E.P.A. Says It Will Set Rules for Airplane Emissions

Wait until the EPA hears about us burning leaded gas. That should make some heads asplode.
 
Ah yes....the administration that says we must fight global warming while we do absolutely nothing about the pollution generated to make all those cheap products from Asia.
 
Says aviation is 2% of global emissions. Seems like a fair target. Now if the airlines were to make donations to certain people and orgs this can all go to a committee for further study...
 
Keep in mind this is looking at big jet engines. One GE90 on a 777 probably burns more fuel in a single flight than most of PoA combined in a year.

Piston aviation is completely different. The EPA is primarily concerned with getting the lead out, which is already being worked.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind this is looking at big jet engines. One GE90 on a 777 probably burns more fuel in a single flight than most of PoA combined in a year.

Piston aviation is completely different. The EPA is primarily concerned with getting the lead out, which is already being worked.
Click to expand...

That may be, but I would be surprised if they leave GA alone. Economics play no role in the EPA process, other than the perfunctory analysis for APA requirements.
 
Maybe we can turn this to our advantage.... get some progress on non-leaded alternatives.








What am I thinking?
 
wsuffa said:
That may be, but I would be surprised if they leave GA alone. Economics play no role in the EPA process, other than the perfunctory analysis for APA requirements.
Click to expand...

Right, but we are still very low because we're so small, and since we're a predominantly legacy fleet they'd have to ban legacy engines. This would be like requiring a '69 Caddy to meet the emissions of a 2015 one.

This isn't a nail in our coffin... yet.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Right, but we are still very low because we're so small, and since we're a predominantly legacy fleet they'd have to ban legacy engines. This would be like requiring a '69 Caddy to meet the emissions of a 2015 one.

This isn't a nail in our coffin... yet.
Click to expand...

It's easier than you think, just restrict the sale of parts for legacy engines, they are trying that route with ammo vs trying to ban the guns. Not that much of a stretch for people determined to get their way. :dunno:
 
Read elsewhere that it will only apply to aircraft certified starting in 2020.

So it probably won't be an issue for GA until what 2040?
 
cowman said:
Read elsewhere that it will only apply to aircraft certified starting in 2020.

So it probably won't be an issue for GA until what 2040?
Click to expand...

Source please, or some kind of more info.

I'd like to believe that but such was not the case with transponder rollout back in the 70s. Retrofit - or die.
 
This one was posted in the flight following board

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/10/us-usa-aviation-carbon-idUSKBN0OQ19K20150610
...the requirement is expected to apply only to new aircraft designs certified from 2020, leaving most of the world's existing fleets unaffected for years to come.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that's referring to airframes or if power plant designs will also be grandfathered.

Although, as much fun as it is trusting one's life to the best technology the 50's had to offer, it would be nice to see some newer GA powerplants. Not that I'll be able to afford one until it ages another 30 years...
 
N747JB said:
It's easier than you think, just restrict the sale of parts for legacy engines, they are trying that route with ammo vs trying to ban the guns. Not that much of a stretch for people determined to get their way. :dunno:
Click to expand...

There's always a way to get rid of something. We've got availability, the enemy is price.
 
cowman said:
This one was posted in the flight following board

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/10/us-usa-aviation-carbon-idUSKBN0OQ19K20150610


I wonder if that's referring to airframes or if power plant designs will also be grandfathered.

Although, as much fun as it is trusting one's life to the best technology the 50's had to offer, it would be nice to see some newer GA powerplants. Not that I'll be able to afford one until it ages another 30 years...
Click to expand...

"expected to", not "will".

The article I read said "the airlines hope...", which is even softer.

If this is like the noise standards, it will eventually apply.

And yes, I can forsee the EPA wrapping the lead standards into this proceeding.
 
Under this Administration, the EPA right now is a Wild Card. They can use the Clean Air and Water Act however they see fit too damage business, and industry to fulfill the Administration's agenda, and they do not need Congress to do it. The next 18 months will be very "interesting" I suspect.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Right, but we are still very low because we're so small, and since we're a predominantly legacy fleet they'd have to ban legacy engines. This would be like requiring a '69 Caddy to meet the emissions of a 2015 one.

This isn't a nail in our coffin... yet.
Click to expand...

Being small didn't stop them from going after lawnmowers.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind this is looking at big jet engines. One GE90 on a 777 probably burns more fuel in a single flight than most of PoA combined in a year.

Piston aviation is completely different. The EPA is primarily concerned with getting the lead out, which is already being worked.
Click to expand...

Pretty easy to get the lead out. Burn 92 octane mogas like I have been for 1,000 hours.
 
N747JB said:
It's easier than you think, just restrict the sale of parts for legacy engines, they are trying that route with ammo vs trying to ban the guns. Not that much of a stretch for people determined to get their way. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yup.....

ADS-B is the first step.....

They know who you are...

They know where you flew....

They send you a bill to buy carbon credits...:mad2::mad2::mad:
 
Fearless Tower said:
Ah yes....the administration that says we must fight global warming while we do absolutely nothing about the pollution generated to make all those cheap products from Asia.
Click to expand...

A huge problem indeed, but as Wall Street says, "Not our problem." As long as pollution = greater profit, we will do nothing about it. Fortunately though, China is doing something, they realize they have to. They built the most power full dam in the world, and has 24 nuclear power plants under construction and is developing a Thorium program as well.

Chinese are still Communists, and some of the 'for the good of the people' ethic is still alive, and the pollution is no good for the people.

It's the increase in volcanic activity in SE Asia that is of greatest concern at the moment to me.

Politically, the South China Sea poses a far more pressing issue.
 
Old Geek said:
Being small didn't stop them from going after lawnmowers.
Click to expand...

