That would be a wholly unintended side effect, given that the two likely exporters would be
The following, partly from Warter Fuels, appeared on a German site:
So there is an interesting way forward: use TEL at a % below the EU prohibition threshold, and add other stuff, but the “other stuff” is needed at a much lower % than if there was no TEL.
Well there are refineries in the U.K., aren’t there? So why should not one of these mix AVGAS for a day or two to produce enough for Europe. It still is only about money, and whenever profit may be achieved (in particular higher profit than with other fuels) there’s someone who does the job.
I am sure Warter are on the case, but they weren’t talking 
So instead of pulling their fingers out and finally certifying unleaded fuel for those engines, they will do whatever they can to keep Avgas going, no matter at what price? Yes, this figures.
Why was it possible to do a blanket STC for UL91 for all the engines and airplane types it got done and not for UL100 or whatever the replacement is?
TEL is something which finally should disappear. UL fuels could be refined just about in any refinery as long as there is no TEL needed, but keeping some refining capacity only for Avgas will mean, Avgas will become a comodity and get really expensive for the manufacturing cost.
It is high time to cut through the red tape, but seeing how this doesn’t also work in other regards, I have little faith. So it’s going to be AVGAS done someplace at a high price until everyone who needs it throws aviation away.
Well, thankfully my engine is just fine on UL91.
Why was it possible to do a blanket STC for UL91 for all the engines and airplane types it got done and not for UL100 or whatever the replacement is?
That is NOT an STC! That is only an airlaw clearance that nobody will get fined using UL91 in the engines in question. The CS-STAN approach to enable use of UL91/UL94 does have some negative impact, as it does not cover any liability of EASA for damages caused, or better any maintenance organization and engine overhaul station is out of liability, because it remains ‘use of not by vendor approved fuel’.
MichaLSA wrote:
as it does not cover any liability of EASA for damages caused
Why would one use some bad fuel in their engines? Or fuel they are not comfortable with using? (even if it’s approved by EASA)
If EASA says fish & chips oil is approved for DA40+IO360, I will not use it as the engine will not like it, I would use UL91 if approved for engine even if DA40 does not allow it, I have used it in DR400 what can go wrong?
Engine vs Airframe approval, EASA vs FAA approval are real piece of theater…pure paperwork, it’s like ‘UL91’ sticker on your wing, if you don’t have it the aircraft can’t fly
We live in a era where paper rules over reality … What SB was it of Cessna where they stated ‘we give a damn what EASA legally allows, our airframes are not meant to be operated like that’?
Ibra wrote:
Engine vs Airframe approval, EASA vs FAA approval are real piece of theater…pure paperwork, it’s like ‘UL91’ sticker on your wing, if you don’t have it the aircraft can’t fly
If you read anything about the EAA and Petersen programs to generate FAA STCs for Auto Fuel starting in 1964, culminating in a more focused test program and STC awards in the 1980s, you’ll understand that this is not the case. Each airframe type was tested through a standard test protocol, some passed and some didn’t. If my memory serves some were passed with minor mods. What is true is that 100LL with the lead removed (91UL) is likely to be no issue when tested on any airframe that otherwise uses 100LL, and that if the engine manufacturer has also (by test) been able to add 91UL to the Engine TC referenced list of approved fuels, then the airframe type specific STC process should go much smoother than for the successful Auto Fuel STC programs of the 1980s. 100UL may I suppose be a bit more challenging in that its a chemically different fuel than 100LL, more like Auto Fuel STC testing in that regard.
If the engine likes it, there is rarely any issue with airframes, there are bits here and there about fuel pipes and long-term storage and how far you are away from the ground, I am sure on all air-frames that have two separate tanks one with Avags for takeoff & landing or hot & high cruise while the other tank has Mogas for low altitude cold cruise would pass all the tests…it will be tricky to certify some airframes even if their engines can run on Mogas at sea level as the airframe is certified to operate IFR+Night at 20kft ceilings with ISA+30deg at sea level and the manufacturer/regulator are not bullish to sign-off on that
There are good reasons why manufacturers & regulators are skeptical to planket airframe approvals but those associated corners of flight envelope are rarely explored
