100LL Banned at Reid-Hillview & San Martin- Santa Clara County

Posted on December 21, 2021 by Ted Gablin

We all know that leaded aviation fuel’s days are numbered. Steps are already underway to market a recently formulated replacement for 100LL Avgas. But, it seems that’s just not quick enough for Santa Clara County, California. Other airport sponsors in California may be taking similar steps. We sure hope the FAA steps up to the plate to deal with this issue. Please take a moment to read this great article about this by Mike Busch

100LL Crisis in California

by Mike Busch A&P/IA CFI-A/I/ME

The powers-that-be in Santa Clara County, California, have decreed that leaded avgas will no longer be available after December 31, 2021 at two busy airports that the County controls: Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV) in San Jose and San Martin Airport (E16) 18 miles to the southeast. Starting on January 1, 2022, only unleaded avgas will be allowed to be sold at those two airports, and at present the only unleaded avgas available is 94UL.

Pleas by AOPA and the FAA for the County to delay this ban on leaded avgas until a viable 100-octane unleaded substitute fuel is available have fallen on deaf ears. Legal and regulatory challenges to the County’s precipitous action appear to have gone nowhere. The experts I’ve spoken with who have been following the situation in Santa Clara County most closely have all told me the same thing: This is almost certainly going to happen.

If only these two airports were affected, it would be bad enough. But none of the experts I’ve spoken with expect things to stop there. There are already indications that Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) in Southern California may cease selling leaded avgas soon. There are also rumors about similar bans coming at California airports from Watsonville (KWVI) in Northern California to Gillespie Field (KSEE) in San Diego.

If the dominoes start falling, it’s unlikely that this will remain confined to California for long. All owners and pilots of piston aircraft need to be concerned.

Getting rid of lead

I’m hardly an environmental activist, but I’ve been an outspoken proponent of unleaded avgas for many years— for reasons having nothing to do with the environment. Tetraethyl lead (TEL) is a great octane booster, but everything else about it is terrible for our engines. It is the principal cause of the scaly combustion chamber deposits that lead to stuck valves (especially in Lycoming engines), and the principal cause of sludge that contaminates oil control rings and leads to high oil consumption and low compression (especially in Continental engines). It’s also extremely toxic, and it is only manufactured in one plant located in the U.K. so the supply chain for TEL is highly tenuous.

A good illustration of the evils of TEL can be found in the Rotax Line Maintenance Manual, which calls for the use of synthetic oil and an oil change interval of 100 hours provided the engine is operated on unleaded mogas. However, the manual prohibits using synthetic oil if the engine is operated on 100LL more than 30% of the time, and cuts the oil change interval in half to 50 hours. Also, the gearbox inspection interval is reduced by half if the engine is operated on 100LL.

I firmly believe that the sooner we can move from 100LL to unleaded avgas, the better it will be for our engines. But, the unleaded avgas needs to be suitable for our engines.

Is 94UL suitable?

At present, the only approved unleaded avgas available in meaningful quantities is 94UL. This may or may not be a suitable fuel for your piston aircraft engine, depending on what kind of engine you have. Low-compression engines that were originally certified for use with 80/87 or 91-octane avgas (both long unavailable) should do just fine on 94UL. 

However, 94 UL is not suitable for high-compression or turbocharged engines that were certified for use with 100-octane avgas. For one thing, it is not legal to operate them on fuel with an octane rating lower than 100—this is an operating limitation for which compliance is mandated by FAR 91.9(a). Legalities aside, operating these engines on 94-octane fuel does not provide sufficient detonation margin when operating at high power (especially takeoff power). You might get away with it on a cold day, but the engine might experience destructive detonation on a warm day. So, operating on a non-conforming fuel is not just illegal, it’s also irresponsible and dangerous.

How can you tell whether or not UL94 is suitable for your engine? There are several ways. The minimum octane requirement should be prescribed in the operating limitations section of your POH or AFM. In addition, this information should be placarded at each fuel filler port of the aircraft. Also, you can pull up the Type Certificate Data Sheet for your engine and find the compression ratio and minimum octane requirement there.

If your airplane is powered by a Lycoming engine, Lycoming has a lovely service bulletin—Service Instruction 1070AB—that sets forth all the approved fuels for every Lycoming engine model. If you look at Table 3 of this service bulletin, you’ll see that lots of Lycoming engine models are approved for use with 94UL, while lots of other engine models are not. For instance, the Lycoming IO-360-B, -E, -L, -M, -N and -P are approved to run on 94UL, but the IO-360-A, -C, -D, -F, -J and -K are not. A similar situation exists for the other Lycoming engine families—O-320, IO-320, O-360, TIO-360, O-540, IO-540, TIO-540, etc. Some are approved for 94UL, some aren’t. You need to look up your particular engine model variant to know which category it falls into.

