Those are the only aircraft configurations covered by the STC, but Swift says that’s only the beginning. The breakthrough was first reported by Aviation Week.

Swift Fuels is managing a comprehensive program targeting the global replacement for 100LL within three to five years, said Swift CEO Chris D’Acosta.

“Our 100R unleaded avgas product will be the preferred fuel to eliminate toxic lead from avgas,” D’Acosta said. “We are actively working with industry and OEMs on FAA-certifications and ASTM International specifications. Yes, the FAA recently approved a critical part of our engine and airframe (STC) certification program.  This follows a similar FAA/ ASTM approval pattern we architected for UL94 avgas over nine years ago.”

The 172s captured by the STC are the newest in the fleet. The R model was launched in 1996 as the first fuel-injected platform. It was produced through 2012, and the engine was limited to 2,400 rpm and produced 160 horsepower. The S model has the same engine, but its rpm limit is 2,600 and rated at 180 horsepower.

According to Lycoming’s service instruction, specifying approved fuels, that engine is the most flexible when it comes to what makes it go. In addition to 100LL and other 100 octane leaded aviation fuels, it can use 91 and 94UL aviation fuels and 93 AKI mogas.

D’Acosta did not specify what engine and airframe combinations might be next.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb

The post FAA Grants Swift Fuels STC for 100R Avgas appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

EVA Air and All Nippon Airways recently became the first Asian carriers to equip Boeing 777 freighters with the friction-reducing AeroShark surface film, following the footsteps of Lufthansa Cargo and Swiss International Air Lines.

All Nippon Airways said it began operating its first 777 freighter with the special coating on Sunday and plans to become the first airline to operate both freighter and passenger variants of the 777 with the AeroShark technology by next spring.

Lufthansa Technik, a provider of maintenance and other technical services for commercial aircraft, developed AeroShark with German chemical and coating manufacturer BASF to address the need for more sustainable air transport. The nearly invisible coating is designed to be weather-resistant and simple to apply.

Aircraft surfaces are exposed to UV radiation as well as temperature and pressure fluctuations at high altitudes that can alter smoothness. The low-friction film consists of riblets—small protrusions measuring about 50 micrometers or 0.002 inches—that imitate the hydrodynamic properties of sharkskin and allow air to flow more smoothly over the aircraft during flight. The subsidiary of Deutsche Lufthansa AG estimates the riblet film, which is applied to most of the fuselage and engine nacelles during scheduled maintenance layovers, reduces drag by about 1 percent.

The sharkskin modification’s ability to reduce friction and emissions is slightly better on cargo than on passenger aircraft because the film is applied to a greater area due to the absence of windows, according to BASF.

An All Nippon Airways maintenance contractor applied the specialty film to the 777 freighter, which the airline says will reduce fuel use by 275 tons and greenhouse gas emissions by 881 tons per year. ANA said it will evaluate the real-world effectiveness of the technology in daily operations before deciding whether to expand its use to other 777 aircraft in the fleet.

Taiwan-based EVA Air has signed up to add the low-friction film to its entire fleet of nine 777 cargo jets by 2027, Lufthansa Technik announced late last month. The first aircraft was modified by EVA Air’s affiliate, Evergreen Aviation Technologies, under close supervision and is expected to reenter commercial service early this month. EVA Air expects to save more than 2,750 tons of jet fuel and about 8,600 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year once the entire fleet is retrofitted.

Lufthansa Cargo, which operates 18 B777 cargo jets, was the first to adopt the sharkskin technology in 2023. It has modified five 777 freighters so far and plans to gradually apply the coating to the remaining fleet by 2027, spokesman Jan Paulin said. Lufthansa Cargo has previously said that it will save more than 4,400 tons of jet fuel per year across its entire 777 fleet, which corresponds to about 53 cargo flights from its base in Frankfurt, Germany, to Shanghai.

