FAA Wants All Aircraft Flying On Unleaded Fuel By 2018

coondoggie writes "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week put out a call to fuel producers to offer options that would safely let general aviation aircraft stop using leaded fuel by 2018. The FAA says there are approximately 167,000 aircraft in the United States and a total of 230,000 worldwide that rely on the current 100 octane, low lead fuel for safe operation. It is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United States that contains the addition of tetraethyl lead, a toxic substance, to create the very high octane levels needed for high-performance aircraft engines. Operations with inadequate octane can result in engine failures, the FAA noted."

Comments

Thanks Slashdot.

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Now I know where I can get leaded gas for my old car. :)
Off to the airport. :)

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[Lehk228]

if you get caught with avgas in your tank (it's dyed) you are in deep shit

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[LDAPMAN]

I've seen the Missouri State Police show up at a livestock auction and check every pickup as they leave. They were writing tickets by the bushel.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mix two different octanes of avgas together and the dyes disappear. It is a feature of avgas to alert pilots in case they mix octanes.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. You clearly have *NO* clue how general aviation works. Anyone can go to the airport with a gas can and use the self serve station. Records are not kept. You do not have to own an aircraft to buy avgas. People at the airport here use it in the lawn mowers, the tugs, golf carts, chainsaws, etc. Hell, I use it in my 2-stroke RC car. I've bought 100LL all over the state on my personal credit card for aircraft I don't own.

Don't present as fact that which you have no clue about.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't present as fact that which you have no clue about.

Welcome to Slashdot. Try the ramen.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[AK Marc]

Farmer diesel is dyed and (mostly) untaxed. Ticketing farmers for using untaxed tractor diesel on the road is common.

Someone else mentioned that avgas is similarly marked and similarly illegal to use on the road, though I know more than one street racer who fills up at the airport. And yes, it matters when you are trying to run turbos at higher compressions.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been checked 6 times in 12 years on my personal diesel. On my heavy equipment we average 1-2 checks per year per vehicle. This is in Alabama and Georgia.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[mikestew]

But when I put it in my motorcycle, whooopeeee! Goes like a rabbit!

Not unless you changed the ignition timing, raised the compression, or did anything else that could benefit from higher octane. Otherwise you spent a bunch of money for a gasoline-flavored placebo.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[thegarbz]

Name one person that has EVER had their tank checked, on a consumer vehicle.

My father buys off-road diesel (it's dyed), 1000 gallon at a time, for his farm and runs it in his pickups. Has been doing so for years.

Everyone who has ever been in an accident.

It's not the police that check it, it's the insurance companies. Quite frankly I'd much prefer a fine from police than have to fork out for a completely new car.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[kick6]

Sorry, I must disagree.

The bike I ride is water cooled and uses CV carbs. A one-in-four gal mix seemed to increase torque somewhat dramatically. Were the carbs clean? Yes. Valves adjusted? Yes. Compression fine? Yes.

Hilly country rides became immensely pleasurable, although yes, the engine temp increased two notches in ten. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to degrees on the bike's thermometer. Nonetheless, it was wahhhhhoooo time.

Placebo effect entirely. In fact, the bike actually made LESS power on the 100 octane than it did on the lower octane fuel. In all scenarios, the best power is made on the lowest octane fuel that doesn't result in detonation.

caveat: assuming similar fuel composition. Therefore, if the pump gas in your area has 10% ethanol, the non-ethanol avgas will run slightly better. However, the increase in energy density from the lack of ethanol is offset by the inefficiency of combustion associated with the higher octane burning significantly slower...so we're back to the placebo again.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[Deadstick]

It also smells different. I don't know why.

Mercaptans, organic compounds that occur naturally in crude oil. They seriously stink; methyl mercaptan is what your gas company puts in the gas so you'll know when you have a leak, and T-butyl mercaptan is essence of skunk. Get car gas on your hands, wash with soap and water, and you'll still smell the mercaptans.