What about 100UL?

Creating a viable unleaded 100-octane fuel has been a much tougher task than either the industry or the FAA anticipated. The joint FAA/industry Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI) program has been working to qualify one or more suitable fuels since 2013, and after 8½ years still has nothing to show for it other than various unsuccessful candidates that were sent back to the drawing board.

At present, the only approved 100UL fuel is the one formulated by General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) in Ada, Oklahoma known as “G100UL.” The FAA has granted STCs for this fuel to be used in a wide range of low-compression engines, with extension of the Approved Model List (AML) to high-compression and turbocharged engines expected in 2022.

George Braly of GAMI, developer of G100UL

Getting FAA approval of a fuel is one thing, but actually deploying it to airports is quite another. I spoke to GAMI’s George Braly who told me that his company was working hard with refiners, blenders and distributors on the logistics of getting serious quantities of G100UL produced and distributed, but that realistically this won’t happen before “late summer of 2022.” I interpreted this as a best-case projection, and I’ve heard other experts say that it could be 18 months before 100UL is reliably available.

In the meantime

More than half of the piston GA fleet have low-compression engines that will do fine on 94UL. If you’re flying one of these, you probably don’t need to worry too much about this period of fuel supply instability. But, the portion of the fleet powered by high-compression or turbocharged engines represent 75% of the avgas consumption. If you’re flying one of these, you definitely need to worry because 94UL is simply not suitable (or legal) for use in your aircraft.

Pilots of these higher-performance aircraft will need to be vigilant about which airports have 100-octane avgas and which don’t. If you’re flying into an airport where availability of suitable fuel is uncertain, you’ll need to be careful to tanker in enough fuel to get back out and fly to another airport where suitable fuel is available.

Ah, but what if you fly to an airport where you expect 100LL to be available and discover to your shock that it isn’t? What if only a non-conforming fuel like 94UL or unleaded 91-octane mogas is available? What if you don’t have enough 100LL left in your tanks to fly to another airport where 100LL is available? In short, what if you find yourself painted into a corner?

Well, legally you’re stuck. You’d probably need to find someone willing to haul a bunch of 5-gallon jugs of 100LL to you, preferably in the dead of night when nobody could spot you pouring the banned fuel into your airplane so you could make your escape.

Putting legalities aside, if you’re tempted to fuel your bird with 94UL or 91UL despite the fact that it requires 100-octane avgas—and please understand that I’m certainly not recommending you ever do this—I will offer you a couple of suggestions for minimizing the likelihood of subjecting your engine to destructive detonation.

First, segregate the substandard fuel into one tank while keeping unpolluted 100LL in another tank. Use the 100LL tank for takeoff, climb, go-around, missed-approach, and all other max-power operations, and switch to the tank containing substandard fuel only for reduced-power cruise, descent, and other low-power operations where detonation is unlikely.

Second, don’t try to use substandard fuel unless your aircraft is equipped with an engine monitor with a CHT probe on each cylinder and a user-programmable alarm that you can set to go off at 400°F for Continentals and 420°F for Lycomings. If you get a high-CHT alarm while operating on substandard fuel, you need to reduce power IMMEDIATELY. A runaway CHT can cause a piston to melt (or worse) in just one or two minutes if the pilot fails to take immediate action to halt the thermal runaway.

I offer these tips strictly for emergencies. Please don’t allow yourself to get into a situation where you’re tempted to fuel your aircraft with substandard fuel that doesn’t meet the minimum octane requirement of your engine. My purpose in sending you this alert is to heighten your awareness that conforming fuel may not be available at certain airports during the coming year, and to encourage you to do the necessary due diligence and flight planning to avoid getting into a situation where you require fuel that is unavailable. It appears that we are entering a period of time that may be less than friendly to piston GA. Be careful out there.

Posted in Airport News, Legislative Issues, Safety | Leave a comment

Urgent Message to CalPilots Chapters and Members

Posted on September 24, 2021 by Ted Gablin
Posted in Legislative Issues | Leave a comment

Flying To or From REI or SBD? Please See FAA Letter to Airmen

Posted on July 1, 2021 by Ted Gablin
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Letter to Redlands City Council From Eric Paul

Posted on May 5, 2021 by Ted Gablin

5-4-21

Good Evening Mayor and Members of the Council. 

My name is Eric Paul

I’m president of the Redlands Hangar Owners Association.  We built and own 37 hangars on airport land we lease from the City.  I’ve kept an airplane at Redlands Airport for 54 years.

