Oregon Senate Bill 115 and House Bill 2109 exist to “Prohibit selling, dispensing or using aviation fuel that contains lead or lead compounds after Jan. 1, 2022.”
Both bills were introduced on Jan. 9, 2017. HB2109 was referred to the Transportation Policy committee and a public hearing is scheduled for Feb. 22, 2017. SB115 was referred to the Environment and Natural Resources committee. A public hearing was held on Feb. 15.
A good number of comments have already been filed on SB115. Those comments range from Barry Egan of the Aero Dynamics Flying Club in Mulino, Oregon (against the bill) to Anna Pavlova, a resident of Hillsboro, Oregon, very much in support of the bill.
From Pavlova’s statement, “I live three miles away from Hillsboro International Airport, along a runway approach path. Every day, aircraft fly over my home, poisoning me and my family with lead. The State of Oregon should prioritize the health of its residents over the influence of aircraft owners.”
Chris Hagerbaumer from the Oregon Environmental Council submitted, “Myths & Realities of Leaded Aviation Fuel” as prepared by the Center of Environmental Health for Friend of the Earth.
Best we all pay attention to these bills.
People can follow the progress of both bills here. Based on my conversations with legislators, both will die in committee.
https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ORLEG/subscriber/new?topic_id=ORLEG_2017R1_SB115
https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ORLEG/subscriber/new?topic_id=ORLEG_2017R1_HB2109
The IYI (Intellectual Yet Idiots) strike again. Very interesting read:
https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.cp2z99sq7
Knowing what’s best… unrealistic… full of contradictions. They wouldn’t find a coconut on a coconut island…
Just a quick survey of readers, please post “I have contacted, (Sen Riley, Rep Greenlick, Gov Kate Brown, or other Oregon legislators or aviation related agency) to express my opposition to SB115 and HB2109, and got the following response…”
Until you contact the agencies that will be deciding these bills, you are just pissing in the wind.
If the Oregon State Legislature was serious about reducing the amount of lead burned by aircraft in Oregon, they would require that all airports with aviation fuel sales or airports with some minimum number or gallons of fuel sales, also make an unleaded alternate fuel available. Whether it’s Swift Fuels 94, 91 AKI Mogas, or 87 AKI Mogas, I don’t care. But make it a requirement to make some of the unleaded alternative fuels available at the airports. That would have an immediate impact on the amount of lead being “spewed” over Oregon. I can’t imagine any flight training school that wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to save a buck on fuel if the fuel was available.
I have been running my Continental and Lycoming engines on 91 AKI unleaded fuel for years (both 8.5:1 compression engines). It’s a fact that the required maintenance on the engines is less without the lead buildup in the cylinders and valve stems.
Rather than create a mandate that would kill aviation, create an opportunity that would enhance it.
The problem in this case is that groups like Oregon Aviation Watch had a hand in creating the legislation and getting rid of GA is their goal, cutting off the fuel supply is just one way to do it.
Requiring FBO to supply an additional product might be prohibitively expensive for many operators. From my conversations with legislators during and after the Senate public comments hearing, this is not going anywhere in its current form. Write a letter to the sponsors of the bills, Sen Chuck Riley and Rep Mitch Greenlick, and your local Oregon legislators, and the governor’s office in opposition to SB115 and HB2109. Suggestthey amend the bill to havee the state provide incentives for FBOs to help them provide alternative AV fuels when they become available, and revisit the end of 100LL sales only after alternative fuels are available throughout Oregon.
I attended the Senate open comments session for SB115, about 30 commenters (three pro, all else con) including several FBO owners, professional pilots, AOPA Regional Representative, etc., and me and my flying buddies. General comments were, “we want lead out of environment but not before a safe, reliable, legal, affordable replacement is available across the state, and assigning an arbitrary date before replacement is available is a bad idea.”
I spoke after the meeting with several legislators and my feeling is this will not come out of committee in Senate and probably the same for companion House bill HB2109.
Summary: It is going to die because the legislators recognise it’s a poorly designed bill.
FYI, citizens ask legislators to promote all kinds of bills, thousands each year in every state. Some are good and some are not. It’s sloppy sometimes. That’s why we get to submit public comments. Democracy.
This is so typical Oregon. For all its mediocrity (such as leading the US in the dependency on food stamps) Oregon always claims to be a “world leader”, and Bradley apparently believes that, “This will only push the industry to actually get it done”. Note to Bradley: The rest of the world does not care what Oregon does, and a majority of the world’s population does not even know what Oregon is or that it exists.
This kind of stupidity is exactly what you get in a one-party state like Oregon (the only state-wide office with a Republican is Greg Walden’s House seat) and elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels otherwise include some of the weirdest creatures walking upright. Since this legislation is being proposed in the name of the environment or “children’s health” it is politically correct and will be passed – and a bunch more jobs will leave Oregon. But don’t worry, the “medical” and now recreational marijuana industry is doing well and can probably take up the slack. For more information, watch Portlandia – a documentary about Oregon.
