6 ms·

When I learned this a while back it blew my mind. Why are people allowed to dump lead on habited areas for a hobby? I understand if it were allowed for some com

• leetcrew 6y ago
  for one thing, there just aren't that many of them. there are under 200k hobbyist pilots in the US, and they mostly fly small single-engine planes. it's a problem, but it's pretty far down the list of emissions concerns. see also: two stroke engines in lawnmowers, boats, etc.
  • sneak 6y ago
    Lead is an issue not because of the general fact that it is dirty pollution (like two-stroke engines), but because of the precise neurological effects of lead in human bodies specifically. There is a difference between sprinkling sulphur dioxide over an area and, say, plutonium.
    • paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Continued use of leaded fuel over time means it can build up in the environment. Living near an airport now I'm reluctant to eat anything from gardens nearby.
  • orange_tee 6y ago
    Two stroke might look bad if it is burning too much oil but in terms of health affects it is nowhere near as bad as leaded petrol.
    • roywiggins 6y ago
      The particulate pollution of 2-stroke engines is really, really bad. https://phys.org/news/2014-05-two-stroke-scooters-super-polluters.html https://phys.org/news/2014-05-two-stroke-scooters-super-poll... (Lead is arguably worse, but only because lead is unbelievably bad for you, not merely very bad for you)
• sokoloff 6y ago
  I suspect way over half and perhaps 80+% of the 100LL is burned by commercial operations (commuter airplanes (Cape Air type), aerial application, power and pipeline patrol, fish spotting, cherry drying, banner tows, etc.) Private pilots just don’t fly that much compared to the small commercial operators. (And the few that do are likely to upgrade to turbine equipment, burning Jet-A.)
  • jabl 6y ago
    > Private pilots just don’t fly that much compared to the small commercial operators. (And the few that do are likely to upgrade to turbine equipment, burning Jet-A.) Why aren't those small commercial operators that fly a lot then upgrading to Jet-A burning equipment?
    • sokoloff 6y ago
      Cost. Turbine engines are expensive to buy. (Think $500K-$1500K each for small ones vs $35K-75K for pistons.) Cape Air passengers aren’t willing to pay enough to let Cape Air operate B200s or Metros. The mostly business owners flying themselves privately in support of their business have more money to spend on tools to run their business than Cape Air pax or banner tow advertisers. They went turbine because turbine engines have incredible dispatch reliability. Believe me, if turboprops cost anywhere near the same, the piston airplane market would evaporate overnight.
      • jabl 6y ago
        Note I carefully said "Jet-A burning" rather than turbines specifically. As OP mentioned, diesel piston engines burning Jet-A or diesel are fairly popular in Europe. Of course, that still requires a new engine or even a new plane vs. the cost of keeping the current one running.
        • sokoloff 6y ago
          Yes. You carefully (half-)changed the subject in text and then shouted “hah; gotcha!” when I missed it. There is no aviation diesel available for 402-sized airplanes and none for helicopters that I’m aware of. Banner tows could fly anything, sure.
• DangitBobby 6y ago
  Why would it be allowed for commercial use but not hobbyists?
• chmod775 6y ago
  Would make sense if there was taxpayer-funded healthcare, because then you could use the money those companies pay as taxes to fund the treatment of those they poisoned...
  • studius 6y ago
    I'm all for healthcare, but, on topic, it'd make even more sense to find replacements one-at-a-time for all of the products we use daily that are made up in part by crude oil. Most plastics, many foods, many skin products, etc. all come from some by-product of oil. Because of that dependence, big oil is not only a huge industry, it's most industries, most company, most products, and touches most consumers. Also: "There are 1.65 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in the world as of 2016. The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left."[1] Wars have been fought over it when we still had a lot left, and we've got until maybe 2068. [1]- https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ https://www.worldometers.info/oil/
  • jbay808 6y ago
    Lying in a hospital bed with your medical treatment paid for is still a much worse experience than being healthy in the first place.
• tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  Why should hobbies be prioritized below commercial interests? There's good arguments for exactly the opposite: Hobby use is often much less intensive than commercial use, and at the same time, much more price sensitive.
• coryrc 6y ago
  The seaplanes in Seattle and Kirkland, launching from lakes shared by thousands of civilians and ringed by homes, are mostly spewing lead.
  • pinewurst 6y ago
    Most of those are turboprops at least. In the sense of number of flights e.g. Kenmore Air, anyway.