I think a little airport history is in order. 

The City bought Redlands Airport from private owners in stages from 1962 to 1966.  The City wanted no part in developing the airport and solicited private investors to lease land and construct hangars.  In 1968 Lou Stolp answered the call and leased the majority of the available land and built the lobby and 28 hangars.  By 1974 he had built 59 hangars.   Lou’s lease has been re-sold to new investors three times since and each has added more hangars which now number over 200.  The City has never built a single building on our airport.  Every building on Redlands airport was built by private investors.

Without private investors, Redlands Airport would be a vacant lot with a runway.

From the day the City purchased the airport until 2003 the airport was managed by Public Works.  They were a friendly bunch, eager to help.  If you missed a payment or a deadline you received a courtesy call from City hall.

In 2003 the airport was transferred to Municipal Utilities and everything changed.  No more courtesy calls.  In 2005 the City rescinded the land lease held by Aerodynamics Inc. on Parcel 5 over a payment dispute forcing them to sell their hangars to the City for 60 cents on the dollar. 

Now Coyote Aviation is facing a new battle.  Everyone knows Coyote had every intention of exercising their lease option.  There was confusion over when the notification should take place.  The notification deadline passed with no courtesy call from City hall.

The City feels the airport land lease rates are below market value.  The City sets the rates and ties them to CPI to keep up with inflation.  If they’re too low it isn’t the lease holders fault.

Since 2006 all the City departments have been given new names.  Give the airport back to Public Works or a department with the same kindness and restore the once friendly and helpful atmosphere.  A simple courtesy call to Coyote would have solved this entire fiasco.

Coyote assumed all the financial risk and built a first class hangar complex with a perfect payment history.  Rescinding their lease for an oversight was mean spirited and a step in the wrong direction.  You’ve killed future development at our airport.  Who would chance developing more hangars or bringing a business to Redlands Airport knowing you could lose everything over a technicality.

It’s time for the City to take the moral high ground.   Send Coyote to bed with no supper but restore their lease and give them their lease extension. 

Thank you.

Posted in Airport News, Legislative Issues | Leave a comment

A Letter to Redlands City Council From Gil Brown, Coyote Aviation

Posted on March 30, 2021 by Ted Gablin

I write this on March 29, “National Mom and Pop Business Owners Day.”  I find significant irony that the City of Redlands’ Instagram page is promoting that fact. Here’s why:

Along with George and Eva Saliba, my wife Carol and I own Coyote Aviation. For twenty years, we’ve been the managers of a single-building hangar facility we constructed at Redlands Municipal Airport. For that management, we charge $4-$6 per hangar per month.

Carol and I are lifelong Redlands residents, both with careers in education.  I taught 5th and 6th grade here for thirty-five years.  As a teacher, my mantra to my students was “Do your homework.”  It did not pertain to assignments.  It meant, “Understand a problem thoroughly before you attempt to solve it. Do your research before making important decisions.” Coyote Aviation’s supporters, your constituents, believe your homework may not have been done, or perhaps it was done by someone else.

On March 18, 2021 Coyote Aviation received notification of the termination of our lease. This was accomplished without the City’s ever reaching out to us.  One of the reasons cited for lease termination was that Coyote did not renegotiate a lease while in a month-to-month tenancy. The fact is that I did not receive any City notification regarding our lease status until August 31, 2020. It came in a phone call from Airport Supervisor Bruce Shaffer. Although section 25 of our land lease stipulates that notices (such as a change from long-term to month-to-month) be “served by deposit in the United States mail,” Coyote has never received such written confirmation of the “late” designation and change to month-to-month tenancy.

Tired of waiting for official confirmation after Mr. Shaffer’s phone call, I contacted City attorney Dan McHugh on September 21, asking simply the City accept our renewal request.  It was after my e-mail that I finally received e-mail confirmation from him about our change in status. This was 31 weeks after February 13, the date the City contends our renewal request was due.  Our simple request to continue our relationship, our first step in negotiations, was not seen by City Council until the October 20 meeting. To that request, we never received an answer.  No dialogue between parties ever took place because of the City’s inaction. Apparently, the City’s counter-offer was the March 18, 2021 lease termination. So much for “negotiations.”

We disagree with the “late” designation, but that particular matter will be addressed through legal channels.  This message is about the City of Redlands’ refusal to respond to our request of September 21 in a timely manner, nor to respond to any of our efforts to get answers.  I must charitably assume that as council members, you may have not been aware of the facts or of our own efforts to achieve a resolution before your decision in March to terminate our lease.  

