California and Lead

FPK1

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 21, 2021
Messages
634
Location
Orange County, CA
Display Name

Display name:
FPK1
From AOPA:

The California State Senate is set to vote on a measure seeking to ban the sale of leaded aviation fuel at California Airports starting in 2027 and we need you to contact your State Senator Josh Newman and Urge them to vote NO!

Senate Bill 1193 (Menjivar) phases out the use of 100LL starting in 2027 - way before the industry and airports are prepared to receive a new 100-octane unleaded fuel and in conflict with the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

IMHO, APOA, the FAA, EAGLE, XYZ, etc. are all wasting time and money (tax payer and membership $) fighting this and putting our airports at risk! I for one am looking forward to GAMI 100UL! I've had several lead related issues with my engine that have cost me a lot of money and none of it is from engine mismanagement!

I say get the UL stuff out there now!
 
I for one am looking forward to GAMI 100UL!
I for one am happy people like you will be beta testing for the rest of us.

I welcome unleaded. Even if I don't think it's an environmental problem.
 
I don't believe it's an environmental problem, but my engine, the Lycoming IO-390C hates lead! And the lead issues have cost me two thousand dollars at just 200 hours! Lycoming SB even has you checking for lead problems every 400 hours...
 
I don't believe it's an environmental problem, but my engine, the Lycoming IO-390C hates lead! And the lead issues have cost me two thousand dollars at just 200 hours! Lycoming SB even has you checking for lead problems every 400 hours...
What's the SB number? Would like to read it.
 
Lead in Avgas may not be great. But the FED's will control that. Our idiot in the Govenor's mansion is trying to outlaw it too. He thinks he should control flight paths as well.
 
What's the SB number? Would like to read it.
 
That is a misrepresentation. This SB has been around a lot longer than lead has been an issue. It is aimed at valve guide issues in the form of wear, or carbon restriction of the exhaust guide.
 
That is a misrepresentation. This SB has been around a lot longer than lead has been an issue. It is aimed at valve guide issues in the form of wear, or carbon restriction of the exhaust guide.
Mike Busch’s webinar (Savvy Aviation) indicates that laboratory analysis of valve guide deposits indicate it is composed of lead, carbon, bromine and oxygen...
 
Mike Busch’s webinar (Savvy Aviation) indicates that laboratory analysis of valve guide deposits indicate it is composed of lead, carbon, bromine and oxygen...
That lead, among other things, are found in an engine that runs leaded fuel, it not exactly a revelation, brought down the mountain by Mike Busch. The fact that Mike Busch as recently discovered lead in valve guides after leaded fuel has been used for 100 years, does not negate my point that SB 388C was not written to address a problem with lead, as you claimed.
 
Mike Busch’s webinar (Savvy Aviation) indicates that laboratory analysis of valve guide deposits indicate it is composed of lead, carbon, bromine and oxygen...
Interesting...did he mention the source of the bromine? It's rare enough that it doesn't just show up most places. Sea water, salt water plants, and salts precipitated from sea water are the usual sources. Is there a brominated additive in engine oil, perhaps?
I'm geeking out on the chemistry questions.
 
Next step in cali will be to ban all avgas.
 
Tetraethyl lead oxidized (burned in air) in the presence of ethylene dibromide (EDB) becomes lead bromide and is expelled with the exhaust. EDB is purposely added in the formulation for this reason (to “scavenge” lead and get it outta there).
 
I've been trying to figure out if SB 1193 violates Fed law now that the FAA reauth bill has been signed, which prohibits banning sales of 100LL at any airport that sold it in 2022 or later (they grandfathered in a couple of airports in NorCal that banned it back in 2020-21). The bill appears to still be moving through committees even though the new law states 100LL must continue to be made available until a suitable replacement has been blessed by the FAA. GAMI's fuel doesn't have the ASTM so there are a lot of stakeholders objecting to it.

I don't see Swift's 100R being widely available anytime soon...so not sure exactly how CA plans to enforce their bill.
 
The whole ASTM thing is a red herring by parties that want to slow down G100UL to try to get their fuel to the market.

BTW, none of them meet the D910 ASTM standard either. NO UL fuel can, as the standard has a minimum level of LEAD. :)
 
Back
Top