EAAAirVenture OshkoshShopJoin

Advocacy Update: What are your priorities?

Posted By:
EAA News
82
Posts
551
#1 Posted: 9/21/2010 13:36:56 Modified: 9/21/2010 13:43:31

(From Earl Lawrence's column coming up in the October issue of Sport Aviation)

How does EAA staff determine its priorities for EAA’s advocacy efforts? You, our members, determine our priorities. Three main inputs direct our mission to reduce regulatory barriers to participating in aviation: one-on-one member-to-staff interactions (phone calls, e-mails), interactions in the field, and recurring surveys.
Based on data from the most recent survey:

    Overall, members are satisfied with EAA’s advocacy efforts.

    Protecting the access and promoting the affordability of personal flight is very important.

    Affordability” is rated “most important.”

    Aviation fuel and safety are top-ranked issues.

    Security, medical-related issues (including elimination of the third-class medical), protection of     airspace/airports, and the ADS-B changes round out your major concerns.

For the top-rated issue, the future of aviation fuel, your overwhelming response indicated you are not willing to pay more for a future fuel than you currently pay for 100LL. However, the higher the value of your aircraft, the more willing you are to spend money on aircraft modification. However, very few surveyed are willing to spend more than $5,000 to ensure their aircraft can operate on a future fuel.


With regard to aviation safety, most members seem to comprehend that if it is not improved, government will impose additional restrictions. And let’s not forget, we want our fellow aviators to safely engage in the activity we all love and enjoy.
As for how you’d like to receive information on important advocacy topics, you listed EAA Sport Aviation magazine, as well as the magazines of EAA’s divisions, as your primary resource. Your secondary resource is our electronic aviation news sources, particularly the weekly e-Hotline newsletters.

Are these your priorities? Please share your thoughts with us here!



Joanne Palmer
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
276
Posts
68
#2 Posted: 9/21/2010 17:24:56

Not necessarily in order:

 

Availability of avgas.  SWIFT FUEL, G100UL or ??  Pick SOMETHING and MAKE IT WORK!  Make fast track STC approvals for engine /fuel system mods to make the new UL fuel seamless painless and automatic.  We can always fix the screwups later.

 Special Issuance medicals. 
These would be helped by elimination of third class medical even if restricted to aircraft 200 HP  or under.  If that is not possible, make all special issuances "lifetime AME Assisted" if the underlying issue doesn't change

Eliminate the Sport pilot medical "Catch 22".  Create for fiscal 2011 a "Fourth class medical" which will allow pilots to return to the sky for sport pilot only.   These could expire in 6 months from date of issuance or Oct  31, 2011.  This gets the FAA what it wants and the pilots get what they want.   Win-WIn. 

 

 

 

 



Bill Berson
Homebuilder or Craftsman
106
Posts
19
#3 Posted: 9/21/2010 19:47:25

I cant get any mogas without ethanol anymore.

EAA should work with other groups (marine, snowmobile, chainsaw manufacturers, etc.) to promote a national policy to provide premium mogas without ethanol. There is no reason for every gas pump to include ethanol.



Lars Gleitsmann
Vintage Aircraft Association MemberYoung Eagles Pilot or Volunteer
18
Posts
5
#4 Posted: 9/25/2010 04:10:25

 Mr. Palmer said on the fuel: "We can always fix the screwups later"
DID I hear that one right? After a new unleaded fuel killed how many of us?? By engine failure or by causing cancer because 46% of it is aromatics such as Benzene and Tolulene?
I STRONGLY Disagree!!! ANY NEW FUEL needs to be 100% safe and good and it cant force big modifications because we cant afford it and the FAA cant get them all certified on all the planes and engines. A fuel thats just ok in an C172 O320 low compression wont help us.
All effects of the lead need to be studied, THE Lubricity (whatever) for the valves etc was never REALLY studied.
There are enough expensive engine and plane problems as is , the LAST WE NEED is half baked fuel solutions!
Why cry for a fast quick and dirty transition??? Lobby against the EPA's proposed BS and counter the friends of the earth !
We also should fight for Premium car fuel being Alcohol free, for obvious reasons! If EPA would be serious about this in a positive way, they would make premium Alcohol free and thus reduce 100LL consumption!
Too expensive Fuel wont help, Swift wont start cold engines, not at altitude, and not in cold weather. Gami Fuel seems way too toxic. Keep in mind:279proposed fuels tested and "not even one even close" - That is reality.
The radial environmentalists will not stop until nobody flys anymore! We have seen it in Europe before! -The GA pilots need to realise that its time to push back and lobby and not just stick the head in the sand and hope for the best.
more later,
regards,
Lars