Mercaptans also congeal with age and gum up fuel systems. Aircraft operators take that a little more personally than car owners do, so avgas has the mercaptans refined out.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[AK Marc]

The higher octane is required in higher altitudes. 87 at sea level will give more power than 91 in Denver (caveats apply)

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[Above]

Everyone who has ever been in an accident.

It's not the police that check it, it's the insurance companies. Quite frankly I'd much prefer a fine from police than have to fork out for a completely new car.

Ok, you need to explain that statement, because it makes no logical sense.

Off road diesel must meet the exact same standards as on road, the difference is they add dye and remove the road tax. As such, I can't see any way it would increase or decrease the chances or liability in an accident. I fail to see why the insurance company would care, and if they did care what legal theory they would use to deny the claim.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[thebes]

I fail to see why the insurance company would care, and if they did care what legal theory they would use to deny the claim.

Simple: you broke the law. Therefore, the insurance company doesn't have to pay out. Most policies say they are null and void if the vehicle is involved in any illegal activity.

Re: Thanks Slashdot.

[jonwil]

The problem is that NASCAR technology is 50+ years old. If they would change their ways and move towards a modern engine, it wouldn't be a problem.

Here in Australia, the V8 Supercars (which is becoming more and more like NASCAR with all the rule changes they keep bringing in) are using modern 5.0L N/A V8 engines with EFI and they are doing just fine running E85 Ethanol.

Given NASCAR has hillbilly/farmer/rural/redneck associations/roots and given how big corn ethanol is in the US, using E85 in NASCAR would actually be seen as a good thing among much of its traditional fan base. They would just need to move into the modern era and embrace engines that aren't 50+ years old.

Re:Thanks Slashdot.

[Alioth]

It's not necessarily the high octane. If the vehicle wasn't driven much, then normal automotive fuel tends to "go off" and varnish up the carburettor, fuel lines, fuel tank etc. Avgas on the other hand stores a lot better since the usage pattern of many aircraft that run on avgas is to perhaps be flown once or twice a month and maybe not at all during the winter. You can keep avgas for an extended period of time without it "going off". For an old, occasional use vehicle then it may just run a lot better on avgas because basically while it's parked up the fuel system doesn't get varnished.

mostly some small private planes left

[Trepidity]

It's piston-engine stuff like Cessnas that make up the remaining leaded avgas users, and even there, only the subset of engines that require the 100-octane avgas. Both newer and some older stuff can use 91-octane stuff that's now unleaded.

Re:mostly some small private planes left

[tlhIngan]

It's piston-engine stuff like Cessnas that make up the remaining leaded avgas users, and even there, only the subset of engines that require the 100-octane avgas. Both newer and some older stuff can use 91-octane stuff that's now unleaded.

There are however a LOT of older planes around that require leaded - plenty of them dating to when liability lawsuits resulted in halted production sometime in 1986, and plenty more during the boom period of 1997 (when production resumed thanks to Clinton's limited product liability act) and 2008. Newer ones generally are certified for low octane, but there's plenty of planes flying about that aren't.

In fact, the industry has seen this coming and actually has done formal research into research and testing leaded avgas alternatives - an association formed between associations representing pilots, manufacturers, the FAA and others.

The basic goal is to come up with an equivalent to 100LL that can be used transparently, because certifying all the old aircraft for new fuels is finicky, at best, and an boondoggle of costs at worst. Having an unleaded 100LL alternative that is equivalent means all those old engines don't require a lick of work being done to them.

As for unleaded "mogas" (car gas), it turns out that a lot of them are now out of reach because biogas is incompatible - I think they can handle 5% ethanol, but newer ones have higher percentages and are actually not certified for flight use.

Re: mostly some small private planes left

[MechaStreisand]

There AREN'T ANY, you fuckwit. There are so few general aviation aircraft flying that the lead in their fuel makes no measurable environmental impact at ALL.

