New Petition Calls For Action On Avgas Lead

AuntPeggy

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,479
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Display name:
Namaste
The EPA has been petitioned to reconsider its current position on leaded aviation fuel and start the process to regulate lead emissions from general aviation aircraft. Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Oregon Aviation Watch filed the latest petition last week. An earlier petition filed by the three in 2006 was denied in 2012 but the groups say in their latest action there is overwhelming evidence that 100LL is causing health-threatening environmental lead pollution and urge the EPA to make the "endangerment finding" necessary to move with regulations.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/New-Petition-Calls-For-Action-On-Avgas-Lead221923-1.html
 
With all the things we have let get banned we deserve to lose avgas. Surprised it has lasted this long
 
Why do airplanes need leaded fuel? What's the benefit? Weight?
 
They changed the gas for boats,and the industry adjusted. If the ga market is forced to change ,they will find a way.
 
Been running mogas in my planes for 10 years. Saved over $20,000. :dunno:

Never had a problem with 92 octane right out of the pump. :dunno:

Most airplanes can operate just fine on 92 octane fuel. :yes:

I think they should ban leaded fuel tomorrow. :D
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Been running mogas in my planes for 10 years. Saved over $20,000. :dunno:

Never had a problem with 92 octane right out of the pump. :dunno:

Most airplanes can operate just fine on 92 octane fuel. :yes:

I think they should ban leaded fuel tomorrow. :D
Click to expand...


Agreed....:thumbsup:...
 
Don't you have to change valve guides, seats, things like that?

Lead is an anti-knock agent and octane booster.

We'll find a way, but it will probably entail mucho dinero' on our part ...
 
Geico266 said:
Been running mogas in my planes for 10 years. Saved over $20,000. :dunno:

Never had a problem with 92 octane right out of the pump. :dunno:

Most airplanes can operate just fine on 92 octane fuel. :yes:

I think they should ban leaded fuel tomorrow. :D
Click to expand...

^Or at least offer the option of mogas at most airports. :yes:.

I understand why the big HP engines can't use mogas, and there's the same old song-and-dance about ethanol "eating hoses", but to still be throwing leaded fuel into the average light plane is ridiculous. Not only for $, but why do I as a pilot want to be dealing with that carp?
 
txflyer said:
Don't you have to change valve guides, seats, things like that?

Lead is an anti-knock agent and octane booster.

We'll find a way, but it will probably entail mucho dinero' on our part ...
Click to expand...

Not for most planes. For the few where knock/octane is a concern, there's always unleaded race gas at 100+ octane.
 
Captain said:
Why do airplanes need leaded fuel? What's the benefit? Weight?
Click to expand...

Mainly to keep from burning up high performance engines. We could switch today, assuming you're willing to ground all aircraft faster than a Cherokee 180. Do we really need all those big bore singles and twins? :dunno:
 
From all that I've read, it seems there is at least one, and probably two 100LL replacement fuels that are basically "ready for primetime", but the certification and political processes behind getting this done are what is dragging this along. My guess is 2020 is the year we'll finally see the switch.
 
warthog1984 said:
^Or at least offer the option of mogas at most airports. :yes:.
Click to expand...

This option keeps getting overlooked. There are local laws and federal regulations which make it difficult to add an unleaded pump at many airports. If a federal law mandated availability at airports above a certain size or at those getting federal grants, it would preempt restrictive local laws, and the 80% of owners who could use unleaded would probably do it.

I would be happy to buy ethanol-free 92 octane unleaded at an airport, and pay the associated aviation fuel tax on it, if it were available.

Once the transition began, simple economics would help remove roadblocks to lead-free 100-octane alternatives.
 
I have a big bore Conti engine.

I burn 87UL.

My engine loves it. Better economy, and a bit lower temps plus no lead fouling.

Buh-bye 100LL.
 
I have a mogas stc on my Cherokee 140, and I run mogas 4:1 with avgas most of the time. I'm all in favor of mogas as as much of a replacement as it can be... On the other hand, I would very much discourage us from banning avgas! If we keep banning things for reasons that are questionable at best, we won't have anything left. :mad2: If we don't join together to protect our fellow pilots against the ban everything government, we too will be banned. Offer avgas and mogas at an airport and let those who can use mogas use it. I believe the comparison I heard is the old 20/80 split. 20 percent of the fleet uses 80 percent of the avgas but that 20 percent is mostly made up of high performance engines which require 100ll.
Please do not leave these pilots out in the wind by abandoning them to the ban society we live in.
 
cctsurf said:
I have a mogas stc on my Cherokee 140, and I run mogas 4:1 with avgas most of the time. I'm all in favor of mogas as as much of a replacement as it can be... On the other hand, I would very much discourage us from banning avgas! If we keep banning things for reasons that are questionable at best, we won't have anything left. :mad2: If we don't join together to protect our fellow pilots against the ban everything government, we too will be banned. Offer avgas and mogas at an airport and let those who can use mogas use it. I believe the comparison I heard is the old 20/80 split. 20 percent of the fleet uses 80 percent of the avgas but that 20 percent is mostly made up of high performance engines which require 100ll.
Please do not leave these pilots out in the wind by abandoning them to the ban society we live in.
Click to expand...
Too late for all that. Novelty lighters are illegal in my state. What chance does leaded avgas have? No one stood up for novelty lighters and no one will stand up for avgas.
 