Swiss International Air Lines, also part of the Lufthansa Group, in May finished equipping all 12 of its Boeing 777-300 extended-range passenger jets with AeroShark technology. It is considering applying the film to other long-haul aircraft in its fleet, according to the May edition of the airline’s magazine. Last month, Austrian Airlines, another Lufthansa subsidiary, announced it will be the first airline to outfit Boeing 777-200 extended-range passenger aircraft with the surface technology. A total of four 777-200s will receive the application, starting in December. 

There are 19 total aircraft operating with the sharkskin technology in worldwide service.

Lufthansa Technik says it takes about a week to apply the transparent film to an aircraft. The company has regulatory approval to modify two types of Boeing 777 airframes with the AeroShark coating. It plans to seek change certification for additional aircraft types as well as the ability to apply the technology to even larger surface areas, such as the wings, which it claims could further reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on FreightWaves.

The post Sharkskin System Used to Reduce Drag of 777 Cargo Jets appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Last week’s blog was more of an update on progress so far on the replacement of 100LL with unleaded high-octane aviation fuels. In the comments section, a reader who uses the title BestGlideSpeed gave a long list of questions and criticisms of General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s (GAMI’s) G100UL.

Many of the points made by BestGlideSpeed have been made by others, and somes we haven’t heard before. GAMI founder and chief engineer George Braly has addressed them in a point-by-point response to the post.

His intent was to post it as a reply to BestGlideSpeed in the comment section, but he agreed to allow us to run it as this week’s AVweb Insider. Here is his intended reply without any editing except to add formatting to make the replies distinct from the assertions made by BestGlideSpeed.

We at AVweb believe this to be the fundamental issue affecting the future of light aviation, and we welcome all comments made with the good faith intention of furthering the discussion. That means we’re inviting any of the players and stakeholders in this issue to use this space to make their views known, with the knowledge that whatever they put forth is open to rebuttal and debate.

Some of what Braly has to say is provocative, and we expect it to bring reaction. Let’s have it.

Russ Niles, AVweb editor-in-chief

BestGlideSpeed posted the long message critical of G100UL Avgas, which is requoted below. On behalf of GAMI, I (George Braly, head of engineering) am commenting on his message. 

                                              ************

I’m not certain if this is a news story, or if Russ just enjoys throwing rocks at a hornets’ nests to see all of the commenters get riled up. At this point no news is simply, well, no news. As an engineer developing new products for market, I understand that a typical, successful development project always includes the following:

1.   Unrealistic demands of what the new product must be able to do.

Not in the case of G100UL. The original design criteria, set out in writing to the FAA in the spring of 2011, were each fully met, and even exceeded.

2.   A never ending system of hurry up and wait. 

Yes. There has been a lot FAA imposed “waiting” and not a lot of “hurry up”

• READ MORE: GAMI Responds To Cirrus G100UL Service Advisory

3.   Unrealistic demands that after everyone sat on their hands burning up the clock, you must now save everyone else’s bacon and get the ball across the finish line in record time.   

No such urgency from the FAA has yet come to light.

4.   Individuals who have no understanding of the science, industry, or use case are the ones setting the project priorities.  

There has, at times, been some of that from the FAA. But mostly the impediments have been designed by the proponents to simply slow the G100UL avgas project down or to stop it, completely.

5.   Self interested individuals continually ignore realities and proclaim “just go with my favorite answer now” because the unresolved concerns fall outside of their very limited set of priorities.  

A lot of that very recently with respect to the coverage of the last 2 percent of the fleet of aircraft—rotorcraft.

6.   The list goes on ad nauseam—and that is when things go well.   

Things went “well” from 2012 to 2015. Then stagnated for four years.  Then went backwards for 6 months. Then, beginning in July, 2020, the Washington AIR-1 assigned a really GREAT new team of engineers and we managed to finish the project in 24 months.

A project that the government gave 10 years to resolve is only four years along. 