Re: mostly some small private planes left

[Anonymous Coward]

And with about 30 years, you might get the FAA to approve the engine to put into that airplane. We are not talking about your old junk car sitting in the back yard here, you don't get to just put whatever you want into it. Certified aircraft require FAA certified parts, which includes the engine. This has nothing to do with being authentic, it has to do with government regulations and laws.

Re:mostly some small private planes left

[GoogleShill]

Ethanol is a very bad thing to put in avgas, which is why you won't find it at any airport pump. It has this terrible problem of absorbing moisture from the air while it's sitting in the tank, parked, then releasing it as water when you're at altitude. The water sinks to the bottom of the tank and gets sucked right into the engine.

Re:mostly some small private planes left

[sixoh1]

Those aircraft (at least in the US) that remain registered (an FAA requirement to operate these aircraft) have lots of operating data. See the NALL report (AOPA and others). In general a 100LL 4-cylinder piston aircraft is the workhorse of the GA fleet, used by flight schools and flying clubs. A 1969 Cessna 172 is likely to be a primary trainer (the first aircraft you step in) because the depreciated cost of the airframe and simplicity of the engine/avionics means a flight school can operate it at a "reasonable" cost per hour for the student and not lose their shirts. Ditto for most aircraft made up to about 1995. Go to a flight school and look at the schedule for such an aircraft and you'll probably see appointments noon-to-night because students desperately need hours for their logbooks, and the oldest planes are the cheapest.

Newer aircraft with engines certified for 91-Octane AVGas and such unleaded replacements generally tend to be cost prohibitive to students. Most are owned by owner-operators, and while some are at flight schools, they are rare. The only real change to the market is the use of Jet-A based diesel engines in some of the new Light Sport Aircraft which are expected to take over the trainer market. Unfortunately a change of engine from a 100LL piston model to a diesel is a very expensive transition, complex permitting process, requires the manufacturer to obtain a certificate from the FAA, and causes the owner to throw away a piece of working hardware (the old engine).

Re:mostly some small private planes left

[ttucker]

As water is absorbed from the atmosphere into the gasoline/ethanol mixture, a point comes where the ethanol/water mixture is no longer miscible with the petroleum part. Since ethanol raises the octane of gas; when it leaves, the octane of the separated gasoline layer is lower (think 83-84). This is horrible for engines, ie. it destroys them. The water/ethanol mixture is also horrible for engines because it dissolves gaskets, and generally does unfriendly things. In fact, it can even act as a substrate for petroleum eating bacteria.

The laws of physics prevent any fuel storage system from being hermetically sealed, sorry. Some are better sealed than others.

If you don't believe me, ask someone that owns a lawnmower, or any other small gasoline engine.

Re: mostly some small private planes left

[fnj]

I saw an estimate that there were 100,000,000 miles done by GA in an average year. at about 10 g/hr and 100 m/hr (yes, round guesses, but there isn't a good source I could find for those), that's about ten million gallons of avgas burned every year.

Are you saying that 10 million gallons is approximately zero, or do you have issues with any of the numbers I used (And if so, please supply an alternative).

You lost me there. What is m/hr? Meters per hour?

Here's what I come up with, very roughly. 100,000,000 miles at 130 mph (miles/h) = 770,000 h; using your 10 gph (gal/h) gives 7,700,000 gallons per year. Close enough to the 10 million gallons you ended up with.

But the U.S. consumed 134 billion gallons of gasoline in 2011 for road use.

So yes; to answer your question, 7.7 million gallons _IS_ approximately zero compared to 134 billion gallons. It represents 0.0057%, or 57 MILLIONTHS, of the total. Another way to look at it is that it represents 3.1 OUNCES of 100LL per year per man, woman, and child in the US. Now, there are 1.2-2 GRAMS of TEL per gallon of TEL, so that's aless than 2 THOUSANDS of an ounce per person.

Sense of proportion matters. Don't go after the completely negligible stuff. The effort is better spent where you get some sinificant degree of return. Worrying about the effects of Avgas is clinical insanity.

