Oban/Glenforsa News
"As for HAIL INV it used to be OK as long as you didn't do it over grass or tarmac but if they did it on the concrete it was OK. Now everything has to go through the RVP I don't have a clue."
We park in the short stay car park, with cards, and have had to buy trolleys to carry our mogas through the Single Entry Point. Security are very pleasant. I take three 20l cans through at a time.
I've just heard Tayside Police have banned all sales of petrol and deisel into cans - presumably due to the riots in an adjoining part of the UK.
We park in the short stay car park, with cards, and have had to buy trolleys to carry our mogas through the Single Entry Point. Security are very pleasant. I take three 20l cans through at a time.
I've just heard Tayside Police have banned all sales of petrol and deisel into cans - presumably due to the riots in an adjoining part of the UK.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to hear a sensible solution is in place.
And I can understand Tayside banning sales, I really don't think that its going to affect Highland region though.
No doudt in Grampian police have the WRVS ready with their charity collection boxes at the ready to clear the streets. Nothing like the rattle of a collection box to stab fear into an Aberdionians heart.
And I can understand Tayside banning sales, I really don't think that its going to affect Highland region though.
No doudt in Grampian police have the WRVS ready with their charity collection boxes at the ready to clear the streets. Nothing like the rattle of a collection box to stab fear into an Aberdionians heart.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockport
Age: 68
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
confusing ...
The link in post #1019 to BP leads to a page where the company policy towards mogas is explained; if your search the websites of all the major oil companies you find they all hold a similar view which does not support the use of mogas for aircraft; though they acknowledge that it is acceptable by other organisations. Concern about the quality assurance aspects of mogas is a major influence on the oil company position.
What is described in the recent posts here is that at one location the airfield operating company (A&BC) refuses to allow refuelling with mogas; while at different location another airfield operating company (HIAL) does allow it; that seems a bit inconsistent and from what I can see the fuel supplier at both locations is BP.
It seems quite strange that is it the larger of the two airports that does permit aircraft owners/operators to bring in their own mogas, one would have expected it to be the other way around.
What is described in the recent posts here is that at one location the airfield operating company (A&BC) refuses to allow refuelling with mogas; while at different location another airfield operating company (HIAL) does allow it; that seems a bit inconsistent and from what I can see the fuel supplier at both locations is BP.
It seems quite strange that is it the larger of the two airports that does permit aircraft owners/operators to bring in their own mogas, one would have expected it to be the other way around.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&BC are now so afraid of doing anything wrong they can't do anything right.
I believe they are about to hand over the operation of Glenforsa, their only profitable airfield. Ironically it was the best run of the lot.
It's a pity they have not yet managed to do that with Oban.
D.O.
I believe they are about to hand over the operation of Glenforsa, their only profitable airfield. Ironically it was the best run of the lot.
It's a pity they have not yet managed to do that with Oban.
D.O.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockport
Age: 68
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But who are A&BC afraid of?
If they were to be afraid of anyone I would expect that to be the CAA who grant the licence to operate; operating in compliance of the rules, 'keeping their noses clean' to retain their licence is logical.
However the CAA accept the supply and use of mogas in aircraft (within certain criteria) so why would they operate in way that is not a legal requirement and would seem to be against the spirit of recreational flying?
If they were to be afraid of anyone I would expect that to be the CAA who grant the licence to operate; operating in compliance of the rules, 'keeping their noses clean' to retain their licence is logical.
However the CAA accept the supply and use of mogas in aircraft (within certain criteria) so why would they operate in way that is not a legal requirement and would seem to be against the spirit of recreational flying?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite possibly because HIAL know that airworthiness isn't the responsibility of the airfield but lies solely at the feet of the owner/Pilot (and the CAMO if a contract is in place).
Also, should HIAL adopt this policy it would create a headache for them far in excess of what it's actually worth. It's not inconsistent at all, ABC are being idiots for no reason other than being scared of something they don't understand, this is what they've been doing for years.
