The May/June 2013 issue of FAA Safety Briefing focuses on environmental advances in general aviation. Articles explore ways we can “fly green” through new technology and by following environmentally sound practices.
Feature articles in this issue include:
- How to be a noise-friendly neighbor (p. 10)
- The future of electric aircraft (p. 18)
- And a look at FAA’s avgas initiative (p. 13)
The issue’s Checklist (p. 17) and Vertically Speaking (p. 30) departments outline some ways pilots can fly more environmentally friendly, while Nuts, Bolts, and Electrons (p. 26) looks at workplace safety practices.
You can link to the online edition here.
FAA Safety Briefing is the safety policy voice for the non-commercial general aviation community. The magazine’s objective is to improve safety by:
- Making the community aware of FAA resources
- Helping readers understand safety and regulatory issues, and
- Encouraging continued training
I think there is still a huge potential for the LSA class of ptilos and planes. You can get a beautiful CTSW for about 100k *new*. The Rotax 912 runs beautifully on premium mogas, burning 4-5 gallons an hour and getting you to your destination with better gas milage than most cars. Annuals for LSA’s are running about $500. Avionics are much better and cheaper than ever. So maybe the days of picking up a beater plane for $30k and running it cheap are drawing to a close. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other alternatives.
Hey Kent, I’m not arguing with you, but, the FAA has endorsed unleaded mogas since the early ’80’s by stc approvals. The problem is the retailers and airports that will not supply it. They had 100/80 tanks but now claim they can only afford a single tank for 100 LL. The feds allow us to use the next “available” grade of gasoline that is how we can use 100 LL in planes not certified with it. What is needed is the suppliers to offer an alternative, 94UL would be great if the refiners would produce it and the airports would carry it. You will recall that it is 100 LL with out the tet. lead otherwise meeting the current astm D- 910 avgas spec. so no stc would be needed it would be the same as using 100 LL in a 80/87 or 91/96 certified aircraft. You are doing great at keeping the option of mogas in the aviation press keep it up.
…tell us what you really think, Kent!
Actually, I completely agree with all of your points. And, I have long believed that whenever FAA tries a PR spin that rings hollow, they effectively destroy not only their credibility, but that of the entire aviation community.
I would love to see FAA become proactive toward making all of aviation more green, and not just with empty statements. We have seen improvements in commercial aviation technology that produce acceptable noise levels and very acceptable fuel efficiencies, too. But, we still have a commercial aviation system geared toward massive hubs to maximize fees to support perpetual facility development; a system that shifts efficiency to the airline while imposing the burdens on the passengers (both in taxes, and in having to fly through distant hubs). My sense is, if FAA was not so addicted to doling out AIP funds (and thus supporting incumbents while also cultivating political cover from reelected incumbents), we could have a far ‘greener’ commercial av system.
This is a load of B.S. If the FAA was really interested in being ‘green’, whatever that means, they would have strongly endorsed lead-free, ethanol-fee mogas as an aviation fuel years ago. All one hears from them on the subject is a loud echo. What does aircraft noise have to do with being ‘green’, whatever that means? As far as electric propulsion is concerned, it will only be a success if the ‘green’ is what stays in our wallets – it saves money compared to using fossil fuels, the most amazing God-given / engineer produced and delivered creation of the past two centuries.