New Petition Calls For Action On Avgas Lead

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...

Other then all those groups being ULTRA LIBERAL,, I say they have a right to express their views.. I just want positive proof of their claims...

Ps.. As a kid, I played with liquid Mercury and let it roll all over my hands.. And I bet everyone of you guys/gals did too....

Guess what... We are still alive and healthy....

Some much for Mercury poisoning....:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/...xic-lead-air-pollution-from-aviation-gasoline
“An endangerment finding rests on meeting just two criteria: one that lead emissions from aircraft engines fueled by leaded avgas cause or contribute to air pollution, and two, that the air pollution from those lead emissions is reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare, “ said Earthjustice attorney Bridget Lee. “Both of these conditions have been met and, in fact, substantiated by EPA already. EPA’s contention that it must complete additional studies before making an endangerment finding is not supported by the law or the facts.”

http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/avgas-Petition-Recon.pdf
 
Well there you have it airplanes are bad for children and must be banned.:rolleyes2:
We are so far down the rabbit hole it is funny. Look around this what a crumbing empire looks like.
 
My guess is that the EPA will maintain their current position relative to 100LL - that it will go away, but that the industry is being allowed to develop substitutes, which it is. The fact that the FAA is involved in this is probably a good thing.

Let's not get too excited here.
 
There are ways to solve this without grounding everyone or emptying our bank accounts but the EPA doesn't exactly have a great record on making things easy.

I, for one, would purchase the mogas STC for my Archer right away if enough airports had it available for me to take advantage. They could probably get a good portion of the GA fleet moved over without having to ban anything just by enacting legislation to make it more readily available.
 
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...

"Oregon Aviation Watch" I haven't heard that name in a while. Took me a minute but I knew it rang bell.. I remember that foaming at the mouth rabid crazy *****.

IIRC She's the one who wrote the over-the-top letter to the FAA/NTSB rule making board or something like that.

Here's you're proof

http://www.oregonaviationwatch.com/articles/OAW-HillsboroAirportOverview.php

EDIT: Here's who you're dealing with. Took me a while to dig her up on the internets. http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro...iously_to_be_heard_over_din_of_airplanes.html
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/...xic-lead-air-pollution-from-aviation-gasoline
“An endangerment finding rests on meeting just two criteria: one that lead emissions from aircraft engines fueled by leaded avgas cause or contribute to air pollution, and two, that the air pollution from those lead emissions is reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare, “ said Earthjustice attorney Bridget Lee. “Both of these conditions have been met and, in fact, substantiated by EPA already. EPA’s contention that it must complete additional studies before making an endangerment finding is not supported by the law or the facts.”

http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/avgas-Petition-Recon.pdf
Click to expand...
Contribute to air pollution. What is the standard for that? Should we immediately get rid of all internal combustion engines? Livestock that belch methane? People who eat the wrong food?

What's the standard of "reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health"?

Translation: We think leaded aviation fuel might eventually be bad for somebody somewhere but we just don't have any hard evidence.
 
Last edited:
It's all in toxicity thresholds, and I don't believe one exists for lead. So technically, they can certainly argue that it's a health hazard. And they might be right.

There is no mogas STC for my Cardinal, BTW. Not sure how unsafe it would be to run it, but it's definitely not legal.
 
azure said:
It's all in toxicity thresholds, and I don't believe one exists for lead. So technically, they can certainly argue that it's a health hazard. And they might be right.

There is no mogas STC for my Cardinal, BTW. Not sure how unsafe it would be to run it, but it's definitely not legal.
Click to expand...
There is a toxicity threshold for every substance.
 
azure said:
It's all in toxicity thresholds, and I don't believe one exists for lead. So technically, they can certainly argue that it's a health hazard. And they might be right.

There is no mogas STC for my Cardinal, BTW. Not sure how unsafe it would be to run it, but it's definitely not legal.
Click to expand...