You might not know, for instance, that between September 21 and October 23, I tried six times to begin negotiations, get an answer, or start a dialogue. On October 23, Chris Boatman told me to wait, that the City Council would not take up the matter until after the new year. Between January 5, 2021 and March 10, 2021, I made ten more attempts to get a response.   In over a year, from Feb 13 (the date the City says our renewal request was due) until March 18, 2021, Coyote received no initial notification of late designation, no City Council response or requests, no counter offers, nor any invitations to have a dialogue as I requested many times.  We were trying, but efforts apparently fell on deaf ears.  (I have e-mail evidence to support all claims here.)

Coyote Aviation is a ‘good deal’ for Redlands. In 2000, when we signed our agreement with the City of Redlands, City Council members were thrilled to have a 1-acre parcel of vacant land finally produce revenue.  Since then, the City has collected from tiny Coyote nearly $250,000 in construction fees and land lease payments, not including revenue from property taxes and municipal utilities. The current profit to the City is the highest per square foot of the three fixed base operators (FBO’s) by a wide margin. Coyote’s Consumer Price Index adjustment occurs every three years while the other FBO’s are adjusted every five years. Coyote has been an excellent tenant, never a violation, never behind on rent.

Your constituents and I might reasonably assume that you were unaware of these facts, that someone else did your homework for you. If you knew all this information, however, and you still decided to terminate Coyote’s lease for other reasons, an explanation to the public would be illuminating.  There is, however, a big difference between a reason and an excuse.  To anyone aware of the facts, the use of  “late written renewal request” simply looks like an excuse to take the property of others who’ve worked to create and sustain it, especially when the City knew we were going to renew our lease as far back as January of 2020 (verified in e-mail exchanges.)

As a teacher, if ever I discovered a student had relied on someone else’s answers to complete homework, I’d say patiently, “Do it again, and this time do it yourself. You’ll learn far more that way.”  Then I’d lower the grade on the submission as a consequence.  I suspect someone else may have been doing your homework, representing Coyote’sinterests, but not to the benefit of Coyote. I imagine you are experiencing some consequences right now.  

I respectfully ask the City Council members to reexamine Coyote Aviation’s position, and well as the council’s reasons, motives, and excuses for terminating Coyote Aviation’s lease. In doing so, then you can actually say “I did my homework.”

May be an image of text that says 'PLEASE Save Coyote Aviation'

Posted in Airport News, Legislative Issues | 4 Comments

Great day for an airport breakfast!

Posted on November 22, 2020 by Cindy Gablin

We had a good turn out for a breakfast flyout this morning. Check out the motley crew from this morning.

A group of REI pilots meet each VFR Sunday morning to fly out to a local airport for breakfast. All are welcome! We meet at the REI lobby between 7 & 7:30 am to decide where we want to go. If you have questions send an email to redlands.airport.association@gmail.com

Posted in Social/Special Interest | Leave a comment

Update on California Bills SB 902 & SB 1120

Posted on September 3, 2020 by Ted Gablin

SB 1120 and SB 902 are being driven by developers, and if passed into law could have a very negative impact on general aviation airports in California.  These bills essentially strip local government of land-use planning and approvals in the name of “affordable” housing in the state. 

We heard that despite the last-minute oppositions by the aviation community, the bills were not stopped during committee review. Fortunately, both bills were not passed by the California assembly by the 8-31-20 legislative deadline. That date is the last day for each house in the California legislature to pass bills this year. So, these bills are dead for now. Unfortunately, there is a high probability they will be resurrected in next year’s CA legislative session which begins January 4, 2021.

Thank you to all that took the time to contact legislators to oppose these bills. At a minimum calling attention to the deficiencies in the bills could lead to amendments that maintain existing land use protection around airports. We will share any additional information we learn about these bills.

Posted in Legislative Issues | Leave a comment

Protect our California Airports! Help Oppose SB 1120 & SB 902

Posted on August 9, 2020 by Ted Gablin

Please see the email below and attachments we received from Melissa McCaffrey, AOPA.  This went to all AOPA members in California, but some of you may not have seen this or no longer belong to AOPA. Her request is important to share. Please take the time to contact your CA Assemblyman by email or phone no later than Monday 8-10 to oppose the bills she mentions.  Please see the instructions in her email. 

Redlands Airport is in CA Assembly Member Ramos district. As such, Melissa as asked us to contact him to oppose the bills. Some of you may reside in other CA assembly districts and you will need to contact your CA assembly member to do this. If you are not sure who that is, please use this link to contact your CA assembly member:  http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/  Please be sure to change the name in the email to your assembly members name. 

