5 ms·

It’s been decades at this point. If we can’t find unleaded fuels that work safely for these engine designs, the correct thing to do at this point is to ban the

It’s been decades at this point. If we can’t find unleaded fuels that work safely for these engine designs, the correct thing to do at this point is to ban the engines.

Syonyk 5y ago
Then you quite literally kill general aviation, and a lot of smaller scale commercial aviation, because there are no other engines approved for the airframes. If that's your goal, fine, but don't pretend it's anything else.
- throwaway472927 5y ago
  Announce it for the future, clearly some alternatives already exist, some more engines get certified, some don't and owners move to those that are. Ultimately it's a question of money i.e. how badly people want it.
  - p_l 5y ago
    tl;dr ban GA outside of very wealthy
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      what? people with private planes are the ones running leaded currently. people who aren't very wealthy are flying on commercial planes that haven't used leaded gas for decades.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Wealthy individuals’ airplanes are already burning Jet-A in turbine engines. Who’s piloting the airliners that the not very wealthy are flying on? Working pilots. In what type of airplane did they train? Piston engine aircraft. Now that they need to have 1500 hours experience before taking the yoke of a commercial airliner in the US, where will they get that time? Overwhelmingly in piston-engine aircraft. Typically as a flight instructor, which will go to near zero if you kill the ability of practical intermediate distance travel to be done by high-compression and/or turbocharged light aircraft. (Alaska and Caribbean islands also has a lot of very much not rich people flying around in or getting necessary supplies delivered by 100 octane needing airplanes.) Commercial operations using 100LL dwarf personal plane operations using 100LL. Cape Air burns way more avgas on a Tuesday in July than I burn in a year. Back to “Very wealthy” individuals running turbines. If I could afford it, I would be too. It’s a better engine solution (almost) all around, except the operating costs are a low single-digit multiple higher and capital costs around 10x, which puts it out of reach of almost every individual. No one should cry for me here, but there’s a huge subset of 100LL-based operations that you probably approve of or judge essential and want to continue.
- dTal 5y ago
  Sounds like the approval process is the problem. Banning lead shouldn't "kill general aviation". We'd still have GA even if leaded fuel had never been invented in the first place.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  Continued use of leaded avgas is unacceptable, and frankly we've known that it's unacceptable for decades. It's surprising that only now are jurisdictions that contain airports where it's used realizing that they have the power to solve the problem on a local scale by banning those airports from operating, but it's not surprising or unreasonable that they're choosing to do so now that they've realized the problem exists. If a plane can't be safely flown without leaded avgas, that just means it can't be safely flown. The foot-dragging on this topic is unbelievably shameful on the part of everyone involved, but particularly the FAA. If this kills general aviation, so be it, I'm sure it will light a fire under a lot of asses to get some new airframes and engines certified. If a couple 10s of people die in airplane crashes before all of the kinks are ironed out, so be that as well. That's a trivial amount of harm compared to the harm of airdropping lead on children, and unlike the victims of leaded avgas, everyone who gets in a personal aircraft voluntarily accepts the risks.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    In general, local owners of airports can shut down the airport once they’ve satisfied any agreements relating to funding they’ve taken for airport improvements (often paid 90% by an FAA agreement in exchange to operate on a FAND [fair and non-discriminatory] basis for a few decades). Comply with those terms and keep the airport working using only local funds for that length of time and close it at the end if you want.
    - dodobirdlord 5y ago
      There’s no need to shut down the airport entirely. A ban on the sale or overland transport of leaded avgas would be sufficient. Some jurisdictions are threatening this, and the FAA hasn’t made any serious effort to even pretend that it has the authority to prevent it.
sokoloff 5y ago
You’re literally commenting on the article on the fuel that has the best chance of being that compatible unleaded fuel.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  Yes, but only after this issue has been known about for decades, and only because some jurisdictions containing airports are threatening to preempt the FAA and ban the sale of leaded avgas outright.

It’s been decades at this point. If we can’t find unleaded fuels that work safely for these engine designs, the correct thing to do at this point is to ban the engines.

Syonyk 5y ago

Then you quite literally kill general aviation, and a lot of smaller scale commercial aviation, because there are no other engines approved for the airframes. If that's your goal, fine, but don't pretend it's anything else.

throwaway472927 5y ago
Announce it for the future, clearly some alternatives already exist, some more engines get certified, some don't and owners move to those that are. Ultimately it's a question of money i.e. how badly people want it.
- p_l 5y ago
  tl;dr ban GA outside of very wealthy
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    what? people with private planes are the ones running leaded currently. people who aren't very wealthy are flying on commercial planes that haven't used leaded gas for decades.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Wealthy individuals’ airplanes are already burning Jet-A in turbine engines. Who’s piloting the airliners that the not very wealthy are flying on? Working pilots. In what type of airplane did they train? Piston engine aircraft. Now that they need to have 1500 hours experience before taking the yoke of a commercial airliner in the US, where will they get that time? Overwhelmingly in piston-engine aircraft. Typically as a flight instructor, which will go to near zero if you kill the ability of practical intermediate distance travel to be done by high-compression and/or turbocharged light aircraft. (Alaska and Caribbean islands also has a lot of very much not rich people flying around in or getting necessary supplies delivered by 100 octane needing airplanes.) Commercial operations using 100LL dwarf personal plane operations using 100LL. Cape Air burns way more avgas on a Tuesday in July than I burn in a year. Back to “Very wealthy” individuals running turbines. If I could afford it, I would be too. It’s a better engine solution (almost) all around, except the operating costs are a low single-digit multiple higher and capital costs around 10x, which puts it out of reach of almost every individual. No one should cry for me here, but there’s a huge subset of 100LL-based operations that you probably approve of or judge essential and want to continue.
dTal 5y ago
Sounds like the approval process is the problem. Banning lead shouldn't "kill general aviation". We'd still have GA even if leaded fuel had never been invented in the first place.
dodobirdlord 5y ago
Continued use of leaded avgas is unacceptable, and frankly we've known that it's unacceptable for decades. It's surprising that only now are jurisdictions that contain airports where it's used realizing that they have the power to solve the problem on a local scale by banning those airports from operating, but it's not surprising or unreasonable that they're choosing to do so now that they've realized the problem exists. If a plane can't be safely flown without leaded avgas, that just means it can't be safely flown. The foot-dragging on this topic is unbelievably shameful on the part of everyone involved, but particularly the FAA. If this kills general aviation, so be it, I'm sure it will light a fire under a lot of asses to get some new airframes and engines certified. If a couple 10s of people die in airplane crashes before all of the kinks are ironed out, so be that as well. That's a trivial amount of harm compared to the harm of airdropping lead on children, and unlike the victims of leaded avgas, everyone who gets in a personal aircraft voluntarily accepts the risks.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  In general, local owners of airports can shut down the airport once they’ve satisfied any agreements relating to funding they’ve taken for airport improvements (often paid 90% by an FAA agreement in exchange to operate on a FAND [fair and non-discriminatory] basis for a few decades). Comply with those terms and keep the airport working using only local funds for that length of time and close it at the end if you want.
  - dodobirdlord 5y ago
    There’s no need to shut down the airport entirely. A ban on the sale or overland transport of leaded avgas would be sufficient. Some jurisdictions are threatening this, and the FAA hasn’t made any serious effort to even pretend that it has the authority to prevent it.

sokoloff 5y ago

You’re literally commenting on the article on the fuel that has the best chance of being that compatible unleaded fuel.

dodobirdlord 5y ago
Yes, but only after this issue has been known about for decades, and only because some jurisdictions containing airports are threatening to preempt the FAA and ban the sale of leaded avgas outright.