Greg Walden’s seat as a US congressman is not statewide as you said, he represents one of five congressional districts in Oregon. Oregon Sec of state Dennis Richardson is the only republican in a statewide office.
Democrats hold majorities in the Oregon House and Senate, and the governor’s office.
I stand corrected – the last election did provide Dennis Richardson as the one notable exception to the rule that in Oregon you can get a ham sandwich elected – as long as it has a “D” on it…
Like the misguided mandatory ethanol law in 2007, that was totally overtaken by the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard, you’d think the Oregon legislature would have something better to do than attempt to micromanage avgas in 2022.
Personally, I’d love to see this bill passed and watch the fireworks between the FAA and the State of Oregon. Doesn’t anyone realize that the commercial sale of FAA approved aviation fuel on an airport is a Federal matter, not a state matter?
As an Oregon pilot, my primary question is: where is the Oregon Department of Aviation? We pay them to represent us on Aviation issues in the legislature. Just as in 2007, when the mandatory ethanol law threatened the supply of an FAA approved unleaded aviation fuel, I see they are nowhere to be found once again. Why haven’t they advised the state legislators that they have no jurisdiction over the sale of an FAA approved aviation fuel on an airport? If the state were to prohibit the sale of 100LL on an airport, my guess is that Federal AIP grants would be in jeopardy.
Actually, if the state bureaucrats of Oregon really cared about this issue, they would quit studying it to death and find funding incentives to install mogas infrastructure on our airports. I just filled out another pointless survey funded by the clueless ODoA that asked the wrong questions about mogas. The incompetence at ODoA is breathtaking.
You would think that the FAA would step in, but after the Santa Monica debacle where they just caved, don’t expect much from the feds
Gee, I would hope that Anna Pavlova understands that every time she drives her car, she is poisoning herself, her neighbors and the rest of the population.
Even hybrid cars run an engine part time and thus pollute the environment–even with modern auto fuel blends
So Anna, have you junked your polluting car and bought a Tesla yet?—ALL electric with 0 pollution.
Just want to make sure that you are putting your money where your mouth is and not creating double standards.
Such ignorance. How do you know Anna Pavlova doesn’t drive an electric vehicle? I drive a Chevy Volt which uses electricity (provided by solar panels) 90% of the time and gas only for longer trips. But in your statement you seem to imply that if you are using less gas you are just a politer like everyone else just because you still use some gas. It’s called moving in the right direction. And lead in our air is really bad, sorry if facts offend you.
Electric cars make twice the carbon pollution of fossil fuel cars. Why? Because their energy comes from coal burning power plants.
http://gbigsangle.blogspot.com/2012/02/electric-cars-pollute-more-than-gas.html?m=0
Who is ignorant?
The Volt driver said they charge from solar panels. Not all electricity comes from coal or nuclear. A lot comes from hydroelectric, and increasingly more from wind. In Oregon, most homes and businesses can choose exclusively renewable/green electricity. Our major coal plant is slated for closure.
Gbigs, your post from your own blog is five years old, and is primarily about electricity generation in China. Do you have any data from the most recent year, from a source that is reputable and with attributions?
No offense, but you are not a reliable, nonpartisan source.
Sure.
In 2015, the United States generated about 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum). Hydro is 6%. Wind/Solar are 5%.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
If you are plugging into a wall for your car power you are burning fossil fuels. Especially if you live in California.
Your arrogance and stupidity don’t even warrant a response.
PS–Speaking of ignorance, the word is “polluter” not “politer”
No state can ban 100LL on any airfield that gets federal money. No state can ban aircraft flying over any part of their territory because the air belongs to the nation and the FAA manages it. Oregon and California are rogue and kidding themselves.
Oregon is full of some rather outspoken folks against GA that want it banned from the skies and I would say that this is just one of their many attempts to find a way to get rid of us.Keep in mind that this is just a bill that someone got some legislator to introduce and nothing says it will go anywhere. It is just like our Congressmen in DC always proclaiming how they introduced legislation to address some problem and win favor with the voters back home but the chances of it ever even getting considered at the committee stage are nil, it is just for show. So if they do have hearings open to the public than the evidence can be presented to refute the wild hysteria of the few locals who have convinced themselves that the miniscule lead emissions from aircraft being dissipated into the air could have even the slightest effect on them at ground level. I am not saying ignore the situation, I am just saying don’t get all wound up that it is a serious attempt to cut off the fuel supply and deal with it in a logical and level head manor. It would probably really tick off the Ban GA types to learn how many aircraft could keep operating with E0 mogas even if they got rid of 100LL, mostly the small ones that buzz around at low altitudes.
Can you cite anything you claim? Thanks
Look up “Oregon Aviation Watch” if you want an example of the lunatic fringe that is operating in Oregon. I am sure that they (he) have their hands in the drafting of this piece of legislation.
When you consider that our government loves to spend billions studying everything there is I am sure at some time there must have been some objective numbers generated on the lead emissions of GA aircraft. When you consider how few there are operating, the altitudes they operate at and the presence of winds and other atmospheric factors. In fact they could fly over spraying nerve gas and it would probably never make it to the ground unless they were down at tree top levels. I do not have the hard data and living in FL I do not have a direct stake in the problems of the West Coast but common sense can reason through a lot of these scenarios and show them groundless.