Ten µg/dL (micrograms /deciliter) was adopted by CDC in 1991 as an
action level for children, an advisory level for environmental and
educational intervention.
• CDC case management guidelines are designed to keep children’s
BLLs below 10 µg/dL (CDC, 2002).
• There are also requirements that children receiving Medicaid be
screened.
• Studies have found neurobehavioral impairment in children with BLLs
below 10 µg/dL. (Canfield, 2003; Lanphear et al. 2000)
• No blood lead threshold has been identified in children.
The Biological Exposure Index (BEI) is a guidance value for assessing
biological monitoring results.
The BEI for blood lead is 30 µg/dL. (ACGIH 2005)
The BEI indicates exposure at the Threshold Limit Value (TLV)
 
bartmc said:
"Oregon Aviation Watch" I haven't heard that name in a while. Took me a minute but I knew it rang bell.. I remember that foaming at the mouth rabid crazy *****.

IIRC She's the one who wrote the over-the-top letter to the FAA/NTSB rule making board or something like that.

Here's you're proof

http://www.oregonaviationwatch.com/articles/OAW-HillsboroAirportOverview.php

EDIT: Here's who you're dealing with. Took me a while to dig her up on the internets. http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro...iously_to_be_heard_over_din_of_airplanes.html
Click to expand...

I'll grant the claim about the crazy woman in Oregon. Don't know about the others, though.
 
docmirror said:
Ten µg/dL (micrograms /deciliter) was adopted by CDC in 1991 as an
action level for children, an advisory level for environmental and
educational intervention.
• CDC case management guidelines are designed to keep children’s
BLLs below 10 µg/dL (CDC, 2002).
• There are also requirements that children receiving Medicaid be
screened.
• Studies have found neurobehavioral impairment in children with BLLs
below 10 µg/dL. (Canfield, 2003; Lanphear et al. 2000)
• No blood lead threshold has been identified in children.
The Biological Exposure Index (BEI) is a guidance value for assessing
biological monitoring results.
The BEI for blood lead is 30 µg/dL. (ACGIH 2005)
The BEI indicates exposure at the Threshold Limit Value (TLV)
Click to expand...
And there is also this:
ATSDR has not derived MRLs for lead. The EPA has not developed a reference concentration (RfC) for lead. EPA has also decided that it would be inappropriate to develop a reference dose (RfD) for inorganic lead (and lead compounds) because some of the health effects associated with exposure to lead occur at blood lead levels as low as to be essentially without a threshold (IRIS 2005).
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13-c8.pdf
 
Lead can be toxic, no argument here. I believe that aviation fuel should be reformulated so that is does not use lead. Fortunately my airplane has been approved for 91 UL and I'm willing to pay a premium over 100LL. However some airplanes will not run on the stuff. The problem I have is when people insist on change that will affect others without having reasonable evidence to support these demands.
 
Gary F said:
Contribute to air pollution. What is the standard for that? Should we immediately get rid of all internal combustion engines? Livestock that belch methane? People who eat the wrong food?

What's the standard of "reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health"?

Translation: We think leaded aviation fuel might eventually be bad for somebody somewhere but we just don't have any hard evidence.
Click to expand...

Aren't there some really bad pollutants released when you smoke pot? But we're encouraging more of that?? :dunno:

Go figure.
 
LDJones said:
Aren't there some really bad pollutants released when you smoke pot? But we're encouraging more of that?? :dunno:

Go figure.
Click to expand...

Hmmm might have to study that. Contact buzz for science man.:lol:
 
I wonder exactly what degree of a health threat leaded avgas is today.

I know the environmental experts say it's use is bad, but how much? Compared to what else? Are there that many planes using 100LL to fly around in the air on this planet?

Seems the 100LL exhaust that I produce is fairly widely dispersed into the atmosphere. Kinda like spitting in the ocean, or another way, having the world's largest smokestack. And, usage of this particular avgas is on a decline.
 
oilburner said:
I wonder exactly what degree of a health threat leaded avgas is today.