Re: mostly some small private planes left

[AK Marc]

Yet it's nearly all of the TEL in the country. They are going after the largest return. It isn't about using less fuel, it's about putting less lead into the environment (and lungs of citizens). And yes, I should have said mi./hr, but hey, everyone knew what I was talking about.

Who's going to pay for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in 6 years, the FAA expects 167,000 aircraft owners to swap the engines in their aircraft for an unleaded engine? In 6 years companies are supposed to develop an unleaded engine that will fit in every type of small prop aircraft currently flying? Yeah, not happening.

And as a small single engine plane owner myself, I'll be damned if the government forces me to spend 30K on swapping out a new engine, then more on inspections and re-certification of the aircraft.

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you expect everybody else to breathe in your brain damaging exhaust to save you some bucks.

Tell you what, why don't you route your exhaust through the plane cabin and filter it with your lungs first.

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As the owner/operator of a complex network of around 100 billion neurons, along with support infrastructure, I'm not entirely sympathetic to your desire to continue emitting lead. Nothing personal.

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[Kaenneth]

I'll be damned if the government forces me to spend 30K on swapping out a new engine, then more on inspections and re-certification of the aircraft.

I'm not questioning that figure (because I know it's true) but why do airplane engines cost so friggin much?

Compare to the price of mid-air failure.

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[ColdWetDog]

You're sure you own all those neurons? Have you read the EULA recently?

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[fahrbot-bot]

As the owner/operator of a complex network of around 100 billion neurons, along with support infrastructure, I'm not entirely sympathetic to your desire to continue emitting lead. Nothing personal.

You're on /. so it can't be *that* complex :-)

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh, it's complex alright, it's just a question of how much of the complexity is unbelievably shoddy legacy code held together with little more than axons and optimism, and how much of that complexity can actually be deployed to some useful end.

Either way, I can hardly afford to have it work yet worse than it works now...

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[adolf]

...And I suppose you think that MTBE is better? If the engine is operated properly, the amount of lead emitted is very minimal. Meanwhile, though TEL was an air pollutant, MTBE is water soluble. Many are drinking it now and we're not sure just what long term effects it will have.

MTBE is an oxygenator added to cause engines to run leaner by government mandate. TEL improves octane rating.

Just because thery're both fuel additives, does not mean that they are not: Two. Completely. Different. Things.

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[joe_frisch]

They are also much lower volume production than car engines. The designs are different enough that it isn't easy to just substitute automobile engines for aircraft use. Its been tried, and has worked in some cases, but not many.

Basically aircraft engines turn slowly (usually 2700 rpm max) because the propeller tips need to stay subsonic. Gear boxes are very heavy because of the large moment of inertia of the propellers and haven't worked very well in most installations. The low engine speed means that it needs very large displacement (9 liters is not uncommon) to get the required power. Light weight / high airflow give you air cooled, aluminum-finned engines. The aircraft engines are actually very efficient at their normal operating point. Part of this is due to the high compression allowed by high octane fuel.

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[joe_frisch]

In any environmental issue like this it makes sense to compare the damage and the cost of mitigating that damage. The total aircraft fleet is very small (1/1000 of the automobile fleet) so the lead emissions are nothing like we used to have from cars. Still I would very much like to get the lead out of aviation gas if there were a way to do it and keep flying. The problem is that the money has to come from somewhere.

We could insist that aircraft only use unleaded. The problem is that the aircraft manufacturers have no interested in improving old planes, but most pilots cannot afford new ones: my '66 beechcraft baron cost about $100K to buy, a new one is about $1.2M. Replacing the engines would be about $90K even if engines certified for unleaded gas were available.

The airlines would love to see GA shut down, it just gets in their way and maybe this is an activity that we can no longer support. Maybe flying is to be left to the big corporations. Many countries have made personal aircraft prohibitively expensive.