Joe LaMantia
Young Eagles Pilot or Volunteer
175
Posts
69
#5 Posted: 9/25/2010 08:26:51

Lars,

Getting Angry will not fix anything.  General Aviation has always had cost problems and that is now amplified by the current economic downturn.  EAA has been active and effective in helping hold off user fees.  This organization is not the primary point man in dealing with the FAA and Congress, that's AOPA.  The fact is that we are going to continue to get smaller and have less influence.  Just look at the numbers, the pilot population is aging, we have a very old fleet of aircraft that has been "upgraded" and re-hashed a dozen times.  New aircraft even LSA's are priced out of reach of the average guy.  EAA is still the place where you can go and learn to build your own aircraft and you can fit it into your budget.  Some guys take many years to get there, but I think that is the core of EAA. 

I think Ms. Palmer has some very good ideas regarding what the core EAA'ers will need going forward.  The fuel problem is going to require a solution that will get us back to auto fuel because that is where the political horsepower sits.  We aren't going to get mogas without alcohol, unless we can outlaw the farm lobby!   What we are going to have to do is use more auto engines in homebuilts.  If we could get some fast-tracking to find something that will work on the exsisting fleet that would be great.  I'm not optimistic in that regard, the Fed's can't do anything fast!   The political environment will always be tilted on the cautionary side.  Joanne, also has some excellent ideas regarding the medicals, which we may actually be able to get done "quickly", that's 5 or 6 years.


Joe



Joanne Palmer
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
276
Posts
68
#6 Posted: 9/25/2010 08:37:17 Modified: 9/25/2010 08:39:03
Lars Gleitsmann wrote:

 

 Mr. Palmer said on the fuel: "We can always fix the screwups later"
DID I hear that one right? After a new unleaded fuel killed how many of us?? By engine failure or by causing cancer because 46% of it is aromatics such as Benzene and Tolulene?
I STRONGLY Disagree!!! ANY NEW FUEL needs to be 100% safe and good and it cant force big modifications because we cant afford it and the FAA cant get them all certified on all the planes and engines. A fuel thats just ok in an C172 O320 low compression wont help us.
All effects of the lead need to be studied, THE Lubricity (whatever) for the valves etc was never REALLY studied.
There are enough expensive engine and plane problems as is , the LAST WE NEED is half baked fuel solutions!
Why cry for a fast quick and dirty transition??? Lobby against the EPA's proposed BS and counter the friends of the earth !
We also should fight for Premium car fuel being Alcohol free, for obvious reasons! If EPA would be serious about this in a positive way, they would make premium Alcohol free and thus reduce 100LL consumption!
Too expensive Fuel wont help, Swift wont start cold engines, not at altitude, and not in cold weather. Gami Fuel seems way too toxic. Keep in mind:279proposed fuels tested and "not even one even close" - That is reality.
The radial environmentalists will not stop until nobody flys anymore! We have seen it in Europe before! -The GA pilots need to realise that its time to push back and lobby and not just stick the head in the sand and hope for the best.
more later,
regards,
Lars

 

 

 

Lars:

 

The rationale for fixing the "screwups later" comment was to have the EAA advocate for some selection to be made SOON and then MAKE the new fuel work in all aircraft.  You note that I did not include the 94UL avgas (100LL without the TEL) which many on this board have advocated,.  That fuel won't work in the big turbocharged engines at least not without cutting power. 

