4 ms·

Yes and there's some areas near popular flight schools with significantly elevated lead levels because there are constantly planes flying overhead using leaded

by rtkwe 3y ago

Yes and there's some areas near popular flight schools with significantly elevated lead levels because there are constantly planes flying overhead using leaded Avgas. It was a special carveout because recertifying every engine that was designed to use leaded gas is a pretty big lift and has significantly higher safety implications when the engine is in a plane instead of a car. It is only for some types of engines but those are more common on the older more affordable planes.

nonsense123 3y ago
> recertifying every engine that was designed to use leaded gas is a pretty big lift ... instead of a car Wrong on all accounts. There are orders of magnitude less engine models used in air than cars. Profit margin for airplane companies are higher than cars (though volume is much lower). cars use the same model worldwide and pass certification all at once, planes sell in one country and customers are mostly responsible for 'acclimatization' or whatever they call it in your parts, but it usually is about lights color and placements or some nonsense. the one thing that made planes be so slow, is that people who own planes have much more voice over legislation than people who own cars. Nothing else. That's why the whole industry used tax payer money to certify one special new gas type that will work on all existing engines (again, possible because much less variety, making it easier technically). You breathed lead for 60 years of legal lethargy just so a few people didn't have to spend a few pennies on their plane maintenance.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  If a car engine fails or is suffering more long term damage due to knocking the car doesn't have an immediate emergency on the same order of magnitude a plane does. A failed plane engine is an immediate life threatening emergency to everyone on board.
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    Not only on board. I thanks the FAA and other's countries flight authorities for the fact that I don't need to have an anxiety crisis every time a plane passes overhead.
- lazide 3y ago
  While there are fewer models, the amount of paperwork per model is orders of magnitude higher. And many of the manufacturers for the most common models no longer exist in the form they were when the engines and planes were originally designed and certified. Oh, and unlike with a car or truck, engine failure in a light plane, especially during takeoff, is VERY likely to result in death or serious injury.
Filligree 3y ago
> higher safety implications Well, what are the safety implications of atomizing lead? This argument seems short-sighted.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  For the public it's a relatively minor issue except where you have both high levels of traffic and low level flights of the kinds of planes that use leaded av gas. Without that combination the effect on real gas levels are minor. Ideally we have no lead emissions of course but the effects are tiny if you don't have those two factors.
- stouset 3y ago
  Look, nobody is defending the FAA on this. GA pilots have wanted this for decades. There was a carve out because plane engines are expensive and old (the most common engine today is a 50 year old model). Presumably it was expected that carve out would just be temporary while we worked on finding an off ramp to unleaded avgas. Nobody wanted the FAA to just ignore the problem for decades.
- lazide 3y ago
  Pretty low. Even in the highest risk populations (children in very close proximity to piston aircraft airports), less than 5% of the body lead burden can be attributed to that source. I linked to the NIH study elsewhere in here. It's notable, and is being banned for it. But when it's gone, it won't make any significant difference.

by rtkwe 3y ago

nonsense123 3y ago

> recertifying every engine that was designed to use leaded gas is a pretty big lift ... instead of a car Wrong on all accounts. There are orders of magnitude less engine models used in air than cars. Profit margin for airplane companies are higher than cars (though volume is much lower). cars use the same model worldwide and pass certification all at once, planes sell in one country and customers are mostly responsible for 'acclimatization' or whatever they call it in your parts, but it usually is about lights color and placements or some nonsense. the one thing that made planes be so slow, is that people who own planes have much more voice over legislation than people who own cars. Nothing else. That's why the whole industry used tax payer money to certify one special new gas type that will work on all existing engines (again, possible because much less variety, making it easier technically). You breathed lead for 60 years of legal lethargy just so a few people didn't have to spend a few pennies on their plane maintenance.

rtkwe 3y ago
If a car engine fails or is suffering more long term damage due to knocking the car doesn't have an immediate emergency on the same order of magnitude a plane does. A failed plane engine is an immediate life threatening emergency to everyone on board.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  Not only on board. I thanks the FAA and other's countries flight authorities for the fact that I don't need to have an anxiety crisis every time a plane passes overhead.
lazide 3y ago
While there are fewer models, the amount of paperwork per model is orders of magnitude higher. And many of the manufacturers for the most common models no longer exist in the form they were when the engines and planes were originally designed and certified. Oh, and unlike with a car or truck, engine failure in a light plane, especially during takeoff, is VERY likely to result in death or serious injury.

Filligree 3y ago

> higher safety implications Well, what are the safety implications of atomizing lead? This argument seems short-sighted.

rtkwe 3y ago
For the public it's a relatively minor issue except where you have both high levels of traffic and low level flights of the kinds of planes that use leaded av gas. Without that combination the effect on real gas levels are minor. Ideally we have no lead emissions of course but the effects are tiny if you don't have those two factors.
stouset 3y ago
Look, nobody is defending the FAA on this. GA pilots have wanted this for decades. There was a carve out because plane engines are expensive and old (the most common engine today is a 50 year old model). Presumably it was expected that carve out would just be temporary while we worked on finding an off ramp to unleaded avgas. Nobody wanted the FAA to just ignore the problem for decades.
lazide 3y ago
Pretty low. Even in the highest risk populations (children in very close proximity to piston aircraft airports), less than 5% of the body lead burden can be attributed to that source. I linked to the NIH study elsewhere in here. It's notable, and is being banned for it. But when it's gone, it won't make any significant difference.