On the bright side there are a couple of possible unleaded substitutes being tested. One works for some, but not all planes. Another seems to work in all planes but is a proprietary formulation and that is making the FAA nervous.

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[Nefarious Wheel]

... The designs are different enough that it isn't easy to just substitute automobile engines for aircraft use. Its been tried, and has worked in some cases, but not many.

Basically aircraft engines turn slowly (usually 2700 rpm max) because the propeller tips need to stay subsonic. Gear boxes are very heavy because of the large moment of inertia of the propellers and haven't worked very well in most installations. The low engine speed means that it needs very large displacement (9 liters is not uncommon) to get the required power. Light weight / high airflow give you air cooled, aluminum-finned engines. The aircraft engines are actually very efficient at their normal operating point. Part of this is due to the high compression allowed by high octane fuel.

I appreciate your content-rich post -- I got a couple of good solid facts out of it I hadn't known before, and that always pleases me.

Question -- has the idea of swept (as in swept-wing) propellor tips caught on? I understand the airfoil configuration of a straight prop is complex enough, but with modern modelling and manufacturing methods I'd think the costs of those props could come down, potentially allowing higher RPM engines. How's that gone?

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[joe_frisch]

There have been some improvements in propellers - Hartzell makes some "scimitar" shaped propellers that are a bit quieter and marginally more efficient. Not a lot to be gained though since standard propellers are pretty high efficiency (maybe 90%?).

What you are suggesting is using smaller diameter propellers that turn faster. There unfortunately you are fighting aerodymaics. Propellers are wings. Wing tips add drag, so you want as few as you can. Thin wings are more efficient than fat wings. This pushes you to a small number of small thin blades - and 2-blade, think props are what you see on small aircraft.

There is a limit though in how much power a 2 blade thin prop can deliver so as engine power goes up, you get more blades (3, 4, sometimes ~7 on prop airliners), and the blades get fatter. This all decreases efficiency, but there seems to be no way around it. So, you could go up in prop RPMs but the loss in efficiency so far hasn't been worth it. With a single engine plane its also difficult because if the prop gets smaller in diamter, it is mostly shadowed by the fuselage of the aircraft. Twin (or more) engine planes can have smaller props out on the wings (and some do), but that is a small part of the general aviation market.

Before someone asks: piston engines are more efficient than turbines, but much worse power to weight. Large aircraft use turbines because the power to weight is so high that they can get to very high altitudes where the air is thin and there is low drag at high speeds. Flying that high really requires a pressurized cabin, so you don't see many turbines on small aircraft.

Re:Who's going to pay for it?

[evilviper]

Before someone asks: piston engines are more efficient than turbines, but much worse power to weight

Turboprops are certainly more efficient than piston engines, using cheaper fuel, while being far more reliable and also lighter.

Problem is not the technology but antique planes

[quarterbuck]

The issue is not with airlines (which use Jet fuel) or with Commercial operations (mostly using newer engines). It is with the flight schools and other General Aviation users.

The problem with leaded fuels is not really that technology to use unleaded is not available, but that most of the General Aviation Fleet that is flying is older technology. Majority of the GA fleet are from 1970's or 80's when Cessna and Piper dominated the market.
Then came lawsuits (frivolous and otherwise) and most of the manufacturers filed for bankruptcy. The airplanes from the 90s tend to be mostly homebuilt. Post 2000s a lot of the companies came back from bankruptcy and started making airplanes again. The only problem is that a new Piper costs about $200K while a perfectly usable 1970s Piper with overhauled engine and modern avionics is only about $30K. Airplanes last a lot longer than cars if regularly maintained. So most flying crafts tend to be old.
So these older planes which were designed for leaded gas get recertified for low lead gas, but can never use unleaded.
Newer aircrafts tend to do two things,
1) Run on motor gas (mostly involves certifying for unleaded gasoline) . This has the nice side effect that the gas tends to be about 30% cheaper.
2) Run on Diesel/Jet Fuel / Kerosine - In this case it sidesteps the entire lead problem and also avoids using spark plugs (depending on the design). Fuel availability is a lot better, though not always cheaper.
One easy solution is to make unleaded mandatory for any Light Sport aircraft (which tend to be the newer airplanes built) and to increase a fee imposed while overhauling older engines (which get done every 1000 hours).
That said, this move would permanently ground the WW2 display fleet that is currently flyable and a bunch of old Piper Cubs and Ercoupes. But they are all pre-ww2, so not a big loss I guess.