The scope of that government project included TWO PATHWAYS TO SUCCESS:  a) The PAFI / EAGLE project and b) The STC pathway. The second of those two pathways is now a resounding success with every single spark ignition engine in the FAA database approved to use G100UL Avgas. No exceptions!

• READ MORE: GAMI’s G100UL Unleaded Fuel Successfully Powers Historic WWII Aircraft

From my perspective, I am impressed with the progress that has been made in that amount of time.    

Respectfully, I would suggest that almost no person in the FAA who is not financially or career “motivated” with affiliation to the manifestly failed PAFI / EAGLE program would agree with you. The taxpayers have spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on the failed UL AvGas/PAFI/EAGLE programs over the last 20 years. The taxpayers have absolutely ZERO to show for that expenditure. Ronald Reagan once observed that there is nothing that lasts so long in Washington as a “temporary program.” 

The fact that Russ is proclaiming all to be lost and we need a complete reboot with the FAA jack boot on the neck of fuel manufacturers to obtain it is just adding himself to the list as another obstacle to getting anything done.

On the contrary. Russ’ observations, and Paul Bertorelli’s from 18 months ago, are precisely on point.

• READ MORE: Stains Reported on Wing of AOPA Aircraft Fueled by GAMI G100UL

I give kudos to at least one organization being honest enough to say that a “drop-in” replacement is not possible. 

That statement calls to mind the old Chinese Proverb: One should not tell the Chinaman that he cannot do something he has already done! A full “drop-in” replacement has already been approved by the FAA. Any statement to the contrary is either based on a lack of knowledge, or some hugely contorted definition of the phrase “drop-in” to mean something very different than the meaning given to that term by the FAA and most other participants.

To accept that statement we have to understand what a “drop-in” replacement entails. It is easy to say “I fly behind a Jabiru engine and I don’t need the same octane as some of the big block engines, so let’s just go with XXX”, but that is not a drop-in replacement for the industry. Whatever replacement we ultimately come to will be a system of compromises. 

There is no compromise with the use of G100UL Avgas. In fact, G100UL Avgas is able to allow enhanced performance of the existing fleet of high powered radial engines—by allowing those engines to be up-rated in BHP back to their original war time military ratings.

Some of us will come out of this perfectly pleased, and some of us will be left out in the cold.

No one is left out in the cold—except the major producers of 100LL who have tried to obstruct and delay any development of a “drop-in” replacement for 100LL.

Consider: GAMI’s fuel is not approved for rotary wing. You cannot get rid of 100LL and leave all of the rotary wing aircraft grounded. News helicopters, med-evac, offshore platform, 

Wrong. Every single rotary wing [gasoline] engine is already approved for use with G100UL Avgas. Robinson Helicopter (which makes 80 percent of all of the helicopters) has fully tested G100UL avgas using their independent test protocols that they developed for their testing of PAFI/EAGLE fuels. Robinson has told GAMI that G100UL Avgas is the only unleaded fuel to ever pass their rigorous flight test helicopter profile.  Robinson has written a complete engineering report and that has been submitted to the FAA to facilitate the early addition of the rotorcraft airframes (the engines are already approved) to the Approved Model List.

. . . the list goes on and on.  [If the “list goes on….” Then, please, send me an email and let me know what other items are “on the list.” gwbraly@gami.com.

GAMI’s fuel is approved by the FAA via STC—this approval only means that if I fly a certificated fixed wing aircraft, I am allowed to use it and not get busted by the FAA.   

That is false. The FAA approval means the FAA has found the use of G100UL Avgas to be equally safe, or actually safer than the use of 100LL.  Their words were:  “… as good as or better” than 100LL.

It is not an industry approval, and it by no means is a blanket mandate, indemnification, or adoption. 

There is no such thing as an “industry approval.” Period. Parade Rest.  Nor has there ever been. The purpose of an ASTM specification (by its own terms, in paragraph 1.1, is to facilitate the sale and purchase of 100LL by “purchasing agents.”