Everyone with a lawn has at lawnmower. Probably two. We have a total of 4 or 5 gas-powered lawn items. how many millions of lawn mowers exist that are used daily or weekly vs thousands of planes only used monthly? Plus, to my point, old lawn equipment is allowed to stay the way it was.

And I didn't say the EPA doesn't have their eyes on us, but so far, removal of lead has been the primary path. This announcement was focused on airliners.
 
Geico266 said:
Pretty easy to get the lead out. Burn 92 octane mogas like I have been for 1,000 hours.
Click to expand...

That is not a fleet-wide solution, but is what I would do if I had a plane that it would work on.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Everyone with a lawn has at lawnmower. Probably two. We have a total of 4 or 5 gas-powered lawn items. how many millions of lawn mowers exist that are used daily or weekly vs thousands of planes only used monthly? Plus, to my point, old lawn equipment is allowed to stay the way it was.

And I didn't say the EPA doesn't have their eyes on us, but so far, removal of lead has been the primary path. This announcement was focused on airliners.
Click to expand...

Please let them force the lead out finally, solutions exist. Sunoco has the fuel to do the job already marketed to the race car crowd and the refinery can pump out enough. However in the words of a Sunoco exec I asked about putting the fuel up for a 100LL replacement, "We want nothing to do with that market.":(
 
Henning said:
Please let them force the lead out finally, solutions exist. Sunoco has the fuel to do the job already marketed to the race car crowd and the refinery can pump out enough. However in the words of a Sunoco exec I asked about putting the fuel up for a 100LL replacement, "We want nothing to do with that market.":(
Click to expand...

I'm all for removal of lead. Huge benefits all around. The Shell solution seems to be promising.
 
Under the present administration,it scares me to know the EPA is looking into something. Over reaction on their part affects us all.
 
chicken-little.jpg
 
timwinters said:
chicken-little.jpg
Click to expand...

No, GA is just going to be dragged into the 21st century, albeit kicking and screaming. Seriously, lead in Avgas costs a lot of cylinder money every year. Lead is like glue for carbon on your valve seats, faces, and stems, the last is what causes sticking valves and guide wear. That's where the real cost of ROP operations is.

When we get unleaded AvGas, you will see it become common for cylinders to go TBO.
 
With more jet-a aircraft coming into the market I wonder if switching some of the old engines out for diesels at overhaul time could become a thing.

There would be many ways the FAA could streamline that process... for example Piper is making a diesel powered Archer now. The engineering would seem to be already done since there's almost no difference between a modern Archer and a '78 like mine. Perhaps they could simplify the certification process for new STCs in cases like this.
 
cowman said:
With more jet-a aircraft coming into the market I wonder if switching some of the old engines out for diesels at overhaul time could become a thing.

There would be many ways the FAA could streamline that process... for example Piper is making a diesel powered Archer now. The engineering would seem to be already done since there's almost no difference between a modern Archer and a '78 like mine. Perhaps they could simplify the certification process for new STCs in cases like this.
Click to expand...

For most of the GA fleet which is now well over 30 years old, the cost of installing a diesel engine would be far greater than the value of the airplane. I just don't think the economics work unless you could get an engine at the cost of what an avgas engine costs.
 
Henning said:
Please let them force the lead out finally, solutions exist. Sunoco has the fuel to do the job already marketed to the race car crowd and the refinery can pump out enough. However in the words of a Sunoco exec I asked about putting the fuel up for a 100LL replacement, "We want nothing to do with that market.":(
Click to expand...

Would it take an exemption from liability for aviation use to change their minds on that?
 
cowman said:
With more jet-a aircraft coming into the market I wonder if switching some of the old engines out for diesels at overhaul time could become a thing.

There would be many ways the FAA could streamline that process... for example Piper is making a diesel powered Archer now. The engineering would seem to be already done since there's almost no difference between a modern Archer and a '78 like mine. Perhaps they could simplify the certification process for new STCs in cases like this.
Click to expand...

I think Continental is stupid for restricting the CD-350 to OEM. It is the engine that would fit every HP and cabin class recip twin to bring them a new life and extended range. The 414/421/340/310 would be efficient transatlantic machines that could make it with no ferry tanks with only a stop in Iceland. Probably revive the Duke and Navajo markets a bit too.
 
Anthony said:
For most of the GA fleet which is now well over 30 years old, the cost of installing a diesel engine would be far greater than the value of the airplane. I just don't think the economics work unless you could get an engine at the cost of what an avgas engine costs.
Click to expand...

Correct. Continental would have to want the market enough to provide some serious discounts.
 
frfly172 said:
Under the present administration,it scares me to know the EPA is looking into something. Over reaction on their part affects us all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because under every other administration, the EPA has been a real friend to general aviation. :rolleyes:
 
jsstevens said:
But would diesel Duke still be cool?

John

:)
Click to expand...

The problem with diesels on a Duke is it might then be reliable enough to fly, which should never happen.
 
Old Geek said:
Being small didn't stop them from going after lawnmowers.
Click to expand...

Or gas cans....

Anthony said:
For most of the GA fleet which is now well over 30 years old, the cost of installing a diesel engine would be far greater than the value of the airplane. I just don't think the economics work unless you could get an engine at the cost of what an avgas engine costs.
Click to expand...

This is the real problem. It can become uneconomic quickly enough to kill the market. When they made lead go away for cars, a number of the old big-bore engines were affected, but they could still run as there's no need to certify the engine to the car frame and fuel. Can't just do that with aviation under the regulatory structure. And any engine replacement will require an STC - for each airframe (which is probably part of the reason that Continental has no interest in that market - and may well be why Shell has no interest, either).

And while some planes can get a mogas STC, there are any number that can't.

I agree that getting the lead out would be a good thing. But....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top