Also, should HIAL adopt this policy it would create a headache for them far in excess of what it's actually worth. It's not inconsistent at all, ABC are being idiots for no reason other than being scared of something they don't understand, this is what they've been doing for years.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockport
Age: 68
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Dan the weegie but I was using inconsistent in terms of the different approaches of the two airfields in question. I understand the point you are making is that A&BC are being quite consistent in what appears to be a negative approach to this matter. The information and comment you have made is most helpful in explaining why the inconsistency exists.
It is such a shame when egos and ignorance (of the parties concerned) have such a negative influence on recreational flying activity.
It is such a shame when egos and ignorance (of the parties concerned) have such a negative influence on recreational flying activity.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Avturboy if you really want to see ignorance and arrogancve in action you have better than a thousand posts in this thread to work your way through.
Argyll coon'cil as living proof that if you want a job done badly - give it to the coon'cil.
Argyll coon'cil as living proof that if you want a job done badly - give it to the coon'cil.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockport
Age: 68
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks gasax, I've sampled posts at various stages through the topic, it is sad.
It is a shame that at GA field in such a beautiful location is embroiled in such negative controversy; especially when you consider that GA needs all the support it can get in the present climate.
It is a shame that at GA field in such a beautiful location is embroiled in such negative controversy; especially when you consider that GA needs all the support it can get in the present climate.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockport
Age: 68
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SoCal App raises a good point. If the designated fuel supplier is supplied by an oil company that does not support the use of a mogas and that supplier has sole rights to supply fuel, then it starts to make sense.
However it begs the question what is the extent of 'sole rights'? On the one hand it could extend to the exclusion of another supplier to compete with, but could/should this then extend to owner/operators who wishes to provide fuel only for their own use?
The latter position really doesn't sit comfortably in an a environment where one would expect support of recreational flying to be of the utmost importance.
It's not as though they are competing for the sale is it? If an aircraft is designed to run on mogas is it acceptable to use avgas as a substitute? my understanding it that it is not, could any mogas users please clarify this point please?
So the airfield is loosing nothing, but simply making life more difficult for its customers ... that really doesn't add up in the current economic climate where everyone 'should' be doing everything to chase every last piece of business ....
However it begs the question what is the extent of 'sole rights'? On the one hand it could extend to the exclusion of another supplier to compete with, but could/should this then extend to owner/operators who wishes to provide fuel only for their own use?
The latter position really doesn't sit comfortably in an a environment where one would expect support of recreational flying to be of the utmost importance.
It's not as though they are competing for the sale is it? If an aircraft is designed to run on mogas is it acceptable to use avgas as a substitute? my understanding it that it is not, could any mogas users please clarify this point please?
So the airfield is loosing nothing, but simply making life more difficult for its customers ... that really doesn't add up in the current economic climate where everyone 'should' be doing everything to chase every last piece of business ....
If an aircraft is designed to run on mogas is it acceptable to use avgas as a substitute?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northland
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oban/Glenforsa
If its the latter could it be something to do with the local fuel company having sole rights to supply fuel at the airfield ?
I believe they are about to hand over the operation of Glenforsa, their only profitable airfield. Ironically it was the best run of the lot.
WW
Last edited by Capt Whisky Whisky; 11th Aug 2011 at 20:07. Reason: Stuff
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 5 nM S of TNT, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Rotax 912 etc can run on either mogas or avgas. If you run it on avgas however, you have to change the oil every 25 hours due to the lead deposits. Hence most Rotax owners run on Mogas whenever possible. It is also of course much cheaper.
Having followed the Oban saga for years and knowing the various protagonists, I suspect there is as usual more to this than meets the eye.
Having followed the Oban saga for years and knowing the various protagonists, I suspect there is as usual more to this than meets the eye.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Peterborough
Age: 64
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Rotax 912 etc can run on either mogas or avgas. If you run it on avgas however, you have to change the oil every 25 hours due to the lead deposits.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockport
Age: 68
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain WW, I understand your reply but it does not quite address the question I asked.