It is not approved by the engine manufacturers, it is not approved by the airframe manufacturers,    

Actually, Cirrus has fully tested G100UL Avgas. Recently, the senior manager at Cirrus has told his staff and has told one of the industry groups that “Cirrus has no technical objection” to the use of G100UL Avgas.” 

… it is not approved by the insurance companies.   

Wow. What complete nonsense! You have been reading too many “statements” from Curt Castagna at NATA. 

FACT:  Each of the major distributors has directly advised GAMI directly, that they have obtained the same product liability insurance for their sale of G100UL Avgas as they have for 100LL. Two years ago, the insurers told one of the two largest distributors the following (at Lloyds, in London): “If the FAA approves G100UL Avgas, then Lloyds will insure it.  No additional charge for the premium. FURTHER MORE, Vitol Aviation was able to add G100UL Avgas to its policy with no increase in premium.

… , and it is not approved by the fuel distributors/sellers.  

Actually, each of the major distributors has reviewed the G100UL Avgas FAA approved specification and told GAMI that they had no objection to that specification. Note, distributors and sellers do not approve or disapprove of fuels. And none of them have stated to GAMI that they have any reason to ‘disapprove’ of G100UL Avgas.

The FAA has no authority to mandate via STC that Lycoming engines must run on GAMI fuel that distributors must sell it, and insurance companies must indemnify it. The STC only gives permission to the pilot to buy it.

Correct. Nor does the FAA mandate that Lycoming must approve the use of 100LL or UL94 or UL82. THAT is not the FAA’s job.

We have one fuel that proclaims itself the elixir of all aviation engines, but refuses to allow the industry to examine it. 

WRONG. Wrong, again. And Again. From your series of false statements, it appears that you may be reading too many press releases from NATA and GAMA, and similar organizations. GAMI has in fact allowed the industry to examine G100UL avgas. Lycoming and Continental have each sent engineers to GAMI and have flown G100UL avgas and compared it back to back with 100LL and have each stated to GAMI that they cannot tell the difference in operation when compared to the use of 100LL.

We have another manufacturer that says we are working on the best solution we can, but there is no silver bullet and our solution will not be a drop-in replacement for 100LL. We have a third that is working on it but is keeping their efforts close to the vest.  

That would be LyondellBasel/VP Racing and Swift Fuel. Both of the sponsors of each of those two fuels have acknowledged, publicly, that neither of those two fuels will be able to be used on the higher performance portion of the fleet (8.5:1 CR N.A. engines and turbocharged engines) without substantial engine modifications and/or limitations added to the operating instructions.

I doubt that GAMI’s fuel is as perfect as they claim. 

GAMI has never claimed it is “perfect.” Please do not make false accusations.

There are too many red flags. In the end, there will be compromises.

Please elaborate and identify the “red flags” and the necessary “compromises” which you, in good faith, believe to exist?

We may need to move to multiple fuels to provide a simple well performing fuel to those who do not need such high octane, and a “compromise” version of 100LL that the EPA can live with in smaller quantities for the larger engines, rotary wing engines, and any others that absolutely require the higher octane.

We may need to choose a boutique fuel that gets us most of the way there, but only after modifications to the engines that require higher octane.

The thought embodied in the previous two paragraphs may well be some of the worst proposals and/or concepts for a “solution” to the TEL lead problem ever articulated in public. Either or both would be a disaster for general aviation piston powered aircraft owners.

Likely, we will need to kick the can down the road and extend the 10 years. The amount of lead contributed to the environment by aviation fuel is infinitesimally small when compared to the world’s annual consumption of lead—so small that is not measurable in the environment.

Yes, the lead contribution is small. But continuing to be a “lead denier” will likely not work out well. In addition, the benefits we have all enjoyed in the automotive world from getting rid of the lead will also take place in aircraft engines. Double or triple the oil change intervals.  No more routine cleaning of spark plugs. Likely, in our future, greatly extended TBOs. All of those are likely to occur.

