Here’s hoping this slows d lumbering process actually accomplishes something.
At this point it seems like the only way it progresses is for the supply of TEL to stop. I have been reading about unleaded avgas since I was a kid in the 90’s.
I remember reading that there is only one company left making TEL, exclusively for avgas. With such an unstable supply the FAA should have been looking into this years ago (let alone the decades we knew it was so harmful).
Yeah, it's kinda hitting crunch time.
Here's an article from AVWeb where they said they want out but committed to going to 2030.
[https://avweb.com/air-shows-events/at-some-point-producing-the-lead-in-leaded-avgas-can-become-too-expensive-to-be-worth-it/](https://avweb.com/air-shows-events/at-some-point-producing-the-lead-in-leaded-avgas-can-become-too-expensive-to-be-worth-it/)
George Braly was just on a new Mile Busch podcast and he mentioned the company that makes the lead (TEL I believe) has only committed to making it until 2028.
I've read the cutoff date is 2030 now (on what's left of AVweb). Innospec is a US company, and I'm certain Alaska can leverage congress to keep kicking that can down the road indefinitely.
Huh, they must have moved. Must have been all the UK pressure to shut it down.
[https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/08/22/innospec-uk-lead-petrol-exports/](https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/08/22/innospec-uk-lead-petrol-exports/)
TEL production being killed by the Brits would be one hell of an entertaining train-wreck for GA. Alaska needs it for their remote villages, and Cirrus can't run without it, and they're 1/3 of new GA production.
Might take an event like that to finally get these companies off their asses.
I should have been more specific. Cirrus issued two ADs stating they don't approve the use of GAMI's drop in replacement, or any unleaded fuel at this time.
Leaking fuel from one of the test aircraft was destroying the composite.
China will continue to produce it and take over the rest of the market if Innospec stops producing it. I'm surprised the UK hasn't forced Innospec to stop producing it by now.
What company(s) in China make TEL? Because Innospec is the only company that makes it, at least according to them.
[https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/08/22/innospec-uk-lead-petrol-exports/](https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/08/22/innospec-uk-lead-petrol-exports/)
>Innospec claims to be the only company in the world that manufactures a fuel additive called tetraethyl lead (TEL) — which is the lead in leaded petrol.
And allegedly the only countries that bought from China - Myanmar (no longer exists) and North Korea have stopped using it.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58388810](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58388810)
>North Korea, Myanmar and Afghanistan stopped selling leaded petrol by 2016
Point is, there is no more market for TEL.
There are several; you can Google it. Most of these articles cite sources for leaded auto fuel; there is and always has been a much larger market segment for the aviation-grade TEL-B.
Not surprising. Many scientific and technical advances happen only because the gatekeepers retire. No reason for the STC to be different given the stability of FAA employment.
Lead is toxic, we all know that. But is the general public actually suffering consequence from the amount of lead released by GA?
The question is, will this new product cause our engines to fail sooner, or more frequently? Or will this create a cost burden that is hard to swallow in an already hyper expensive GA market? While GA is small and it's hard for the general public to feel bad for small plane owners/pilots, GA is the stepping stone that most if not all pilots take towards commercial flying. Endangering or otherwise sabotaging the safety and efficiency of GA would hurt all of aviation.
The guy who came up with G100UL said it’ll likely be around $1 more per gallon.
I think some Cali airports have Swift 94R, you could check those to see what it costs compared to 100LL.
Doubtful there will be any cost savings, even with increased scale unleaded will likely be a bit more expensive. This is less a move to save you pennies and more a move to stop dumping lead into the air.
Feels like this should have been what should have happened years ago. Better late than never hopefully we get a real picture of which is going to be best. I assume we are going to have a lower than preferred detonation margin fuel(s) or materials incompatible fuel based on all the anecdotal data/comments I’ve seen so far. FAA is going to have to make guidance on which is more important for safety.
Maybe I can’t remember; but also this is the closest we’ve been to potential viable replacement fuels. But it seems there will be trade offs and the aircraft and engine OEMs seem to be afraid to say anything but “No” without FAA doing more.
Yep. I think we aren't being honest that there won't be a single magic perfect drop-in that requires zero changes. GAMI's option looks good, but we will need to replace some gaskets and other parts within the fuel system (a medium deal for any existing plane, probably a very big deal for some) and deal with the paint stripper factor ("normal" leaks become a bigger deal.)
Swift has been knocking on the FAA's door for over a decade at this point. UL94 was the starting whistle for viable unleaded aviation fuel, and they were basically told to fuck off because this was never going to be a problem and don't worry about it.
You’d think; it’s also a distillate leftovers user and “premium” product, not a commodity/price sensitive car gas.
I honestly think the more “legacy”-style oil companies Lyondell-VPRacing will win because of that aspect. But I’m glad the FAA is actually going to say something so the OEMs can support the fuels.
Few want it so nobody stocks it so it’s hard to buy, in addition to the engine wear/warranty uncertainty.
I don’t see how that changes until 100LL is $15-20/gal or unavailable.
A key problem with lead is that there is no lower threshold below which there is no detectable harm. For some toxins, having a barely detectable level has been shown to make no real difference. But with lead, there is no lower cutoff like that. Even though the effects decline as exposure declines, people can factually make the argument that any exposure causes some harm.
So you absolutely can show that the actual blood levels caused by living in the traffic pattern of an airport that gets a lot of piston traffic are "very low", the retort will be that the very slightly elevated levels of lead in the blood may well be causing some harm.
There are several ways to PR/lawyer this simple reality and try to argue or distract. But the end real world result is that lead in AV gas is bad for aviation and the sooner its gone, the better for aviation.
Some circles of people will buy this approach as a means of exhibiting costly signaling to demonstrate tribal affiliation, but a "na na there is no problem" pitch doesn't work on the general public.
I understand what youre saying and I have read the CDC guidelines but go on and read where the biggest sources of lead exposure come from that affect children and you wont find airports on the list.
Releasing a persistent neurotoxin into the air because it is hard to find an alternative after 40 years is silly.
There is no excuse for it at this point.
41 Comments
helno@reddit (OP)
stikshift@reddit
L0LTHED0G@reddit
dashdriver@reddit
twistenstein@reddit
L0LTHED0G@reddit
twistenstein@reddit
ptownpcs@reddit
novwhisky@reddit
twistenstein@reddit
zad112@reddit
link_dead@reddit
L0LTHED0G@reddit
link_dead@reddit
L0LTHED0G@reddit
helno@reddit (OP)
TowardsTheImplosion@reddit
ThermiteReaction@reddit
Solid-Growth-6411@reddit
novwhisky@reddit
AtomicShadow_@reddit
goonsquad4357@reddit
dashdriver@reddit
mduell@reddit
AmericanFromAsia@reddit
IveSeenYourCheers@reddit
thatTheSenateGuy@reddit
tomdarch@reddit
thatTheSenateGuy@reddit
tomdarch@reddit
No_Dig_3028@reddit
helno@reddit (OP)
thatTheSenateGuy@reddit
helno@reddit (OP)
mduell@reddit
saml01@reddit
tomdarch@reddit
saml01@reddit
helno@reddit (OP)
saml01@reddit
helno@reddit (OP)