4 ms·
> b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes. A measure like this
by mlyle 5y ago
> b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes.
A measure like this may be reasonable.
But C/D totals the entire piston aircraft fleet-- $50B+ of capital equip, plus the whole infrastructure and industry around it-- for only a very moderate change in lead exposure. Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total population burden from lead by well under 5%.
Much more sane, IMO, to put in a progressively escalating tax on leaded aviation fuels that over time becomes steep. Then airplanes can gradually transition as overhauls become due, etc, as the pressure from operating costs mounts. Presumably those burning the most fuel would transition first, and an industry capable of retrofitting a few percent of the aircraft per year would spring up.
- gbrown 5y ago> Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total population burden from lead by well under 5%. That sounds pretty great actually, for such a simple solution.
- mlyle 5y agoIt's not absolutely a sure thing that there's any significant burden from aviation. Blood tests come up with a tiny, barely detectable difference near airports (well under 5% for those nearest the airport, and confounded: airports are correlated with low SES and therefore lead paint, etc, is also more prevalent). The most pessimistic estimates from first principles come up with 2-3% of the total population lead burden (more than an order of magnitude above what the blood tests imply, and the blood tests likely overstate the problem). If you threw a few billion more at leaded paint remediation, I think you'd make much more of a difference. I think the aviation lead problem should get fixed, but because it's such a small part of the overall problem it makes sense to take a graduated approach instead of giving GA businesses the death penalty. Tax leaded aviation fuels, and use the proceeds to pay for leaded paint remediation.
- slownews45 5y agoIf the tax was substantial I'd support this. Graduated approach ignores the decades that have ALREADY been provided as an exception to the lead fuel rules that apply everywhere else - it's already been graduated.
- mlyle 5y ago> If the tax was substantial I'd support this. Start at 10% with a commitment to ratchet it up by 4% per year or something. That's enough to start an immediate reduction without destroying the industry. If you're making choices about engine overhaul now for an overhaul that will last you 7-8 years of light use, fuel costing 40% more at the end of that overhaul will definitely get your attention. > it's already been graduated. Doing nothing for decades when it was impossible; and then doing nothing for a decade or two when transition became possible; and then pushing the industry off the cliff is not graduated.
- chaxor 5y agoIt's a small problem? I read recently that GA accounted for >50% of environmental lead exposure. Perhaps that's wrong, but I distinctly remember the statistic and it stuck with me.
- mlyle 5y agoSource please. All the studies I've read have barely detected higher levels of lead near airports, and are confounded. All the estimates from first principles estimate that it's a very small proportion of population lead exposure, too.
- lutorm 5y agoairplanes can gradually transition Except they can't, since there is no approved alternative. The other problem is that even planes that can run unleaded gas often don't, because it's not available at the airport. Avgas is a tiny market and because of costs most FBOs can't or won't set up another fuel delivery infrastructure to run two fuels over some short transition period. Because of this, an additional requirement on a replacement is also that it be safely mixable with 100LL in any ratio, because during the transition period this will happen as people fly from airports where it exists to airports where it doesn't. This problem is being solved (https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/ https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/).
- mlyle 5y ago> Except they can't, since there is no approved alternative. There's an increasing number of diesel engines for GA aircraft, and supplemental type certificates to retrofit them into the same. If 100LL got more expensive, you'd see more people opting for the diesels when an engine reaches the end of its life. e.g. http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/fileadmin/_centurion/news/newsuploads/179/PR_170406_EASA-FAA%20STC-C172-G1000-en.pdf http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/fileadmin/_centurion/... Yes, it'd be really cool to end up with a lower-lead fuel that's safely combined with 100LL. That's been "imminent" for the last 25 years. The poster above advocates for a "rip off the band-aid" approach. GA advocates for a gradual, painless transition that, in practice, will never happen. Surely there's some middle ground?