There is no perfect solution, and typically it is not the first suitor to knock on your door. We have 10 years to fully develop every option and then make a well informed decision about the compromises that we will need to make as an industry.

Respectfully, if you think the States of California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Wisconsin, New York, and a number of others are going to wait more than another 12 to 24 months, then you are not well informed with the activity going on in those states.

For those who want to see GAMI be central to that solution, my recommendation is that GAMI take advantage of the next few years to continue to perfect their product and completely satisfy the testing requirements of every industry group out there. 

A) No “industry group” has even come to GAMI to make any suggestion for any further “testing”. B) Please provide some details as to what aspect of G100UL you believe needs to be improved upon?

They should resolve the limitation that excluded rotary wing. 

The addition of helicopters to the AML STC is nearly completed. See the previous comments on that subject about Robinson.

They should be testing their fuel with Lycoming, with Continental, with Jabiru, with Rotax, with ASTM, with Cessna, and with Piper.   

G100UL Avgas has already been rigorously tested to the FAA’s highest standards. Lycoming and Continental have both tested G100UL and found no deficiencies. Nor have they pointed out any to GAMI.  

NOW HEAR THIS: ASTM DOES NOT TEST FUEL! ASTM considers testing done by fuel sponsors—just like the FAA—and then only writes a specification. Which is not approval to even put one drop of fuel in the wing of an aircraft.

They should include representatives of insurers and distributors in those efforts.    

GAMI has done that for distributors. Insurers do not get involved in any such activity. Where on earth did you come up with THAT concept?

Sitting on their secret formula and saying “we don’t trust anyone” is doing themselves no favors while their competitors work diligently for a solution that the industry can openly embrace.

Obviously, once again in the long series in this response, you are not well informed. The complete specification for G100UL Avgas, Revision-12C9 has been posted on GAMI’s web site www.g100ul.com and, more specifically, https://www.g100ul.com/faq#specification since before Oshkosh. In addition, any of the distributors and/or OEMs that has asked to see that document have been furnished that document, over the course of the last several years.

The post GAMI Answers G100UL Criticisms, Point By Point appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Baron is being used as a test bed to compare the performance of General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s (GAMI’s) G100UL unleaded avgas with 100LL. The stains are on the wing with the tank holding G100UL, but it has not been determined that they came from the fuel.

• READ MORE: GAMI Responds to Cirrus G100UL Service Advisory

“We have scheduled a mechanic to determine the cause of the leak coming from the left wing of the Baron, which should happen in the next few days,” AOPA senior vice president for media Kollin Stagnito told AVweb. “We are not yet sure what the substance is, nor where it is coming from.”

Word of the stains has been a hot topic on various forums, and speculation is rampant as to their cause.

• READ MORE: Unleaded Fuel Debate Heats Up in Oshkosh

GAMI chief engineer George Braly told AVweb the cause is most likely a faulty or improperly installed fuel cell bladder or patch inside the bladder. Braly said the bladders in the Baron may be more than 40 years old. He said G100UL has been tested for compatibility with the bladder material and there were no problems. He also added that fuel bladder leaks are a relatively common issue with Barons.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post Stains Reported on Wing of AOPA Aircraft Fueled by GAMI G100UL appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to the company, United will take delivery of up to 1 million gallons of Neste MY SAFE in 2024 with the first load arriving in August.

• READ MORE: Signature Aviation Pumping Blended SAF at LAX Terminal

SAF is an alternative to conventional jet fuel designed to be more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel. Created from renewable resources, such as reclaimed cooking oil and feed stocks, it can reduce carbon emissions by up to 85 percent on a lifecycle basis, according to Neste. SAF can be used in unmodified aircraft engines and fuel delivery systems

United is a chief advocate for legislation to grow the SAF market. The airline has been instrumental in helping secure SAF tax credits in Illinois, as well as Washington, Colorado, and California that encourage airports to purchase SAF.