I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of the leaded fuel, BUT let's make sure we have a way to fast track a replacement! Not the usual 10 years of government studies and 2 years of hearings.:mad2: While were at it, let's ban alcohol from all fuels! :D oh wait, that's a politically correct additive. ;)
 
N747JB said:
I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of the leaded fuel, BUT let's make sure we have a way to fast track a replacement! Not the usual 10 years of government studies and 2 years of hearings.:mad2: While were at it, let's ban alcohol from all fuels! :D oh wait, that's a politically correct additive. ;)
Click to expand...

Yup.. ADM wouldn't want it any differently...:no:......:mad2:
 
N801BH said:
Beats me... It must be the comment about lead being used as ballast..;)
Click to expand...

Who suggested that? I asked why leaded fuel was needed and suggest a possible answer being weight. Catalytic converters, I imagine, weigh something.
 
warthog1984 said:
Not for most planes. For the few where knock/octane is a concern, there's always unleaded race gas at 100+ octane.
Click to expand...

Most general aviation piston aircraft can run just fine on 92 octane mogas. Its not voodoo, it is fuel. Any engine running 9-1 pistons (or less) can switch to mogas.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Most general aviation piston aircraft can run just fine on 92 octane mogas. Its not voodoo, it is fuel. Any engine running 9-1 pistons (or less) can switch to mogas.
Click to expand...

IF the RVP is in the right range.

IF the fuel is stable and doesn't absorb or release water, corrode metals, or cause plastic and rubber components to break down or swell.
 
Geico266 said:
Most general aviation piston aircraft can run just fine on 92 octane mogas. Its not voodoo, it is fuel. Any engine running 9-1 pistons (or less) can switch to mogas.
Click to expand...

Well, Petersen did the major work on mogas for aircraft and some just didn't pass the tests. The Navion and the early Bonanza have basically the same engines. The early Bonanza passed easily, the Navion didn't.

Almost all turbo planes have less than 9:1 CR and cannot safely run mogas.
 
kyleb said:
IF the RVP is in the right range.

IF the fuel is stable and doesn't absorb or release water, corrode metals, or cause plastic and rubber components to break down or swell.
Click to expand...

Been using mogas for 10 years and roughly 12,000 gallons.
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
The EPA has been petitioned to reconsider its current position on leaded aviation fuel and start the process to regulate lead emissions from general aviation aircraft. Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Oregon Aviation Watch filed the latest petition last week. An earlier petition filed by the three in 2006 was denied in 2012 but the groups say in their latest action there is overwhelming evidence that 100LL is causing health-threatening environmental lead pollution and urge the EPA to make the "endangerment finding" necessary to move with regulations.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/New-Petition-Calls-For-Action-On-Avgas-Lead221923-1.html
Click to expand...
I would like to see the evidence (if any) of adverse health effects.

Jeff Oslick said:
From all that I've read, it seems there is at least one, and probably two 100LL replacement fuels that are basically "ready for primetime", but the certification and political processes behind getting this done are what is dragging this along. My guess is 2020 is the year we'll finally see the switch.
Click to expand...
If they had their way we would all be grounded tomorrow.
 
The first problem is this claim of "overwhelming evidence"...Somehow I'm skeptical.

And the ability of other engine users being able to adapt doesn't apply to aircraft. Who cares if a boat's engine produces less horsepower. But screwing with an aircraft engine has much more significance.

BTW - I don't have any skin in the game. I no longer own an aircraft and no longer am current to fly.
 
Gary F said:
I would like to see the evidence (if any) of adverse health effects.


If they had their way we would all be grounded tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Me, too.

Along the lines of showing evidence, do you have any evidence that Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Oregon Aviation Watch want us all grounded?
 
Geico266 said:
Most general aviation piston aircraft can run just fine on 92 octane mogas. Its not voodoo, it is fuel. Any engine running 9-1 pistons (or less) can switch to mogas.
Click to expand...

I've always used 100LL .. mostly for convenience of taxiing up to the pump. The price of the 100LL has been so high wholesale that our airport hasn't bought any. So I just started buying the 91 octane non-ethanol ("boat gas") at a local station. The Aerovee runs fine on it .. no performance or temperature issues.

RT
 
Lead poisoning is pretty well defined. Has been for a long time.

I have no idea of the amount of lead we spew into the air, and/or if it can be quantified as a point-source of the lead. I know it's bad stuff, and I would like to have it gone from fuel, but unless we have the FAA step up with some alternative fuels approved, we're kind of stuck.
 
docmirror said:
Lead poisoning is pretty well defined. Has been for a long time.

I have no idea of the amount of lead we spew into the air, and/or if it can be quantified as a point-source of the lead. I know it's bad stuff, and I would like to have it gone from fuel, but unless we have the FAA step up with some alternative fuels approved, we're kind of stuck.
Click to expand...

That's OK to some of these groups. After all, aircraft noise is (in their minds) pollution, too, so this is just another way of banning small private aviation & the "rich" folks that can afford planes.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Me, too.

Along the lines of showing evidence, do you have any evidence that Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Oregon Aviation Watch want us all grounded?
Click to expand...

Just judging by the names of the groups, I'd say they aren't big aviation supporters. ;) But, I could be wrong. :D
 
Yes, I understand the politics behind some of it, but we're not in the right sub-forum to discuss that aspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top