Narrative:

Severe and lingering thunderstorms and low IFR conditions forced me to divert to cho while en route from fl to ny. Cho sells only 100LL aviation gas and has not sold 80/87 aviation gas for many yrs. As a former engineer with an internal combustion engines background, I see undeniable evidence that the use of 100LL in low compression (7:1) (150 hp) engines is unsafe, yet the FAA's current regulations would require that I use 100LL when 80/87 is unavailable, absent an autogas stc which has not been purchased for some time. I had gone to the trouble of obtaining unleaded autofuel in compliance with applicable thunderstorm specifications and I was preparing to fuel the aircraft with it when aviation safety inspector--airworthiness of the richmond FSDO insisted that the aircraft must have the stc before using the unleaded autogas, even though he was aware of the following facts: 1) NTSB's recent citing of 100LL's high tel content responsible for sticking exhaust valves and spark plug fouling. No FAA required 150 hour endurance tests of 100LL with low compression engines can be found. In excess of 23000 stc's for autogas have been sold in the past several yrs, yet no serious problems have arisen when compared to 100LL's safety problems in low compression engines. In inspector's presence, I nevertheless proceeded to load the autogas by filtering it and when the thunderstorms abate tomorrow I intend to fly it in reliance upon the far's provision for permitting deviation from regulations by pilot's avoiding unsafe situations. This report is filed in order to urge NASA safety analysts to intercede with the FAA to grant blanket approval for use of autogas in those aircraft where it has been demonstrated that autogas is safe but 100LL unsafe.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT UNABLE TO GET 80-87 FUEL USED LOW LEAD AUTOGAS RATHER THAN FAA RECOMMENDED 100LL FUEL THAT WAS ONLY ONE AVAILABLE AT ARPT. WANTS FAA TO APPROVE AUTOGAS FOR ALL LOW COMPRESSION ACFT WITHOUT REQUIRING STC.

Narrative: SEVERE AND LINGERING TSTMS AND LOW IFR CONDITIONS FORCED ME TO DIVERT TO CHO WHILE ENRTE FROM FL TO NY. CHO SELLS ONLY 100LL AVIATION GAS AND HAS NOT SOLD 80/87 AVIATION GAS FOR MANY YRS. AS A FORMER ENGINEER WITH AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGS BACKGROUND, I SEE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE USE OF 100LL IN LOW COMPRESSION (7:1) (150 HP) ENGS IS UNSAFE, YET THE FAA'S CURRENT REGS WOULD REQUIRE THAT I USE 100LL WHEN 80/87 IS UNAVAILABLE, ABSENT AN AUTOGAS STC WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PURCHASED FOR SOME TIME. I HAD GONE TO THE TROUBLE OF OBTAINING UNLEADED AUTOFUEL IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TSTM SPECS AND I WAS PREPARING TO FUEL THE ACFT WITH IT WHEN AVIATION SAFETY INSPECTOR--AIRWORTHINESS OF THE RICHMOND FSDO INSISTED THAT THE ACFT MUST HAVE THE STC BEFORE USING THE UNLEADED AUTOGAS, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS: 1) NTSB'S RECENT CITING OF 100LL'S HIGH TEL CONTENT RESPONSIBLE FOR STICKING EXHAUST VALVES AND SPARK PLUG FOULING. NO FAA REQUIRED 150 HR ENDURANCE TESTS OF 100LL WITH LOW COMPRESSION ENGS CAN BE FOUND. IN EXCESS OF 23000 STC'S FOR AUTOGAS HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE PAST SEVERAL YRS, YET NO SERIOUS PROBS HAVE ARISEN WHEN COMPARED TO 100LL'S SAFETY PROBS IN LOW COMPRESSION ENGS. IN INSPECTOR'S PRESENCE, I NEVERTHELESS PROCEEDED TO LOAD THE AUTOGAS BY FILTERING IT AND WHEN THE TSTMS ABATE TOMORROW I INTEND TO FLY IT IN RELIANCE UPON THE FAR'S PROVISION FOR PERMITTING DEVIATION FROM REGS BY PLT'S AVOIDING UNSAFE SITUATIONS. THIS RPT IS FILED IN ORDER TO URGE NASA SAFETY ANALYSTS TO INTERCEDE WITH THE FAA TO GRANT BLANKET APPROVAL FOR USE OF AUTOGAS IN THOSE ACFT WHERE IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT AUTOGAS IS SAFE BUT 100LL UNSAFE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.