• READ MORE: Boeing Ready to Buy 7.5 Million Gallons of SAF

United is one of the founders of the SAF Coalition, which is described as a consortium of more than 40 airlines, aircraft operators, agricultural enterprises, aircraft and aircraft equipment manufacturers, airports, technology developers, labor unions, and biofuel producers. Its mission is to expand the use of SAF and reduce the reliance on fossil fuels.

In addition to Chicago, the airline has now purchased SAF for airports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, and Amsterdam.

“I’m pleased to see United Airlines making this significant move forward by using sustainable aviation fuel daily in flights from O’Hare,” U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said in a statement. “One of the most important things we can do to make American aviation more sustainable is increase the supply of SAF. At the federal level, I’ve been pushing for the increased use of SAF, and I’m going to keep pushing to increase the supply of American-grown, American-made SAF, a true win-win solution that supports domestic farmers and blenders while reducing our nation’s carbon footprint.”

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker echoed the enthusiasm, noting that KORD is one of the busiest hub airports in the United States.

“Illinois’ position as a hub of innovation with some of the most connected airports in the country perfectly aligns with the work of companies like United to build a more sustainable future for travel and reach our shared goal of zero emissions,” Pritzker said.

United Airlines president Brett Hart said tax incentives in Illinois made SAF availability at the airport possible.

“While the market for SAF is still in its infancy, there is a huge opportunity today for airlines and policymakers to work together to support its continued growth,” Hart said.

SAF purchased for United’s fleet is paid for in part through the company’s Eco-Skies Alliance, which allows participating companies to share the “green premium,” or the cost associated with purchasing lower-emission fuels. Since 2021, the alliance has collectively contributed toward the purchase of more than 10.5 million gallons of SAF, according to the company.

The post United Turns to SAF at Chicago O’Hare appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

During the public comment period after formal presentations, Tim Roehl, president of General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI), challenged a couple of points made during the presentations of members and support staff from the End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions. He told the crowd—smaller than in previous years—that contrary to assertions made during the formal part of the forum, GAMI’s G100UL is indeed ready for distribution and sale.

Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative member Pete Bunce, president of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), stood up and dismissed Roehl’s assertion.

“I totally disagree, but that’s a discussion for another day,” said Bunce.

• READ MORE: GAMI’s G100UL Unleaded Fuel Successfully Powers Historic WWII Aircraft

In earlier comments, Bunce said his organization remains adamant that any new fuel will be approved through “transparency and a peer reviewed process,” which has traditionally been done through ASTM International.

“Transparency is so absolutely vital for us,” said Bunce.

Refiner Vitol Aviation has 1.3 million gallons of G100UL in tanks in Louisiana and says it has been completely vetted as ready for sale through its supplemental type certificate (STC). GAMI and Vitol have consistently said the FAA approval of an STC covering all gasoline engines on the agency’s registry satisfies all the regulatory and safety requirements to begin retail distribution of the fuel, but there are critics who contend it needs a consensus standard determined by an independent organization like ASTM to satisfy concerns about materials compatibility.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) president Mark Baker said his organization is using G100UL in a Beech Baron it operates and, based on the 200 hours of experience with the fuel, “GAMI is as good or better” than 100LL. He also said the process has to “move forward” to get the correct fuel.

• READ MORE: Cirrus Service Advisory Throws Fuel on G100UL Maintenance Debate

The balance of the meeting was a reiteration of the stated goals of EAGLE, which increasingly has become focused on maintaining the supply of 100LL. The existence of the commercial quantity of G100UL has prompted politicians in California and Colorado to try to ban 100LL in favor of filling airport tanks with G100UL. Legislative and legal initiatives in both states are moving through their respective processes.