As for being "100% safe", "all certified on all the planes and engines" there won't be time, money and sample aircraft for the FAA do do all that.  This would require the FAA to obtain a sample size of at least three aircraft of any manufacturer going back to the 1930s and running each engine with enough sample fuels to determine the compatibility.  It would take decades to do and there isn't the funding to do that.

 

As for pushing back the EPA, well the reality is that TEL will go away sooner than later.  There is only ONE worldwide manufacturer of TEL in England.  Once the leaded auto fuel goes away in the third world there will only be one use for TEL left, 100LL avgas.  And you won't be able to produce it here in the US either.  SO TEL and 100LL is going away.   The real issue is to what.

 

Swift has changed their formulation to go away from biomass feedstocks.  G100UL hasn't published their toxicity reports, but 100LL has its own level of toxicity that is in line with other petrochemicals.

 

Pushing back on the environmentalists and asking for more studies on the lead effects IS "sticking  your head in the sand".  This issue won't go away.  Not this time.  We should have done this years ago anyway.

 



Rob Stapleton
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
9
Posts
3
#7 Posted: 9/26/2010 15:36:03


You all have good points but I will have to say that better studies with real science on how 100LL fuel affects humans and the environment could help the Av Gas issue. 

Compare this to the costs nationwide of retrofitting aircraft with high compression engines with something (fuel) new, and-- you won't be flying--you will be waiting for an FAA official to approve your conversions for about five years, if ever.(The FAA has openly stated that it is not prepared to certify conversions)

And yes this should have been done by the aviation groups that  we so eagerly support with our membership dues. What the hell were they waiting for? Now that the other shoe has finally dropped by the ANPRM and the EPA, I am getting requests in the mail to donate more money to them (EAA and AOPA) for action against the EPA AvGas issue to approach Congress.

I think it would be more expedient to put that money into converting my Corvair engine (that uses mogas) for my homebuilt than to **** it away to a bunch of do nothing aviation organization administrators who let this issue slip between their fingers three years ago.

And as for Mr. Palmer's statement about "GA has always had cost issues," look at how the FAA, EAA, AOPA, USUA and ASC handled the Sport Pilot ELSA LODA issue. 

They took the cheapest possible way to fly for fun and regulated it into a corner that now demands that Sport Pilot instructors use $50,000- $150,000 aircraft that previously as (Part 103 vehicles) cost $15,000-$30,000. Even though they have viable aircraft to use now. This is a moronic cost issue for sure.

Do you really trust that this will be any different? Ahhhh not me.

Yes, it's lack of expedient action and a cohesive group action that has allowed "our" government to be legally manipulated by environmentalist entities. What should we do about it now?

 Perhaps what we need now is some pro-bono work by aviation attornies  in our community to represent us...? Any volunteers?

If not I expect that the next move by environmental groups will be to issue a similar "run of the gauntlet" on two-cycle and diesel engines. 

Has anyone noticed how Europe has regulated general aviation out of the air and onto the tie-down ramp? 

I am not angry about this, I am mad as hell!

WE are next.

Rob Stapleton
Anchorage, AK


Steve Fabiszak
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or CraftsmanAirVenture Volunteer
103
Posts
32
#8 Posted: 9/26/2010 19:37:14

I'm ****ed off because our government is running scared and there ain't nothing we can do. What was that Ben Franklin said about trading freedom for protection and ending up with neither?

The Feds will clear the skies of private GA aircraft by either eliminating 100LL and dragging their feet on buying off on a replacement or by making us spent $8k on a ADS-B system of dubious value.

I can burn mogas in my RV and I can fly below 10000 msl and stay out of B and C airspace but what about the rest of you guys with factory planes and no STC for ethanol laced fuel? I wouldn't invest too much money in those OSH improvements 'cause those days of "North 40 saturation" (the airplane kind) may just be a thing of the past.

The Swift guys now make avgas from acetone instead of biomass. My chemistry is a bit dated but isn't acetone (already goes boom) and avgas kinda close anyway? I really hoped the biomass thing would've worked out. They just needed a Rhode Island size farm planted in sourghum.

I'm done for now.