    • Wistar 6y ago
      Cessna Caravans, mostly. The Beavers are definitely not turbine but I see them less and less these days.
    • coryrc 6y ago
      https://www.kuow.org/stories/electric-floatplanes-could-help-sink-two-big-pollution-problems https://www.kuow.org/stories/electric-floatplanes-could-help...
• throw0101a 6y ago
  > I understand if it were allowed for some commercial use […] You mean like all the flight schools that use 1970-era Cessnas as part of the training fleet? Or old King Airs to build hours for multi-engine qualifications?
• wankeler 6y ago
  >In Europe all new training aircraft are using diesel(-like) engines now which run on jet fuel or even straight diesel. It's not exactly hard to make the switch. No they aren’t and yes it is.
• Sileni 6y ago
  I've been voicing this for years since I found out about it working for the company that manufactures leaded fuels in the UK. Even here, I got quite a bit of dismissal. It was jarring, really reminded me how little most people understand outside of their area of expertise.
• voldacar 6y ago
  this comment is literally the opposite of the hacker ethos, for a moment I thought I was on reddit
• GuB-42 6y ago
  Simply because light aircraft represent a really tiny proportion of global emissions. And for "random Joe who wants to dick about in the sky", chances are that he is the one who is flying your airliner. Flying light aircraft is actually a really important part of what will eventually make good commercial pilots. There is a lot to say about that but the idea is that letting people dick about in the sky is not without merit. Of course, it doesn't mean things shouldn't change, and I sincerely think 100LL has been a problem for way too long. Problem is: change in aviation is really slow. Regulators are very conservative, every modification requires tons of paperwork, inspections and approval. Also, light aircraft tend to last long, they are actually simple, robust, and easy to repair machines, and many 50+ year old planes are still flying. As for "all new training aircraft in Europe". I fly in France and I never saw a diesel plane. I know they exist, I just never saw one. On the other hand, I saw many Robin DR-400s with good old Lycoming engines running 100LL. In fact, in small airfields, when there is fuel, it is usually only 100LL. Maybe you can find diesel planes in larger airports where they stock jet fuel and have high turnover flight schools. I don't fly there. And BTW, I a fly a Tecnam P92 with a Rotax 912 engine. It runs on unleaded gas, same as my car. But it is in the ultralight class, a much less restrictive category regarding regulations, and as a result, usually a bit more "modern" (if you can call a carburetor-based engine that...).
  • perl4ever 6y ago
    >Simply because light aircraft represent a really tiny proportion of global emissions. That would be a valid point if the context was CO2 emissions. It doesn't seem to me like such a valid point when talking about lead, where local concentrations near populations matter. >And for "random Joe who wants to dick about in the sky", chances are that he is the one who is flying your airliner. "X is an necessary person" is not a logical argument for "what X is doing is necessary". Seems like a misapplication of a sort of transitive property.
    • GuB-42 6y ago
      > "X is an necessary person" is not a logical argument for "what X is doing is necessary". Seems like a misapplication of a sort of transitive property. As I said, there is a lot to say about that. The idea is that it creates a culture around aviation that ultimately produces good commercial pilots. Pilots from countries where recreational aviation is not as developed are usually not as good, I saw an article about that but I don't remember it. I think it was about a crash that could have be prevented had the pilot reacted correctly. Ok, a common path for a commercial pilot in the US is to start to learn how to fly in a small aircraft with an instructor. Then fly by himself. But flying is expensive, so many future pilots become instructors themselves, so that they can do a lot of hours and pay for qualifications that become more expensive as planes become bigger and more complex. When they finally get to fly an airliner, they have a lot of experience, and more importantly a lot of it as a pilot in command (flying solo is being a pilot in command). Not only that but being a flight instructor is excellent training, you have to let your student make mistakes while guaranteeing his safety. In the end, you have pilots with great decision making abilities, which is one of the main reason for them to be there the first place. This is only possible in countries with a strong aviation culture. Without airfields, without people who just want to fly for fun, you can't be a flight instructors if you have no one to instruct. Some countries do not have that culture, and future pilots are instead trained in flight schools that train them to be operational as quickly as possible. Problem is: they spent almost all of their flight hours as students, so maybe they know how to fly, but they are not used to take responsibility for the plane. So letting people dick around in the sky may not be necessary, but certainly contributes to making better pilots.