I know the environmental experts say it's use is bad, but how much? Compared to what else? Are there that many planes using 100LL to fly around in the air on this planet?

Seems the 100LL exhaust that I produce is fairly widely dispersed into the atmosphere. Kinda like spitting in the ocean, or another way, having the world's largest smokestack. And, usage of this particular avgas is on a decline.
Click to expand...

Well; it's more than just your exhaust pipe. Most consumers don't take into account the life-cycle of the stuff they're looking at. So - all the way from raw mining, separation, refining, smelting, storage, emulsion, tankage, delivery, and finally burning in your engine is the last step.

Once the fuel is mixed at the dist point, that tank can no longer be used for anything but leaded avgas. Same is true for the delivery trailer tank, and the storage tank at the airport.

Lots of steps involved.

Personally, I think our frustration is aimed at the wrong three letter agency. I'm sure there are two developers of UL100 that would love to sell us fuel but the hold up isn't the EPA. I'm also pretty sure that three other big refiners would jump at the chance to sell us some kind of UL100 if they could get approval. To me, and maybe just me, the hold up isn't the EPA.
 
docmirror said:
Well; it's more than just your exhaust pipe. Most consumers don't take into account the life-cycle of the stuff they're looking at. So - all the way from raw mining, separation, refining, smelting, storage, emulsion, tankage, delivery, and finally burning in your engine is the last step.

Once the fuel is mixed at the dist point, that tank can no longer be used for anything but leaded avgas. Same is true for the delivery trailer tank, and the storage tank at the airport.

Lots of steps involved.

Personally, I think our frustration is aimed at the wrong three letter agency. I'm sure there are two developers of UL100 that would love to sell us fuel but the hold up isn't the EPA. I'm also pretty sure that three other big refiners would jump at the chance to sell us some kind of UL100 if they could get approval. To me, and maybe just me, the hold up isn't the EPA.
Click to expand...
All true. Now show us where lead used in aviation fuel has resulted in toxicity.
 
Gary F said:
Lead can be toxic, no argument here. I believe that aviation fuel should be reformulated so that is does not use lead. Fortunately my airplane has been approved for 91 UL and I'm willing to pay a premium over 100LL. However some airplanes will not run on the stuff. The problem I have is when people insist on change that will affect others without having reasonable evidence to support these demands.
Click to expand...

Correct. And while many pilots don't care about lead because it doesn't impact their planes, the majority of the AvGas burned is by planes that need the anti-knock properties of 100LL. It is important to keep those planes flying.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Correct. And while many pilots don't care about lead because it doesn't impact their planes, the majority of the AvGas burned is by planes that need the anti-knock properties of 100LL. It is important to keep those planes flying.
Click to expand...
Important to how many and how much have they spent in Congress letting their feelings be known?:dunno:
 
ClimbnSink said:
Important to how many and how much have they spent in Congress letting their feelings be known?:dunno:
Click to expand...
Or how about facts rather than feelings? How many airplanes can run on 91UL as is or with minimal modification? Does lead from 100LL result in a measurable increase in tissue lead levels for pilots, passengers or people on the ground? A little science along with medical and engineering analysis could be helpful here.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Correct. And while many pilots don't care about lead because it doesn't impact their planes, the majority of the AvGas burned is by planes that need the anti-knock properties of 100LL. It is important to keep those planes flying.
Click to expand...



Agreed.

One way to appease the green meanies and EPA for now would be to encourage normally asperated aircraft to use 91UL by encouraging FBOs to sell the stuff. A good premium grade fuel with inventory rotated on a regular basis and planes that fly regularly could be saving a lot of money, and reducing the cost of flying at the same time. Increasing the amount of hours flown.
 
