For some reason, the link is not working at 2:34pm 12/17 2024 on more than one device.
Plenty of discussion on the web about it though. If you are using UL94, look for additional information from the aircraft manufacturers and/or the engine manufacturers in the future.
Regards,
Mike
Michael Jay Jones (MikeJJ),
Cessna Owners Aviation Director, Forum Moderator, Author
from NASA CALLBACK 539, December 2024 in my email inbox this morning: Part 91 – Mechanically Speaking
This FBO repair facility Aviation Maintenance Technician reported a serious safety issue. The investigation and level of concern clearly indicate superior professional dedication to the safety of flight and aviation itself.
■ Increased frequency of maintenance [is] required on carburetors and fuel injector systems due to suspected cadmium particulate matter being found in float bowls, fuel injector nozzles, fuel screens, and fuel jets. This impacts fuel flow and metering, impacting engine performance due to restriction of fuel flow. This phenomenon was observed on aircraft during unscheduled maintenance due to complaints of loss of power and also during routine scheduled maintenance. Particulate accumulation [was] also found in check valves, auxiliary fuel pumps and mechanical engine pumps. Clumps and screen obstruction [were] observed. This has been observed over the past four months, since aircraft started using Unleaded 94 Octane (UL94). The exact source of the cadmium is not definitively determined at this time. We suspect the cadmium is held in suspension in the fuel, and in addition to accumulating and clogging the fuel system, some particles are entering the combustion chamber with unknown impacts on cylinders, valves, and exhaust systems. A simple experiment was conducted. Aviation cadmium bolts were placed in [100 Octane Low Lead] 100LL and UL94 for a few hours. The bolts in 100LL remained intact with no change. The bolts in UL94 showed flaking with particles suspended in the fuel, sparkling. Cleaning of all fuel parts in the fuel systems clears the problem, but it reappears. We are concerned since we have limited experience with UL94 and have not seen anything like this in our careers, which total over 50 years together as A&P and IA [Inspection Authority Mechanics].
On December 16, 2024, ASRS CALL Back 539 reported an incident that originated from an FBO repair facility in March of 2023. I immediately contacted NASA / ASRS to clarify as follows:
On April 14, 2023 (20-months ago), the FAA contacted Swift Fuels about an isolated issue that seemed to involve UL94 and Cadmium bolts. However, upon detailed investigation it was discovered that an FBO / carburetor repair shop was NOT actually using UL94 -- instead they were buying an off-airfield "pale yellow" autogas which was priced cheaper. It was never determined if the bolts in question were actually plated with Cadmium or possible just painted to look like Cadmium - Swift requested samples of the bolts but never received them. The incident was discussed with the repair station manager on April 18, 2023 and they retracted their erroneous claim at that time. The local airfield fuel truck moving (boot-leg) autogas to the repair station was reprimanded for violating airfield policy. A formal incident report was issued to the FAA in Washington DC along with photo evidence that UL94 does not harm Cadmium -- and the matter was closed.
Bottom line: Neither 100LL nor UL94 will harm cadmium bolts. Furthermore, every batch of UL94 includes an ASTM D130 copper strip corrosion test result (No 1 max) to confirm that aircraft metals are not impacted and do not react to our unleaded avgas.
Based upon all the facts I submitted, I requested NASA / ASRS to issue a retraction on the misleading story three days ago.
So will the person that wrote the story for the ASRS CallBack be reprimanded or fired for publishing a wrong, injurious story.
We have enough 'stress' in getting UL aviation fuels approved and distributed, so incorrectly blaming a UL fuel of causing problems is a serious error.
Comments
For some reason, the link is not working at 2:34pm 12/17 2024 on more than one device.
Plenty of discussion on the web about it though. If you are using UL94, look for additional information from the aircraft manufacturers and/or the engine manufacturers in the future.
Regards,
Mike
from NASA CALLBACK 539, December 2024 in my email inbox this morning: Part 91 – Mechanically Speaking
This FBO repair facility Aviation Maintenance Technician reported a serious safety issue. The investigation and level of concern clearly indicate superior professional dedication to the safety of flight and aviation itself.
■ Increased frequency of maintenance [is] required on carburetors and fuel injector systems due to suspected cadmium particulate matter being found in float bowls, fuel injector nozzles, fuel screens, and fuel jets. This impacts fuel flow and metering, impacting engine performance due to restriction of fuel flow. This phenomenon was observed on aircraft during unscheduled maintenance due to complaints of loss of power and also during routine scheduled maintenance. Particulate accumulation [was] also found in check valves, auxiliary fuel pumps and mechanical engine pumps. Clumps and screen obstruction [were] observed. This has been observed over the past four months, since aircraft started using Unleaded 94 Octane (UL94). The exact source of the cadmium is not definitively determined at this time. We suspect the cadmium is held in suspension in the fuel, and in addition to accumulating and clogging the fuel system, some particles are entering the combustion chamber with unknown impacts on cylinders, valves, and exhaust systems. A simple experiment was conducted. Aviation cadmium bolts were placed in [100 Octane Low Lead] 100LL and UL94 for a few hours. The bolts in 100LL remained intact with no change. The bolts in UL94 showed flaking with particles suspended in the fuel, sparkling. Cleaning of all fuel parts in the fuel systems clears the problem, but it reappears. We are concerned since we have limited experience with UL94 and have not seen anything like this in our careers, which total over 50 years together as A&P and IA [Inspection Authority Mechanics].
It would be interesting to hear what Chris D’Acosta, CEO of Swift fuels, might say about this information.?
On December 16, 2024, ASRS CALL Back 539 reported an incident that originated from an FBO repair facility in March of 2023. I immediately contacted NASA / ASRS to clarify as follows:
On April 14, 2023 (20-months ago), the FAA contacted Swift Fuels about an isolated issue that seemed to involve UL94 and Cadmium bolts. However, upon detailed investigation it was discovered that an FBO / carburetor repair shop was NOT actually using UL94 -- instead they were buying an off-airfield "pale yellow" autogas which was priced cheaper. It was never determined if the bolts in question were actually plated with Cadmium or possible just painted to look like Cadmium - Swift requested samples of the bolts but never received them. The incident was discussed with the repair station manager on April 18, 2023 and they retracted their erroneous claim at that time. The local airfield fuel truck moving (boot-leg) autogas to the repair station was reprimanded for violating airfield policy. A formal incident report was issued to the FAA in Washington DC along with photo evidence that UL94 does not harm Cadmium -- and the matter was closed.
Bottom line: Neither 100LL nor UL94 will harm cadmium bolts. Furthermore, every batch of UL94 includes an ASTM D130 copper strip corrosion test result (No 1 max) to confirm that aircraft metals are not impacted and do not react to our unleaded avgas.
Based upon all the facts I submitted, I requested NASA / ASRS to issue a retraction on the misleading story three days ago.
Chris D'Acosta
CEO - Swift Fuels, LLC
It’s hard to beat a response straight from the manufacturer’s CEO. Thanks for setting the record straight.
So will the person that wrote the story for the ASRS CallBack be reprimanded or fired for publishing a wrong, injurious story.
We have enough 'stress' in getting UL aviation fuels approved and distributed, so incorrectly blaming a UL fuel of causing problems is a serious error.
Seems the culprit, IF a cadmium leaching problem existed, was a bad batch of cheap MOGAS, NOT UL94.