 



Joseph Pazsint
1
Post
0
#9 Posted: 9/26/2010 19:57:53

Listen, we need a solution to the anti avgas agenda. No avgas, no flying, NO EAA. I joined this association for a reason, so my voice will be added to thousands. Bring the reality of avgas to the front of the line. The government works for us, we don't work for them.



Ben Ashworth
23
Posts
14
#10 Posted: 9/27/2010 14:17:36

I  PRAISE  Ms. Joanne Palmer's suggestion on  eliminating the Sport Pilot Medical "Catch 22".  I am one of its victims!

The original intent was to allow certificated pilots to once again fly on their driver's license as their medical.  Then DOT stepped in and put a stop to that!  I have been flying unpowered gliders and motorgliders but only if I travel halfway across the USA to be able to accomplish this.  Many pilots are in the same predicament OR have given up flying altogether.

General Aviation needs more pilots desperately and making this SP/LSA medical Catch 22 issue a thing of the past would improve moral and allow many more qualified and willing pilots to return to the air JUST for FUN.

 

   



former USAF KC-135A pilot...now gliders and a Sport Pilot wanna-be...
Rob Stapleton
Young Eagles Pilot or VolunteerHomebuilder or Craftsman
9
Posts
3
#11 Posted: 9/27/2010 14:43:02

If you think that we as aviation enthusiasts, pilots and builders are being singled out by the environmentalist and the government read this story. ( http://bit.ly/9MJKFY

The EPA has done nothing to stop the use of herbicides that effect plants and food, but is all over minute amounts of lead in aviation fuel that makes it into the atmosphere.



Jim Heffelfinger
Homebuilder or Craftsman
256
Posts
43
#12 Posted: 9/27/2010 20:07:29

 My priorities are the same as many EAAers.

Dealing with ethanol in our fuels -  it has become a real problem.   Not only are aviators having to switch to100LL but the performance power boaters, and off-road racing types, classiccars/motorcycles, have switched to 100LL as well.    Can’twe get all the alphabet organizations together and form a lobby block to getsome form of ethanol free high performance fuels available?   Giving credits to the fuel blenders forusing ethanol is not the answer. 

Question:  Of the375,000 registered aircraft what percentage could use 91UL ?  Oh, and the number of UL category powered aircraft?  They all could use  91UL as well. 

Boats?  Say 500,000 boats(conservative)  ( there are over 350,000PWCs active in the US).  Off road types?  Small 2 cycle garden equipment –millions.  How many main stream cars areusing 91 UL?  I wonder why refineries areeven supporting such a small volume at pumps throughout the nation.   

The dilemma of ELSA, formerly used for years as UL trainersand LSA training, sitting idle. Nearly worthless in the market place .  Mom and Pop grass root training businessesdead or dying for want of a reasonable LODA opportunity.   ASportStar or Remos G- are not anywhere near a quicksilver or Challenger fortraining.  Nothing in the certified worldhas the level of divergent skills needed to operate them.   I am concerned that we shall return to the80s where people taught themselves to fly – because they can’t see paying highrates for training in a completely different (read – wrong) aircraft.

Deal with the Catch 22 on medical/SP certifications.  There are way too many pilots who are indenial about their ability to pass their next physical.   Let’s relieve their stress and give tools tothe flight standards physicians with three check boxes.  Passed class X,  Passed SP, Recommended not to drive an on-roadmotor vehicle. ( let DMV deal with the last one). 

Issues such as jobs lost, contracts pulled, or ordersreduced in the aviation industry are not in anyway within  EAA’s control. Lobby efforts, money and attention needs to be placed in areas thatdirectly effect the membership.  

The EAA membership is already in trouble with the loss ofWWII members, the declining numbers of baby boomers and no generation X to taketheir place. 

Worth what I sold it for….. 



Rod Pollard
17
Posts
3
#13 Posted: 10/1/2010 21:22:17

 

Work to allow self-certified medical for Recreational Pilot.

Better yet eliminate the third class medical for Private Pilot.

And in any case eliminate the 'catch 22".

None of these require advanced chemistry, anti-gravity or teleportation.

Just requires a change in the FAR's that makes sense and would actually benefit general aviation which I guess is even harder.