compared to what they may use up to get it. In other words I believe they are of the opinion they have bigger fish to fry.
My post is all opinion here and no fact but I still send dues to both EAA and AOPA and will until there is something better and likewise, I do support premium mogas for aircraft until a one fuel replacement for 100 octane is not only found but is available at airports.

dirtstrip wrote: I do support premium mogas for aircraft until a one fuel replacement for 100 octane is not only found but is available at airports.

You sound a bit like AOPA. So what your saying is that as soon as a 100LL replacement is out there, you are fine with clear mogas going away.

Tim

The reason AOPA is not pushing mogas is simple. Thirty percent of the piston fleet burns 70% of the 100LL produced. These are the high compression engines and turbos. A suitable substitute fuel for the higher compression engines must be found since that is where the demand is.

Ethanol is a fad that simply can't be sustained on its own merits. The politico's are realizing the farce of ethanol subsidies so eventually it will turn around, I beleive. Then unadulterated mogas will be easily available until the next fad cycle comes around and some other worthless crap gets added to our fuel. Lets hope we are smarter the next time around and put up a better fight!

N1593Y wrote:I find it pretty darned hilarious that AOPA references my web site to spread their "we can't do anything about it" excuse for ethanol free mogas disappearing. They completely missed the point. It is clear that AOPA could do something about it if they wanted too. E10 is spreading everywhere because of the unintended consequences of a seriously flawed federal law that had nothing to do with E10 and everything to do with E85.

And the real point is, ethanol free mogas is an approved aviation fuel and AOPA and the aviation alphabets and the FAA should be fighting just as hard to insure its availability as they do for 100LL through the General Aviation Avgas Coalition. Please write the FAA and AOPA and ask them why they are not doing their job. My letter is right there on the http://www.flyunleaded.com web site that is linked on the e0pc.com web site. They could have done a little more research and gotten the point.

I left AOPA several years ago when the past president, Phil Boyer, told me personally that there would only be one avgas, 100LL or whatever replaced it and they wouldn't lift a finger for mogas. In fact when they published reviews of new GA airplanes that could use mogas, the article would disparage mogas. So it was pretty damned ironic that the AOPA sweepstakes airplane they gave away last year was an LSA that had an engine for which premium unleaded mogas is the recommended fuel and if you use 100LL it doubles your periodic maintenance costs. I seriously doubt anyone at AOPA understood that.

As a pilot that tends to focus on making a living instead of putting up the good fight, I want to say Thank You for your efforts!
And also for not giving up because people in power don't see it your way.

blackrock wrote: The reason AOPA is not pushing mogas is simple. Thirty percent of the piston fleet burns 70% of the 100LL produced. These are the high compression engines and turbos. A suitable substitute fuel for the higher compression engines must be found since that is where the demand is. ..........

Where do these figures come from? I've also heard 10% of the fleet & 90% of the 100LL. Most of the people I know that fly a lot & can run car gas, do -- or did anyway, before the E10 epidemic. Mainly for the economic benefit (aka we're cheap) but also because no lead fouling.