X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4980819 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:16:47 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@att.net X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,354,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="547262949" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2011 13:15:55 -0700 Received: from [10.98.32.185] (vneelamr-lxp.hq.netapp.com [10.98.32.185] (may be forged)) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id p4BKFs4H009250 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DCAEE7A.1070809@att.net> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:15:54 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@att.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Steitle wrote: > Bill, > > You could be right on that. It surely won't hurt to put a little > pressure on the FAA to find/approve an alternative aviation fuel. > Personally, I would be happy if they would make premium auto fuel > ethanol free. > > On another note, with the time it takes for things to work their way > through the court system, it will be years before this gets resolved. > The oil companies can afford to hire the best attorneys. > Sure, but would they? Will they pay for the attorneys knowing that 100LL is such low volume and is going to have to go away eventually anyhow?