If you have questions, please contact us at redlands.airport.association@gmail.com 

From: McCaffrey, Melissa <Melissa.McCaffrey@aopa.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 12:56 PM
To: McCaffrey, Melissa <Melissa.McCaffrey@aopa.org>
Subject: Help AOPA Oppose SB 1120 and SB 902

Dear Redlands Pilots,

I hope this email find you well during these difficult times.  My name is Melissa McCaffrey and I manage Government Affairs issues in AOPAs Western Pacific Region, which includes lobbying for State level legislation affecting general aviation.  I am writing to ask for your help in our legislative effort opposing two bills that are being heard by a committee in the California Assembly on Tuesday, August 11th. 

I am asking that you contact your Assembly member, who has Redlands Municipal Airport in their district and ask them to OPPOSE SB 1120 and SB 902 and NOT support either bill passing through the Assembly Local Government Committee on August 11th.  Please tell the office that you are a constituent in the Assembly Members district. You can call the number below or copy the suggested text into an email.  Please reach out by the end of the day Monday, August 10th, the hearing will be held first thing in the morning on Tuesday, August 11th.

Why is this effort important to you as an AOPA member?  SB 1120 and SB 902 are being driven by developers, and if passed into law could have a very negative impact on general aviation airports in California.  These bills essentially strip local government of land-use planning and approvals in the name of “affordable” housing in the state.  More information on these bills is available here:  https://www.livablecalifornia.org/act-now-3-2/.  Please help us protect California general aviation airports that could be threatened – or even closed by housing development that is incompatible with airports.  We need you to take action to help us defeat the developer’s efforts in Sacramento!

Please take action to help us save California airports!

Call your Assembly Member by the end of the day on Monday, August 10th, and ask them to oppose SB 1120 and SB 902, both being heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee on August 11th.

Assembly Member James C. Ramos

Phone: (916) 319-2040

E-Mail: https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=AD40&inframe=Y

Please send an email using this suggested text and the email link above:  

Hello Assembly Member Ramos,

I am a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), a pilot and a constituent in your district.  AOPA is a not-for-profit member organization representing two thirds of all pilots in the United States, and over 36,000 members in the State of California.  I ask that you oppose SB 1120 and SB 902 passing through the Local Government Committee on August 11th. This is very important to pilots in California and I would appreciate your support.  Both SB 1120 and SB 902 would have serious negative consequences to airports across the State, including Redlands Municipal Airport.  Thank you for your consideration.

Join me on a conference call to learn more about SB 1120 and SB 902 and why we are opposing them.  I will host this Q&A session on Monday morning from 9:00am – 10:00am Pacific Time and will be happy to personally answer your questions.  I will be available for the full hour, so please join the call at any time.  

Join Microsoft Teams Meeting

+1 667-401-1062   United States, Baltimore (Toll)

Conference ID: 841 849 023#

Local numbers | Reset PIN | Learn more about Teams | Meeting options

I cannot stress enough how impactful strong community support is to legislators.  Your calls and emails WILL be heard by your Assembly member – even if you must leave a voice message!   AOPA is actively opposing these bills and I have already submitted AOPA position letters (attached) to the docket for the hearing on the 11th.

Thank you for your membership in AOPA and for your help in OPPOSING these bills.  Together, we can keep the future of general aviation airports in California bright!

Melissa McCaffrey

Government Affairs, Western Pacific

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association

o: 301-695-2228 | c: 386-366-1811

Posted in Legislative Issues | Leave a comment

Redlands Pilots Win Big @ EAA Poker Chip Run Fundraiser

Posted on July 25, 2020 by Ted Gablin

Twenty two aircraft participated today in the Poker Chip Run Fundraiser organized by EAA Chapter 1 & Flabob Airport. Nine of the aircraft with 17 participants were from REI. The REI pilots & crew collected cards and chips from EAA Chapter 845 at the REI lobby. After departing Redlands, they flew to Cable, Corona, French Valley, and ended up at Flabob for a nice lunch under the trees. It was nice to get out, up in the sky, and meet some wonderful people from all these airports. The total collected was $1100 with $550 donated to EAA Oshkosh. REI pilot Walt Ferar had the highest score and took home $320. Brandon Knight had the lowest score and took home $230. Everyone had an awesome time! Click the link for some photos of the EAA Poker Chip Event at Flabob.

Posted in Social/Special Interest | Leave a comment

Redlands Airport Re-striping Project Video

Posted on June 23, 2020 by Ted Gablin

It was finished ahead of schedule and with consideration of users. The contractor, PCI, did a short video of their crews in action during this three night project. The contractor did a great job. Thank you to the City of Redlands, the FAA and PCI for this maintenance project! Enjoy this video and music!

Posted in Airport News | Leave a comment