EAAAirVenture OshkoshShopJoin

Sport Aviation Advocacy Update – June, 2010

Posted By:
Earl Lawrence
Homebuilder or Craftsman
#1 Posted: 5/20/2010 10:44:25

 EAA AirVenture is a major undertaking for your EAA Advocacy staff as it facilitates hundreds of meetings and introductions between government officials, industry aircraft owners and pilots. My team works behind the scenes to facilitate solutions to current barriers to participation and to provide impetus to new ideas and concepts to make flying more accessible.


Some of the focuses for our efforts during this year’s convention include: 

·         The transition to unleaded aviation gasoline

·         Supporting the standards and regulatory needs of electric aircraft

·         Border crossing procedures for private pilots

·         Amateur-built and Light Sport aircraft safety

·         Experimental Exhibition operating limitations

·         Use of experimental aircraft for transition training

·         Implementation of ADSB and its effect on general aviation access to airspace and airports

·         Through the Fence operations on airports

·         General aviation access to airstrips on government land

·         Sport Pilot training counting toward higher level certificates


I’d like to hear what you think is most important and what our government participants need to know. What questions do you have for the FAA Administrator?


Jerry Rosie
Young Eagles Pilot or Volunteer
#2 Posted: 5/21/2010 10:53:22

In my opinion the most important, by far, because it affects the largest number of members, is the transition to unleaded gasoline.  As an interim measure would you see if they (the powers that be) would even entertain the idea of eliminating the use of ethanol in premium mogas so that those vast numbers of folks who are flying lower performance engines can help in reducing lead content in the air by flying with an unleaded product that is already available if it were not poluted with ethanol

Thanks for supporting and representing us..


Cheers, Jerry NC22375 out of 07N
Rob Stapleton
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
#3 Posted: 5/21/2010 13:27:41

The absolute priority is the 100 Low Lead issue and whether or not there is any unleaded fuel that can be used for the transition. Once a fuel is identified the FAA will be responsible for certifying its use, and or certifying any modifications to standard category aircraft to use it. Is theFAA prepared to re-certify the entire GA fleet of aircraft? They have told us NO here in Alaska.

The other standout from your list that proves that the FAAis not prepared for this government mandate is the aviation safety of the amateur built and Light Sport categories.

At every chance the sport aviation community of pilots andaircraft owners has complained about the lack of support for flight instruction,designated pilot examiners, and its transition into flight schools nationwide.  This was a category that before the Sport Pilot rule of 2004, was the fastest growing and largest sector(Part 103-ultralights) of general aviation.

“I once dreamed of sharing and instructing flight in a Light Sport aircraft, that I can no longer use for instruction because the FAA can’tdecide whether to issue a LODA for instruction in an “Experimental” aircraft. I re-registered my ELSA six months ago with a promise of a LODA soon. I, and others are still waiting for the FAA to determine what to do with this.”

 In the meantime, no aircraft, no instruction. How can safety be expected when pilots can no longer check their proficiency?

Today the cost of the aircraft,( both new types and traditional) the lack of FAA certified instructors, the inability to use Light Sport time toward additional ratings is only proof of a huge failure by the regulatory agency that oversees it.  We keep hearing by the FAA that they have no money, or the program has not been funded, or go talk to your representative. 

This “mantra” has forced the administration to focus on commercial Part 121 and scheduled service Part 135 operations nationwide. Will the FAA have the funds or the incentive,or congressional pressure to re-certify our aircraft engines, and aircraft?

Judging from the history of Sport Pilot rule and how this was handled we need assurance that the FAA has these issues on the top of their agenda, IMMEDIATELY.

Many of us fear that the EPA fuel issue, and the roll out of a NexGen mandate, two very expensive transitions for individuals to fund—will ground the majority of GA fleet in the United States and will further perpetuate thereputation of aviation as a “rich man’s hobby.”

Files Attachment(s):
EAA priority ltr.docx (14834 bytes)
Earl Lawrence
Homebuilder or Craftsman
#4 Posted: 5/21/2010 13:45:27


Great comments. I really appreciate them.  I hope others join in on this string and share more.  The more that join in a share their thoughts the easier it is for me to show the Administrator and his senior staff what is of greatest concern. 


Ben Ashworth
#5 Posted: 5/21/2010 20:03:18 Modified: 5/22/2010 20:35:05

The ongoing Sport Pilot Denied Medical Clause issue has been with us since the Sport Pilot Ruling became law in 2004.