I understand that a designated fuel supplier would not be associated with supplying non-compliant fuel, which is how they would view mogas.
My question was the extent to which the term 'sole fuel supplier' is applied. Is it appropriate to consider an owner/operator sourcing fuel (mogas) only for their own use as a 'supplier', surely that is unreasonable in the extreme?
Recent replies indicate that it would be wrong to consider mogas/avgas to be completely interchangeable, if the designated supplier is not able to supply the required grade (because they choose not to handle mogas) then they are not loosing a sale by restricting customers who would choose to source their own mogas.
I understand that a designated fuel supplier would not be associated with supplying non-compliant fuel, which is how they would view mogas.
My question was the extent to which the term 'sole fuel supplier' is applied. Is it appropriate to consider an owner/operator sourcing fuel (mogas) only for their own use as a 'supplier', surely that is unreasonable in the extreme?
Recent replies indicate that it would be wrong to consider mogas/avgas to be completely interchangeable, if the designated supplier is not able to supply the required grade (because they choose not to handle mogas) then they are not loosing a sale by restricting customers who would choose to source their own mogas.
Allegedly, the current mogas ban came about after the colorful council representative for a local grass airfield, facilitated large scale mogas refueling for a group of visiting aircraft (reason unknown) bringing about the attention and the wrath of Trading Standards, Elf and Safety, The Cooncil etc."
When the Mull Fly-in used to attract large numbers of overnighting aircraft, we used vast quantities of petrol. I remember driving a friend's deisel astra estate to the Salen filling station, which was opened specially to fill the cans. There were several in the front passenger seatwell and on the front passengeer seat, as well as the rest of the estate. Who complained on this occasion?
When the Mull Fly-in used to attract large numbers of overnighting aircraft, we used vast quantities of petrol. I remember driving a friend's deisel astra estate to the Salen filling station, which was opened specially to fill the cans. There were several in the front passenger seatwell and on the front passengeer seat, as well as the rest of the estate. Who complained on this occasion?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
140,
You have got it correct!
This was driven solely by TLC and Paul has convinced the council that Mogas is not fit for use in aircraft and Avgas is the only certified fuel that should be used.
I run a microlight school in Oban and I can guarantee you that not a drop of Avgas will go in my tank. If the council or TLC try to enforce it I will simply wheel my aircraft through the RVP gate and refuel there. If that gets me grief I will land on the beach or my friends field and refuel there.
Without consultation with the majority of the airfield users this letter indirectly from TLC through the council is not worth the paper that it is written on. All that will happen now is pilots will either fuel in the hangar out of sight or fuel elsewhere.
Paul used to stock Mogas then stopped and unfortunately for him that is not our problem.
Our aircraft are non certified and Rotax and Skydrive recommend the use of Mogas for our engines.
MF26
You have got it correct!
This was driven solely by TLC and Paul has convinced the council that Mogas is not fit for use in aircraft and Avgas is the only certified fuel that should be used.
I run a microlight school in Oban and I can guarantee you that not a drop of Avgas will go in my tank. If the council or TLC try to enforce it I will simply wheel my aircraft through the RVP gate and refuel there. If that gets me grief I will land on the beach or my friends field and refuel there.
Without consultation with the majority of the airfield users this letter indirectly from TLC through the council is not worth the paper that it is written on. All that will happen now is pilots will either fuel in the hangar out of sight or fuel elsewhere.
Paul used to stock Mogas then stopped and unfortunately for him that is not our problem.
Our aircraft are non certified and Rotax and Skydrive recommend the use of Mogas for our engines.
MF26
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the case that the resident fuel company has sole rights to supply fuel at the airfield, and therefore would be in a very vunerable position if they supplied uncompliant fuel to aircraft, considering the past attempts to remove them from Connel.
Are they suggesting that aircraft are illegally using mogas?