6 ms·

General Aviation (private planes) are STILL spewing lead into the atmosphere. It's not like they don't have the money to fix it, they just don't care about the

by coryrc 9y ago

General Aviation (private planes) are STILL spewing lead into the atmosphere. It's not like they don't have the money to fix it, they just don't care about the externalities.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
It's very hard to change anything in GA. Reliability is a much higher priority in aviation, if the engine in your car dies, you stop, if the engine in your plane dies, you fall out of the sky. GA planes also generally last a lot longer than cars, you have Cessnas from the 70's still flying with their original engines from the 70's.
- hordeallergy 9y ago
  No, if the engine in your plane dies you glide.
  - cptskippy 9y ago
    Depends on the plane and your definition of gliding.
  - Ralfp 9y ago
    Which means you better have somewhere you can land in range of 200 kilometers if we are talking about passenger liners.
  - verelo 9y ago
    And if you’re over water, mountains or generally unfriendly land...you probably want to glide longer than you actually can.
- xapata 9y ago
  > from the 70s "But they still work!" is not a good excuse to pollute.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    I agree, but it's a better reason than most excuses to pollute which tend to boil down to "because I want to". At least airlines are working (slowly) to fix the problem.
- verelo 9y ago
  You still have Cessnas from the 60s in my local club!
- NPMaxwell 9y ago
  Don't industries that require high levels of reliability schedule replacement of aging equipment, rather than continued repairs to keep old equipment running?
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Not really in aviation. Even commercial airliners are often decades old (and as a passenger, you can't really tell unless you know what to look for). They do reach a point where replacement with newer technology makes economic sense, but they can basically be maintained indefinitely.
    - slavak 9y ago
      That's not entirely accurate. Pressurized aircraft hulls are limited by the total number of pressurization cycles they can be subjected to. Everything else is repaired, overhauled, or replaced, but a total overhaul of an airliner haul is just not economically feasible, so at that point the entire aircraft is basically scrapped.
cornholio 9y ago
There is currently a strong effort to move away from leaded fuels, and multiple producers have been selected by the FAA to formulate and sell fuel blends that present the desired octane ratings and are proven safe. The fist certifications of such fuels is expected this year: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/nextgen_update/general_aviation/fuel_technology/ https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/nextgen_update/...
- ethbro 9y ago
  From the linked article, it's nice to see they moderated to a "fuel formulation change + limited engine modifications" approach. It seems unwise, chemically speaking, to expect we'll be able to find a drop in replacement that's less toxic (vs creating something that we find out is toxic in another 50 years).
  - jabl 9y ago
    Seems fatalistic to assume that getting rid of TEL will automatically mean it'll be replaced with something equally nasty, or even worse. I don't think it's out of the question that improvements in refining technology has made it possible and economical enough to create a fuel with a high enough octane rating without resorting to TEL or other metal-organic additives. E.g. the Shell stuff that is being investigated by the FAA PAFI project is rumored to be based on super-alkylate + aromatics.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I should moderate my comment a bit. I'm not expecting the replacement to be equally or more toxic, but I have skepticism that it's going to be non-toxic. Presumably you're tangential to the chemical-synthesis industry? It seems like there's a disturbingly low bar for "We found a compound that will do a thing! Okay, as long as it isn't food / a drug / incorporates already banned substances... put it into production!" (20 years pass) Substantial toxicity found.
      - jabl 9y ago
avalys 9y ago
If you have money, you’re flying a jet or a turboprop, burning jet fuel (kerosene) which contains no lead. Only the smallest private planes run on piston engines, whose owners don’t really have money to “fix it”, especially because FAA regulations for certification of new planes and engine designs make everything cost about 10x what it should.

by coryrc 9y ago

General Aviation (private planes) are STILL spewing lead into the atmosphere. It's not like they don't have the money to fix it, they just don't care about the externalities.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

It's very hard to change anything in GA. Reliability is a much higher priority in aviation, if the engine in your car dies, you stop, if the engine in your plane dies, you fall out of the sky. GA planes also generally last a lot longer than cars, you have Cessnas from the 70's still flying with their original engines from the 70's.

hordeallergy 9y ago
No, if the engine in your plane dies you glide.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  Depends on the plane and your definition of gliding.
- Ralfp 9y ago
  Which means you better have somewhere you can land in range of 200 kilometers if we are talking about passenger liners.
- verelo 9y ago
  And if you’re over water, mountains or generally unfriendly land...you probably want to glide longer than you actually can.
xapata 9y ago
> from the 70s "But they still work!" is not a good excuse to pollute.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I agree, but it's a better reason than most excuses to pollute which tend to boil down to "because I want to". At least airlines are working (slowly) to fix the problem.
verelo 9y ago
You still have Cessnas from the 60s in my local club!
NPMaxwell 9y ago
Don't industries that require high levels of reliability schedule replacement of aging equipment, rather than continued repairs to keep old equipment running?
- ams6110 9y ago
  Not really in aviation. Even commercial airliners are often decades old (and as a passenger, you can't really tell unless you know what to look for). They do reach a point where replacement with newer technology makes economic sense, but they can basically be maintained indefinitely.
  - slavak 9y ago
    That's not entirely accurate. Pressurized aircraft hulls are limited by the total number of pressurization cycles they can be subjected to. Everything else is repaired, overhauled, or replaced, but a total overhaul of an airliner haul is just not economically feasible, so at that point the entire aircraft is basically scrapped.

cornholio 9y ago

There is currently a strong effort to move away from leaded fuels, and multiple producers have been selected by the FAA to formulate and sell fuel blends that present the desired octane ratings and are proven safe. The fist certifications of such fuels is expected this year: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/nextgen_update/general_aviation/fuel_technology/ https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/nextgen_update/...

ethbro 9y ago
From the linked article, it's nice to see they moderated to a "fuel formulation change + limited engine modifications" approach. It seems unwise, chemically speaking, to expect we'll be able to find a drop in replacement that's less toxic (vs creating something that we find out is toxic in another 50 years).
- jabl 9y ago
  Seems fatalistic to assume that getting rid of TEL will automatically mean it'll be replaced with something equally nasty, or even worse. I don't think it's out of the question that improvements in refining technology has made it possible and economical enough to create a fuel with a high enough octane rating without resorting to TEL or other metal-organic additives. E.g. the Shell stuff that is being investigated by the FAA PAFI project is rumored to be based on super-alkylate + aromatics.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I should moderate my comment a bit. I'm not expecting the replacement to be equally or more toxic, but I have skepticism that it's going to be non-toxic. Presumably you're tangential to the chemical-synthesis industry? It seems like there's a disturbingly low bar for "We found a compound that will do a thing! Okay, as long as it isn't food / a drug / incorporates already banned substances... put it into production!" (20 years pass) Substantial toxicity found.
    - jabl 9y ago

avalys 9y ago

If you have money, you’re flying a jet or a turboprop, burning jet fuel (kerosene) which contains no lead. Only the smallest private planes run on piston engines, whose owners don’t really have money to “fix it”, especially because FAA regulations for certification of new planes and engine designs make everything cost about 10x what it should.