Mandating ethanol fuel will have negative impact on aviation

The Federal Government recently announced it plans to mandate the use of ethanol in all automotive gasoline sold in Canada by the year 2010.

In response to this announcement COPA quickly informed the Feds on the negative impact ethanol additives in automotive fuel will have on aviation and proposed a compromise solution so that non-ethanol fuel will remain available to pilots whose aircraft operate on automotive fuel.

In our efforts to bringing this issue to light, COPA President/CEO Kevin Psutka wrote the following letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

I am writing on behalf of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association. We represent more than 18,000 pilots and aircraft owners in Canada who fly for personal transportation.

I recently learned of your plan to mandate the use of ethanol in all automotive gasoline sold in Canada by the year 2010. This proposal by your government would cause a serious problem for those aircraft owners who legally operate aircraft on automotive gasoline.

Many of these aircraft are used for agricultural and business flying and contribute greatly to Canada’s economic prosperity.

As a result of extensive research done by Transport Canada in the 1970s and 80s many aircraft are permitted to use automotive fuel under Transport Canada approvals and Aircraft Supplementary Type Certificates (STCs). In all cases both Transport Canada and the STC documents prohibit the use of automotive fuel containing any amount of ethanol.

Ethanol was shown in research studies to cause engine corrosion, deterioration of fuel system components and vapour locking of fuel systems at altitude resulting in engine failure.

In the United States, where similar ethanol debates are ongoing, the Experimental Aircraft Association has proposed that premium grade automotive gasoline be exempted from the ethanol requirement.

This compromise solution is a good one because it would ensure that a source of non-ethanol fuel is available everywhere and consequently would have minimal impact from the standpoint of financial, convenience and safety.

This solution is also a good compromise because it prevents people seeking alternatives, some of which may have environmental consequences greater than the current available fuels provide.

Considerable effort has been expended in the United States toward alternative fuels for piston aircraft engines. However, approval of these alternatives is still some years away; perhaps beyond your 2010 goal so setting a deadline that will have a negative impact on aviation, with no approved alternatives in place, would be premature.

Unlike the United States, where considerable government funding has be expended, we are not aware of any investment in Canada toward alternative fuels for aviation and we encourage you to do so before making decisions on current fuels that would affect aviation.

I look forward to the opportunity to work with you and your staff in finding a solution that takes into account aircraft operators who depend on automotive fuel.