Gary F said:
Or how about facts rather than feelings? How many airplanes can run on 91UL as is or with minimal modification? Does lead from 100LL result in a measurable increase in tissue lead levels for pilots, passengers or people on the ground? A little science along with medical and engineering analysis could be helpful here.
Click to expand...
The feelings crowd doesn't care about science and has momentum on their side. The handful of people this affects are not going to put up any science. And if they did, any science that doesn't say lead is supersuperbad is likely to be shouted down regardless of validity. Worse any neutral lead effects studies would bring more attention and more foes to the table. That feelings thing again. Avgas is over.
 
ClimbnSink said:
The feelings crowd doesn't care about science and has momentum on their side. The handful of people this affects are not going to put up any science. And if they did, any science that doesn't say lead is supersuperbad is likely to be shouted down regardless of validity. Worse any neutral lead effects studies would bring more attention and more foes to the table. That feelings thing again. Avgas is over.
Click to expand...

There is probably a 1000 times greater impact of lead on the enviroment from lead wheel weights on vehicles, lead bullets, lead in batteries and lead sinkers on fishing gear. etc,etc,etc...

Funny.... Not a peep to remove those off the face of the earth.......

grrrr... Never mind,, lead comes FROM the earth..:mad2::mad2:......;)..:D
 
N801BH said:
There is probably a 1000 times greater impact of lead on the enviroment from lead wheel weights on vehicles, lead bullets, lead in batteries and lead sinkers on fishing gear. etc,etc,etc...

Funny.... Not a peep to remove those off the face of the earth.......

grrrr... Never mind,, lead comes FROM the earth..:mad2::mad2:......;)..:D
Click to expand...
They have tried to go after bullets out here in the east. They got lead fishing sinkers with dubious science, nothing is safe. Except wheel weights and 1,000 pound lead sailboat keels.:lol:
 
My suspicion is that once LL is gone, mandatory catalytic converters will be next because burning that mogas will cause harmful emissions which must be converted to CO2 and H2O to save the planet. Oh wait, never mind.
 
docmirror said:
Well; it's more than just your exhaust pipe. Most consumers don't take into account the life-cycle of the stuff they're looking at. So - all the way from raw mining, separation, refining, smelting, storage, emulsion, tankage, delivery, and finally burning in your engine is the last step.

Once the fuel is mixed at the dist point, that tank can no longer be used for anything but leaded avgas. Same is true for the delivery trailer tank, and the storage tank at the airport.

Lots of steps involved.

Personally, I think our frustration is aimed at the wrong three letter agency. I'm sure there are two developers of UL100 that would love to sell us fuel but the hold up isn't the EPA. I'm also pretty sure that three other big refiners would jump at the chance to sell us some kind of UL100 if they could get approval. To me, and maybe just me, the hold up isn't the EPA.
Click to expand...

That's my opinion, too. There's no reason you can't build high-performance recip engines that will run perfectly fine on UL gasoline. But getting that engine to pass FAA certification muster is so costly that no manufacturer in their right mind wants to make the investment given the small market and limited opportunity for cost-recovery -- and especially considering that getting the engine itself certificated doesn't mean it can actually be installed in an existing aircraft. You still need an STC and all that entails for every airframe / powerplant combination.

And so we still have engines that were designed and/or built 70+ years ago powering GA aircraft, which is absurd considering the advances made in the automotive engine and non-certificated / LSA aviation powerplant sectors in recent years. That will remain the case as long as bringing more modern powerplants into GA remains fiscally unfeasible for manufacturers.

-Rich
 
pilot_dude said:
My suspicion is that once LL is gone, mandatory catalytic converters will be next because burning that mogas will cause harmful emissions which must be converted to CO2 and H2O to save the planet. Oh wait, never mind.
Click to expand...

One of the auto OEM experts can chime in, but I thought EGTs on planes would be a bit warm for catalytic converters. Plus you'd need a bypass and indication in case it clogged.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One of the auto OEM experts can chime in, but I thought EGTs on planes would be a bit warm for catalytic converters. Plus you'd need a bypass and indication in case it clogged.
Click to expand...