Meanwhile, testing of the last remaining candidate under the congressionally mandated Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI) is slowly progressing at the FAA’s Atlantic City, New Jersey, test facility.

About 23 percent of materials compliance testing, 25 percent of durability testing, and a few percent of several other categories have been done on Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing’s entry. It’s also been fully tested on the airframe of a Lancair Legacy and on a Continental TSIO 550K engine.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post Unleaded Fuel Debate Heats Up in Oshkosh appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The aircraft took off from Ada Regional Airport (KADH) in Oklahoma and flew over Lake Atoka during the 60-minute flight. According to GAMI, the warbird’s 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine is the most powerful to fly on the G100UL fuel.

• READ MORE: GAMI Responds to Cirrus G100UL Service Advisory

“This big-bore radial engine operating at up to 48-inch MP demonstrates the excellent high-octane performance of the G100UL high octane unleaded avgas,” GAMI said in a statement. “The ability to successfully operate this engine as such on an unleaded fuel supports the continued operation of these and many other warbirds well into the future.”

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post GAMI’s G100UL Unleaded Fuel Successfully Powers Historic WWII Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

SAF is made from sustainably sourced, 100 percent renewable waste and residue raw materials, such as used cooking oil, and feedstocks. Neste MY SAF meets ASTM D-1655 specification for conventional jet fuel and performance standards under all operating conditions.

Industry officials note this makes SAF an optimum solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from air travel without requiring new investments or modifications to aircraft or fuel infrastructure.

Embraer began using SAF in its operation at KMLB in 2021 when Avfuel would deliver one 8,000-gallon truckload of Neste MY SAF per quarter to Sheltair, the executive level FBO that supports Embraer operations.

• READ MORE: Boeing Ready to Buy 7.5 Million Gallons of SAF

“Sheltair is excited to support Embraer by handling and storing these SAF deliveries, ” said Leonel Rivera, senior vice president of FBO operations for Sheltair. “This collaboration between Sheltair, Embraer, and Avfuel shows our commitment to reaching the industry’s goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. By combining our knowledge and resources, we will be able to handle and store weekly fuel deliveries of SAF.”

According to a statement from Embraer, the once-a-week delivery began in April. The extended partnership is expected to result in a total of 240,000 U.S. gallons of SAF delivered to Embraer in 2024, representing a significant increase when compared to previous years. According to the company, each truckload will provide a 19 metric ton reduction in carbon emissions, resulting in a 570 metric ton reduction in carbon emissions for the year.

With its fleet of business aircraft including the Phenom 100EX, Phenom 300E, and the Praetor 500 and the Praetor 600, Embraer has been serving the needs of the corporate traveling community for more than 50 years.

• READ MORE: United Turns to Oscar the Grouch to Spread SAF Awareness

“Embraer’s collaboration with Avfuel and Sheltair marks a pivotal milestone in our journey toward net-zero emission flight operations,” said Michael Amalfitano, president and CEO of Embraer Executive Jets. “Our continued investment in SAF demonstrates our dedication to reducing emissions today and driving the industry closer to the net-zero aviation goal by 2050.” 

The post Embraer Partners With Avfuel to Increase SAF Use in Orlando appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Oscar, well-known for his affinity for trash, has been dubbed United’s chief trash officer and is helping the airline educate the public about sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). 

SAF is made primarily of waste products, such as used cooking oil and agricultural waste feedstocks. According to United, it can be used in combination with conventional fuel in aircraft in accordance with current blending requirements, resulting in lower carbon dioxide emissions.

• READ MORE: Biden Administration Defines ‘Climate-Smart’ SAF Subsidy Program

“SAF is one of the ways we’re planning to reduce our carbon footprint across United’s fleet,” the company said. “Investing in and using more SAF across the entire airline industry will help fly us all toward a lower carbon future.”

Since SAF is basically created from garbage, it made sense to have a trash expert like Oscar to be the company spokesperson for the effort.

