> Except it's not that there was government inaction. The very article discussed is FAA making the rounds to cover 70% of powerplants ... In the year 2021, ove

> Except it's not that there was government inaction. The very article discussed is FAA making the rounds to cover 70% of powerplants ... In the year 2021, over 50 years after the automotive industry had already invented engines which could run on unleaded fuels. I'm sorry, but this is an almost farcical point, "it's not government inaction it's just 50 years late!" > In fact despite somewhat higher price at source for G100UL, there's considerable possibility it will lead to cheaper operation thanks to lower maintenance impact compared with leaded fue Great, so the government could've forced industry's hand 50 years ago and the industry would probably be running for cheaper right now. This doubly shows the importance of government action on the topic - it would've been better for literally everyone in and out of aviation if the switch had been mandated. How about that for a story of inefficient markets? > There are various problems with just banning GA I work in aerospace, do not condescend to me on the topic. The point is that 50 years of inaction results in cases where, like in East San Jose, "2.5 percent of children under 6 years old who were tested had detectable levels of lead in their blood"[0]. "GA" clearly could and should have dealt with the issue of poisoning the masses for their own ends, and the fact you would defend them and the government for not stepping in in such circumstances makes you a fool. [0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...