6 ms·

Small planes still run leaded fuels so the (rich) owners can save money not changing their engines. This is 50% of our current exposure, needlessly! http://www

• HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
  Are you so sure they're rich? All the small airplane owners I have known drove beat-up old cars (often with a "My other car is an airplane" bumper sticker) in order to afford their aviation habit.
• fixedd 13y ago
  1) There are enough factual errors in that article to show that the author doesn't know what he's talking about. 2) Small airplanes aren't necessarily expensive, so you don't necessarily have to be rich to afford them. For instance, there's a Cessna 150 in good condition for sale on ebay for $16500 right now. 3) The FAA is actively working on unleaded replacements. 4) Many small planes can already run on unleaded.
• fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Talk to the FAA, who have made it so expensive to upgrade/update anything related to airplanes. There is a marginally viable aftermarket parts market for these engines now, but for a long time owners were strictly limited to OEM, salvage, and remanufactured parts. Also, the number of older GA Airplanes, and antique/warbirds in service are so small, it's got to be nothing compared to the exposure from thirty years ago.
  • pekk 13y ago
    If it's 50% of our current exposure, it's not "nothing".
    • mpyne 13y ago
      50% of approximately nothing is still approximately nothing. What's our current exposure nowadays?
    • tracker1 13y ago
      50% is relative... 50% of 5mg is a less than 5% of 200mg.
• deelowe 13y ago
  Rich? haha. Rich people don't drive small planes that run on leaded fuel.
• cpncrunch 13y ago
  I fly planes, and I haven't met a rich owner yet. The typical cessna 150/172 costs less than a new SUV. The rich owners tend to fly kerosene burners. Also, most small-engine planes can already burn regular unleaded autogas. It's just the high-compression engines that require the lead. The FAA, AOPA and others are working on developing alternatives, but it takes time. Perhaps they should have done this sooner.
  • PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    "Rich" is a pretty flexible yardstick. Somebody who can afford to drop the price of a new car on a hobby item is rich compared to most Americans. I recall a thing a while back about how hardly anyone in America will admit to being rich, because they all measure themselves against someone even richer. "Sure, I have three houses and a yacht, but I'm not rich! It's not like I can afford a private island!" Your points about engines and fuel make sense, though.
    • cpncrunch 13y ago
      Well I'm pretty sure I'm less rich than Cory if he is a MS employee. I pay about $85/hour to fly and don't own a plane. If I lived in the USA it would be $68/hr due to lower gas prices. I think the majority of Americans can afford to spend $68/month on their hobby (assuming they flew once a month).
      • mpyne 13y ago
        There are high school students who drop thousands of $$$ into their hobbies. My hobby (computers and video games) was cheap in comparison to those getting tuned-up small cars as made famous in movies and racing games. $68/hr is a fairly inexpensive hobby indeed.
        • kamarupa 13y ago
          $68 an hour is not an inexpensive hobby by any objective measurement. I also have to wonder where high-school students who drop thousands of dollars into their hobbies are getting their money from. Parents?
• mikeash 13y ago
  You've got plenty of replies criticizing your "rich" bit, but, well, you deserve at least one more. Something should probably be done about the use of leaded fuel in general aviation. However, trying to turn it into class warfare (while every single pilot I know, and I know a lot of them, is middle-class) severely hurts your argument.
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    If you own a plane, you're rich globally.
    • parfe 13y ago
      Posting a comment to this website makes you rich globally. Not exactly a high bar.
      • dllthomas 13y ago
        But hopefully that activity puts less lead into the environment... hopefully...
    • mikeash 13y ago
      Same for cars, but people don't try to paint car owners as rich jerks.
      • dllthomas 13y ago
        The average plane owner is richer than the average car owner. The average plane owner needs the plane less than the average car owner needs the car. The average car isn't burning leaded fuel. I would still say "rich jerks" is overstating things, but there's not zero relevance.
        • mikeash 13y ago
          I don't think that's the same thing at all. The mention of "(rich)" was an absolute statement, not a relative one, which portrayed light aircraft owners as wealthy people hurting the populace just so they could have a little more money.
• Amadou 13y ago
  That article does not say what you think it does. It is 50% of new lead pollution, not exposure. According to the reporting of the original lead::crime theory, most of current lead exposure is due to lead dust that was created during the decades of leaded automobile gasoline. The dust has settled in urban areas and it gets kick up by weather and people breath that.