Fuel producers != Aircraft owners

[DragonWriter]

So in 6 years, the FAA expects 167,000 aircraft owners to swap the engines in their aircraft for an unleaded engine?

No, and you can tell this from the first line in TFS: "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week put out a call to fuel producers to offer options that would safely let general aviation aircraft stop using leaded fuel by 2018."

They want fuel producers to offer options that will meet the need of aircraft that are currently dependent on leaded fuel to operate properly without lead.

And as a small single engine plane owner myself, I'll be damned if the government forces me to spend 30K on swapping out a new engine

I get that its a lot to ask you buy a new engine, or even to RTFA, but could you at least bother to read the first sentence of the summary before exploding with outrage next time?

Re:Why?

[realilskater]

It was used extensively as an antiknock agent. It is still the best antiknock agent despite the enormous environmental impact of using it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

Call is for new fuels for existing engines

[DragonWriter]

You also forgot to mention (though you likely know) that getting a STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) for an Unleaded Gasoline engine in the hundreds of models that are still using 100LL is going to take many millions of dollars and years of testing and paperwork to push through the certifying authority, which also happens to be the authority trying to force the issue.

Yeah, its a good thing that the FAA isn't talking about new engines at all, but instead calling on fuel producers to come up with replacement fuels that will work in current engines. Which is stated not only in TFA, which I can understand is a huge bother to read before complaining, but in the first sentence of the summary, as well.

There are alternatives to retrofitting

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to do analytical work on fuel certification in a refinery, and while I didn't measure the "octane number", I understand what it means.

The number 100 refers to the performance of pure isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) as a fuel - isooctane is simply a reference for the "100" rating. Fuels are assigned a higher number when they are tested and shown to have a lower tendency to undergo premature ignition in an internal combustion engine (this phenomenon is known as knocking). Such premature ignition occurs when fuel and oxidant in a hot engine cylinder are compressed as part of normal operation of the engine and is more probable when the fuel has a lower activation energy for combustion and fewer radical scavengers are present in the fuel mixture.

Other compounds (aromatics like toluene and xylene isomers, tetraethyllead, methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl ) also enhance the "octane" number. The latter (MMT) is routinely blended into automotive gasoline in Canada despite being a known heavy metal/neurotoxin with likely worse long-term effects than tetraethyl lead (...!).

Among these various options, the straight hydrocarbons are far preferable and can be used without modification of engines to accomodate the exclusion of lead.

The only reason the heavy metals are used is to reduce the cost of filling one's tank.

Re:There are alternatives to retrofitting

[kick6]

This is *exactly* why switching away from 100LL is problematic. There are plenty of other ways to increase octane, but not to prevent valve seat wear in these older engines.

Somebody else here mentioned that engines need to be overhauled every 1000 hours. What gets overhauled? Would installing new exhaust valves and seats be out of the question?

Most of those "plenty of other ways" involve liquids that have issues with staying liquids at the altitudes an aircraft sees.

Re:Why?

[sd4f]

the lead in petrol had a few benefits, it raised the octane number, allowing the engines to have higher compression ratios, providing better thermal efficiency of the engine. Also in the era when engines where made from detroit wonder metal (cast iron) certain parts were lubricated by the lead, so they could remain as cast iron, such as valve seats, whereas unleaded fuel has required hardened valve seats to be inserted.

Re:Problem is not the technology but antique plane

[He Who Has No Name]

They probably won't.

The FAA has a deep and seething contempt towards former military aircraft in private hands... above and beyond their general malicious contempt of aircraft in general in private hands.