Then we will have to add uriea systems to clean the cats. :lol: :eek:
 
For those who argue that they are not trying to ban flight, I doubt that that is really what they think they are doing, although I really appreciated a couple of points in regard to the attack on the internal combustion engine a few posts back.
Look at Europe. Insane regulation after insane regulation has made it so that it is almost impossible to fly GA.

With regard to lead, I'm attempting to do some calculations on some of the largest GA airports in the nation so that I can give some real number analysis.

cctsurf
 
Captain said:
Who suggested that? I asked why leaded fuel was needed and suggest a possible answer being weight. Catalytic converters, I imagine, weigh something.
Click to expand...

You don't need a catalytic converter to run unleaded gas in a car.
 
Gary F said:
All true. Now show us where lead used in aviation fuel has resulted in toxicity.
Click to expand...

You will find your answer in post #37. At the risk of quoting myself, I'll help you: "I have no idea". I'm not endorsing, or advocating, or in line with the EPAs stand on leaded avgas. I try not to use it, when I use it I'm careful, and it can't be avoided. I'd like to put mogas in my plane at every stop just cause it's cheaper and it's better for the environment, but I can't find it everywhere.

Absorbing lead in humans is toxic. Then again, so is alcohol(at certain doses) and I absorb that pretty often.
 
There are plenty of reasons that lead is not a great thing including fouling of plugs. However, if somebody wants to ban a substance or activity the onus is on them to supply factual information and not just "it's bad" or "I don't like it" type of arguments.
 
Last edited:
Gary F said:
There are plenty of reasons that lead is not a great thing including fouling of plugs. However, if soembody wants to ban a substance or activity the onus is on them to supply factual information and not just "it's bad" or "I don't like it" type of arguments.
Click to expand...

Um - ok, but I really don't know why you're quoting me. I have no interest in banning avgas, which you'll find in the very post you just quoted.
 
docmirror said:
Um - ok, but I really don't know why you're quoting me. I have no interest in banning avgas, which you'll find in the very post you just quoted.
Click to expand...
Sorry, consider yourself dequoted.

I think the FAA and EPA should work together to fast track a solution including a streamlined low cost procedure for certifying engines for use of UL. It might make sense to formulate a reduced lead fuel during the transition period.
 
N801BH said:
There is probably a 1000 times greater impact of lead on the enviroment from lead wheel weights on vehicles, lead bullets, lead in batteries and lead sinkers on fishing gear. etc,etc,etc...

Funny.... Not a peep to remove those off the face of the earth.......

grrrr... Never mind,, lead comes FROM the earth..:mad2::mad2:......;)..:D
Click to expand...

Most wheel weights are zinc. I found this out because it USED to be a popular source for people who cast their own bullets.

Lead-Acid batteries are one of the most highly recycled modern contraptions on earth. Nearly 100% recycleable and nearly 100% get recycled.

"They" are actively going after lead in bullets/shot.

Jim
 
I've been crunching some numbers from the Department of Energy's analysis of GA lead and from the EPA.
I calculated a few points on the study (http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/epa 2009a.pdf) and their numbers don't correlate with the number of operations using their own calculations! I'm getting 30% differences from their numbers using their own numbers.
The holes in their analysis are numerous as well, and need to be explored. For example: they assume that the average single engine ga aircraft requires 2.83 gal to take off and the average twin 9.12 gal/to. My experience of fuel usage on the ground is nothing like that, that means that there have to be a lot of planes using a lot more gas than I am on takeoff.
What I would like to see is an annual study around say Van Nuys (the busiest GA Airport in the US) and perhaps a number of other busy GA airports, testing ground lead and look at the actual contamination as opposed to calculated numbers (calculations of this type can be made to say anything someone wants). We need actual numbers.
It would have to be an annual study because we would need to see a rise in ground lead (airports often had industrial parks near them that often spewed contamination in past years, so a baseline must be considered), it would have to be a radial study to see at what distance the lead is being dispersed.
Just my $.02
cctsurf

If we don't hang together as pilots, we will all sit and corrode separately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top