It is long overdue to REMOVE IT completely and allow many certificated pilots, including those who also don't qualify for a special issuance medical,  back into the air again and help to increase the GA population. We just want to fly for FUN which is the intent of the Sport Pilot Ruling.




former USAF KC-135A pilot...now gliders and a Sport Pilot wanna-be...
Robert Dingley
Homebuilder or Craftsman
#6 Posted: 5/21/2010 21:24:50

I think that the conversion from 100LL is the most pressing. The total lack of unblended autogas in Florida will drive a stake through the heart of private aviation. I have two engines that can use unblended auto fuel. There is lots of turbine fuel available, but not many of us can afford to install a diesel engine. A turbine is out of the question.

The misguided rush to blend ethanol in all gas is a political deal and we are the loosers. How would you like to buy a gallon of milk for the kids and you knew that it was only 9/10ths milk and was topped off with water. Its worse with ethanol in aviation fuel. In fact its lethal.

Lars Gleitsmann
Vintage Aircraft Association MemberYoung Eagles Pilot or Volunteer
#7 Posted: 5/21/2010 21:25:46

Our Aviation Life is under heavy attack from several directions yet we seldom see that in big letters on the covers of our Aviation Magazines,

which puzzles me very much.

Our Car-fuels are being poisoned with Alcohol, extremely dangerous for GA! The EPA and the Enviro-Taliban want to kill our 100LL AVgas !  -yet we don't see it on the headlines... -Too many pilots are unaware of this, and most who are believe Alcohol is just fine if you have new fuel lines (it ain't, but more on that later). Also they believe there are STC's for carfuel-use for many planes, and those STC's are in reality meant to be used with Blended Fuel in order to have some Lead around to keep Valves and Valve-Guides and V-Seats happy. TCM said in their great tech-advise-manual their engines may die in 10 hours if flown on carfuel. Their Valve-system doesn't like un-lead'ed. Lycoming said Turbocharged and high-compression engines cant be run on even 94UL ...

IN SHORT: Our fuel is under HEAVY ATTACK from both Sides, and without fuel, we will not care about USER FEES and all those other solved or "at least under control for now" issues !!!

The USA has a "no child left behind" programme in schools, but the EAA and AOPA seem to be willing to leave behind those planes that fly by far the most flighthours in the whole fleet. WHAT WILL BECOME OF GA THEN?? We cannot afford to loose those reasonably priced old Nice used airplanes and engines! THE LSA-fleet is of too limited usefulness, and they are way too expensive for what they do.

Most people don't even know that 100LL AVGAS is NOT the same Octane rating as the 100AKI carfuel like shell V-power!

One is AKI, the other is Octane! The 100AKI shell-V-power or others are more like 91Octane Aircraft fuel (over my thumb).... WE NEED TO EDUCATE about this! The Valves-need-lead-issue is BEING SWEPT UNDER THE RUG in all the unleaded transition fuel stories !!! WHY IS THAT?? So not to scare anybody??

I have seen GA die in Europe, I have seen the Environmentalists relentlessly kill off airport after airport, every time a compromise is done GA is loosing. In Germany they are even lobbying against Glider-airports! If we keep compromising with the anti GA agenda we will soon cease to exist or GA will be reduced to a Hobby for the Ultra rich only, like it already is in many countries, due to Government rules and the activities of special interest groups that are opposing our life.

In my mind, as licenced pilots, we have a RIGHT TO FLY. This has to be defended, against bogus science as well as against special interest Groups, be it enviro-Taliban or the "we want to have 20% alcohol in the carfuel MANDATED-so we can keep our company profit up"....
I see myself as a Lifetime member of the EAA and AOPA, but if the fuel affairs continue as they do I guess I may as well give that up...
Have been to Oshkosh, That was the greatest even ever! I really like EAA as the best organisation I know, and I think the "young Eagles" is the best program ever! I flew them myself. Have spend every spare hour in my life in GA-education and experience, spend all my money in flying time and planes. I joined EAA many years ago because I hope you can prevent what goes on in many countries that I have flown in. I sure do appreciate all the good work that was put in for the many issues that have been fought, mostly with a lot of measure-able success. 
I think a huge mistake is being made if the fight for the fuel is not ALL-out. - There is no outrage now, but can you imagine the howl of us who will have useless planes after it actually happens??
Apart from all this, here in Alaska all of Rural AK and even the tourism industry depends on the 100LL burning planes. We have hundreds of Villages with No Access to the nations road system!
We have taken matters in our own hands, see:

 P.S.: I believe our


also contains valuable technical information.