Re:Why?

[Cosgrach]

You must be a young bugger.

The main reason for leaded gas in older cars is for the lubrication that it provides. Running unleaded gas in old VW engines would burn the valves in short order. Lead substitutes do work, but it's an added thing to bother with. Sometimes you can get old heads that have been modified to work with unleaded fuel.

Is an older car worth it? Absolutely! Long after your piece of shit new car packs in it's electronics, my old Land Cruiser will still be going strong. If your POS car is in my way, I'll just roll right over it. And just you try to drive your Fucking Tesla through a four foot deep river crossing.

And just stop it with the 'Think of the Children' argument. Fuck the children.

Fucking Pansy!

Re:low lead is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Aviation 100LL fuel has from 2 to 4 times the lead content of the old leaded auto fuel formulation, not 20 times.
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/187232-1.html

In the US, 2012 av gas consumption (all types) was 4.9 million barrels. 100LL is pretty much all you can find at the pumps these days. At an average of 3 ml per gallon, and 55 gallons to the barrel, that is a total of about 800,000 liters TEL burned.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgaupus1&f=a

1986 auto fuel consumption (all types) was 2.5 billion barrels. I think this was the last year leaded auto fuel was sold. At an average of .5 ml per gallon, that is a total of about 68 million liters TEL burned.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgfupus1&f=a

So the lead released today by aviation fuel is only about 1.2% of the lead released in 1986 by a fleet burning leaded auto gas. If autos still burned leaded fuel, the total lead released would be from 88 million liters TEL burned.

Unleaded aviation fuel formulations have already been developed and tested to FAA standards, and witnessed by the FAA in the largest, highest compression modern aircraft engines. They could be implemented immediately if the FAA got off their buts and acted. But that would cut an entire department of FAA employees out of work for the next 5 years. It is in the FAA's internal interests to drag this conversion process out as long as they can.

Re:Bad Bad Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another uninformed individual who has obviously never hung out with pilots. The 1% guys are usually the ones that are using Jet Fuel and therefore not affected by this.

oh come on

[slashmydots]

Just run them on nuclear already. It works for submarines, lol.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

the lead in petrol had a few benefits.

It was never worth the cost

http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2013/2013/01/lead-and-crime
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/
http://blog.caranddriver.com/pb-and-jail-new-research-ties-leaded-gas-ban-to-drop-in-violent-crime/
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/13789/20130107/leaded-gasoline-linked-rise-fall-violent-crime.htm

Re:Why?

[Cosgrach]

Where in my post did I mention accident safety? I have no illusions about the survivability of an accident in the Land Cruiser at speed. My point is that with no electronic systems to fail, I'll be on the road long after your techno-crap car is tits-up in a wrecking yard. Read my post again dip-shit.

Re:The war on lead continues

[Raptoer]

The damage caused by leaded gas (even what little remains via avgas) is probably much, much higher than that caused by electronic solder.

Lets consider the 3 following ways that lead can enter the supply of materials that go into humans.
1. Leaded gas was a big big issue because the lead is now a particulate in the air, it will be breathed in or will settle as dust into either a water supply or onto soil which then gets rained on and drains into a water supply.
2. Lead solder on pipes, while not a particulate immediately, it will sometimes corrode into the water in the pipe because lead/copper touching and being dissimilar metals (always have to be very careful with dissimilar metals when in a wet environment)
3. Lead solder on electronics, will probably end up in the dump where they will there be rained on and the solder may enter the water supply that way. Note that equipment that is supposed to last a long time or will not be disposed of into a dump are usually exempt from the lead ban. In particular military, medical, and aerospace equipment is usually exempt.

Considering that the removal of lead from gas and paint caused blood lead levels to go from 16 g/dL in 1976 to only 3 g/dL in 1991, while lead in electronics was only regulated in 1993, the removal of lead from avgas is a much bigger issue than the removal of lead from solder.