• READ MORE: Boeing Ready to Buy 7.5 Million Gallons of SAF

The Muppets are an ensemble cast of puppet characters created in the 1960s by Jim Henson and Jon Stone. Oscar is a fluffy green creature with bushy dark eyebrows that gave him a permanent scowl. He spends most of his time seated in a garbage can and extolling the virtues of trash.

• READ MORE: Signature Aviation Pumping Blended SAF at LAX Terminal

United has several short videos starring Oscar the Grouch, beginning with one that shows how he saw a newspaper advertisement for a chief trash officer. With his 30-plus years of experience, how could he miss?

In other videos he plays opposite actual United employees who are excited about the use of SAF at the airline. He interacts with flight crews, sends junk mail to everyone in the world to let them know about United’s plans to power its airplanes on fuel made from waste materials. In another, he has a Zoom meeting with a Generation Z coworker with a sunny and upbeat disposition who wants to know how to spread the word that United is committed to lowering its carbon emissions by using SAF.

The campaign marks the latest SAF initiative for the airline. In February, Embraer announced it would join United Airlines Ventures’ Sustainable Flight Fund, an investment program aimed at increasing the supply of SAF through investment in related startup companies. The airline and its 22 corporate partners have committed more than $200 million to invest in companies working to decarbonize air travel. 

The post United Turns to Oscar the Grouch to Spread SAF Awareness appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“This is a transformative time for Signature, and our partnership with Neste is helping us take another significant step towards net zero by providing a 100 percent supply of blended SAF at our Los Angeles location,” said Derek DeCross, chief commercial officer at Signature Aviation. “This collaboration exemplifies how we’re working together with both our guests and our partners to accelerate the adoption of environmentally friendly practices and paving the way for a more sustainable future in aviation.”

• READ MORE: Boeing Ready to Buy 7.5 Million Gallons of SAF

The blended SAF offering provided by Signature at its LAX location includes 30 percent of Neste MY SAF and 70 percent conventional jet fuel, enabling partners to achieve a 24 percent decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from air travel. SAF is approved for use blended up to 50 percent with conventional jet fuel.

Neste’s SAF is made from sustainably sourced, 100 percent renewable waste and residue raw materials, such as used cooking oil and animal fat waste. 

Signature and Neste have been in a partnership since 2020 designed to help accelerate the industry’s adoption of SAF. Signature plans to expand the availability of Neste MY SAF to the rest of its California locations. Neste is expanding its SAF production capability to 515 million gallons of SAF annually in 2024 to meet the growing demand.

Signature said it recently passed the 30 million-gallon mark in terms of total SAF delivered throughout its network, describing it as a substantial leap toward reducing carbon emissions and helping the aviation industry reach net zero by 2050.

• READ MORE: Business Aviation Industry Groups Aim to Speed Adoption of SAF

“We are proud to continue expanding our collaboration with committed partners like Signature Aviation, who recognize the key role sustainable aviation fuel can play in reducing GHG emissions from air travel,” said Carrie Song, senior vice president of commercial renewable products at Neste. “Offering blended Neste MY Sustainable Aviation Fuel to all of its customers at LAX is a shining example of how the business aviation community can work together with fuel producers to accelerate SAF adoption and emission reductions.”

The transition to SAF at KLAX was completed on April 1. It is the second location on the West Coast to offer the more environmentally friendly fuel. The first Signature location to provide SAF was San Francisco International Airport (KSFO).

In addition, the growth in SAF availability at Signature LAX will also expand the location’s role as a key component in Signature’s book-and-claim program. Under the program, travelers and operators are able to purchase SAF in areas where it isn’t physically available.

“When an operator utilizes book and claim, they are able to claim the environmental benefit, while the physical SAF is provided for different aircraft at Signature LAX,” Signature said.

The post Signature Aviation Pumping Blended SAF at LAX Terminal appeared first on FLYING Magazine.