Aviation groups band together to fight leaded fuel ban
 Piston engine aircraft deliver much of rural Alaska's cargo and are fueled by AvGas. (Rich Jordan/KTUU-DT)
 Many in the aviation industry in Alaska are banding together to fight a proposed ban of the leaded fuel. (Rich Jordan/KTUU-DT)
 Rep. Don Young recently spoke about the matter at a luncheon, emphasizing the importance of aviation in Alaska. (File/KTUU-DT)
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- A group of Alaska pilots are banding together to take on the federal government.
They say a new rule on what type of gas they can use would put many of them out of business.
Many cargo airlines in the state use what's called AvGas, which is a fuel used by older, propeller-driven planes.
The EPA says it's a problem because AvGas contains lead.
On a busy Wednesday at Everts Air Cargo in Anchorage a World War II-era C-46 is headed for Aniak, fully loaded with goods.
The Everts fleet is like an aviation museum of history, but the company says no other aircraft -- not jets or more modern turbo props -- can handle the gravel runways of rural Alaska.
"The majority of villages in Alaska are serviced by piston engine aircraft, the radial engine aircraft," said Susan Hoshaw with Everts.
Those aircraft are dependent on AvGas, which is now under the scrutiny of the federal government.
The Environmental Protection Agency is in the initial stages of creating a rule that would outlaw the fuel.
The agency and environmental groups supporting the ban say lead emissions are harmful and have been shown to cause cancer.
Cars have been using unleaded gas for years, but airplanes are a different story.
"To our knowledge and from our experience, those aircraft will not be able to operate with an unleaded fuel. There's nothing available out there that we are aware of," said Paul Mills with Aero Recip Alaska, a piston engine overhaul shop.
The Alaska Air Carriers Association has formed an AvGas work group.
Pilots, mechanics and other stakeholders are meeting to lay out a plan of attack, and Alaska's Congressional delegation -- speaking at a lunch earlier this week -- says it's aware of the issue and may soon take legislative action.
"We don't have roads. We can't deliver; we can't take medical people out by road or highway. We have to do it by air," Rep. Don Young said at the lunch.
"Are we being alarmist? Are we overreacting? I don't know that we are," Mills said.
Everts says planes like these could easily fly for another 25 years, but the federal government might have the final say.
The groups opposed to this potential ban on AvGas are asking the EPA to extend a 60-day comment period so they can gather their thoughts and present a reasonable argument.

Pierre D'Entremont
Homebuilder or Craftsman
#8 Posted: 5/21/2010 21:53:15

JUST ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL ???   or NOT....... Take names...build a database...make them accountable...it goes both ways... uhmmmm speak into the pen , sir !!!

Where to put the info ??? 

Who's really in charge...??? 

Tooky or Pierre
Ralph King
#9 Posted: 5/22/2010 06:51:25

As 100LL goes bye bye, so will  additives that could bring a fuel level up to or near 100LL.


Only solution I see is replace aviation certified engines with VW engines.   For every aircraft with one  250hp engine, one will have to replace that engine with 3 VW engines.

Yep we have progress here, back to the 3 engine Tri-Ford.

We may even see aircraft with 6 VW engines to replace the twin engine airplane.

Sometimes you got to laugh to keep from crying.



Mike Bell
#10 Posted: 5/24/2010 21:56:21

I think it's time for EAA to promote the idea of a driver's license "medical" for all non-commercial flying. It has worked fine for LSA. In fact, self-certification without even the requirement for a driver's license has decades of good experience with gliders and ultralights. 100LL replacements will come about because of entrepreneurs. Dropping the requirement for a formal medical will happen only if pushed by EAA and/or AOPA.

Bill Berson
Homebuilder or Craftsman
#11 Posted: 5/28/2010 16:29:59


It looks to me like the FAA will mandate expensive ADS-B transmitters soon. This will kill light aviation, I think.

A much cheaper system called Teleran was proposed way back in 1940 by RCA. You can read about Teleran in Fred Weick's autobiography or google Teleran.

The Teleran system worked by transmitting a radar picture to each airplane in the area. A Teleran system employed today would only require a low cost receiver in the airplane instead of the proposed expensive ADS-B unit that requires a computer, GPS, transmitter and receiver.

Of course the FAA wants to eliminate expensive radar and pass the cost to aircraft owners. But how can the security provided with the current radar be eliminated and replaced with a voluntary airborne transmitter? Will there be a law to force the terrorists to install and activate an ADS-B as well?sad

The newest portable military radar machines are low cost and use little power. A small radar machine at the local airport could monitor inbound traffic and wind information and automatically broadcast landing instructions to the cockpit display. This would appear as a highway in the sky for the pilot to follow with full view of other traffic. The land based machine could be installed in a small structure at each airport, I think. 

I talked to the FAA Capstone manager about Teleran, years ago, and he said: "go ahead and make a contract proposal."  But I am just one interested person, not an avionics entrepreneur. The EAA and AOPA should look at this before it is too late. But AOPA is not too concerned about money. So maybe EAA is the only hope for recreational aviation.

The airborne receivers should cost about $500 or less, instead of the $15,000 ADS-B. 

I never had much luck with electronics and will not spend that kind of money for a device with a one year warranty.