Yes, Miki Barnes of Oregon Aviation Watch was promoting this bill. She is an ardent, rabid anti-GA activist who lives in Banks but attends all HIO related public events to decry the vile threat of aviation and the sinful reprobates who participate in this demonic practice.
Sen Riley, in general a nice guy and a friend of mine for many years, should not have presented the bill as written. It’s gonna die in committee.
One of the extreme positions the Oregon Aviation Watch promotes is the assertion that flight schools, or any instructional flight, should be limited to flight over land that they own for that purpose since OAW have the assertion that conducting training over private property is essentially trespassing. Can you imagine the impact on flight training if all such activity had to be accomplished over land owned/leased by the flight school? What would the independent CFI do? What about going out for a leisure flight and practicing some airwork or aerobatics? That is about the nuttiest group out there but they are using the approach of “Throw Enough Poop Against the Wall and Some is Bound to Stick”, this 10LL bill is just the latest hand full of poop to get flung. As I have said I live in FL so I do not have a direct stake in this legislation but it could set a terrible precedent for the country.
“It would probably really tick off the Ban GA types to learn how many aircraft could keep operating with E0 mogas even if they got rid of 100LL, mostly the small ones that buzz around at low altitudes.”
Here’s a citation to back up the above claim:
https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/07/12/new-study-shows-autogas-can-power-80-of-piston-aircraft/
The answer is few planes can run on Mogas at present. Most are Rotax equipped SLSA or eLSA. And none can run on Mogas with ethonol unless they also have special caulking in the fuel tanks and special hoses in the fuel lines. Non Ethonol mogas is scarce, btw.
Turbo powerd piston aircraft will NEVER be able to run on anything other than 100LL btw, and most of the higher horspower, higher compression rate engines will likewise not be able to…. About 60% of the fleet out there today will be able to run on non leaded fuels.
Respectfully, I disagree. I have owned several aircraft all of which legally operated with mogas. I have also operated several others that many would claim cannot do so. They were far from “low power” being Pratt and Whitney R-985 and R-1340,(450hp and 600hp Supercharged) engines. The number of engine/airframe combinations that can use mogas or 94UL really is +80%.
My current aircraft was certified with an UNLEADED avgas, why must I use a fuel that was NEVER tested by the manufacturer or the FAA in my aircraft simply because 20% or fewer aircraft registered “need” grade100 avgas.
By the way the first gasoline “approved” by the FAA was astm D-439 auto-gas in 1982. The aircraft or engine manufacturer approve the fuel,not the FAA, they approve the aircraft/engine.
If 80% of currently flying aircraft could burn unleaded gas we would not be burning 100LL.
One should be asking if the engine makers of low compression engines have approved 91-94UL Avagas already why are we going through the goofy exercise of waiting for the FAA to bless a fuel alternaive to 100LL?
…and more compelling, why are only a dozen or so places in the whole country carrying 94UL?
Thankfully the FAA is in the last phase of testing and approval for a replacement for 100LL. There is even a company that is pursuing a replacement of 100LL under an STC.
All of these actions will probably happened before the ban goes into effect in Oregon.
My questions to Mrs Pavlova, which seems to be a concerned parent is, when she moved to her current house, was the airport already there? Did she studied the hazards if any, of living to an area exposed to aircraft traffic? Did her real-estate agent warned her about these hazards, or did she bought her house on her own?
According to her testimony, she is knowingly exposing her children to a hazardous environment. If she didn’t make the research, not knowing does not free her of responsibility, she is as liable as anybody else for prolonging this long exposure to her children. Also, did the town zoned the residential area too close to the airpot?
If you are concerned of any of these type of issues, please don’t move close to an airpot, a radius of about 5 miles is prudent for exposure to fumes and or noise.
Oregon Senate Bill 115 and House Bill 2109 are most likely a blessing in disguise for unleaded avgas. A Bill like this will just help the transition to Swift’s 94UL and eventually Swift 100UL. The year 2022 will be long after this transition takes place. I see this Bill as a good thing for the current unleaded avgas transition. Simply, not one airplane will be affected by this Bill! Shows how Oregon is completely out of touch with the changes that are already taking place regarding unleaded avgas and how it’s a waste of their taxpayers money, BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT!
First off these people like Anna Pavlova don’t know what the hell they are talking about.
I ran the numbers a while back during a similar discussion and calculated how much lead is in a gallon of 100LL and determined how many gallons of fuel would have to be burned right over ones house to be putting 1000 lbs of lead into the atmosphere.
Then I asked the idiot I was arguing with to go get the records of the FBO at his airport to see how much 100LL they pumped in a year.
And even if they could pump that much fuel it would all have to burned right over ones house which it isn’t.
It may come as a shock to some to learn that airplanes actually leave the immediate area and go places.
And BTW the way the exhaust gasses do not linger over your house.
They are actually carried away by the wind.
And much of the lead accumulates in the prop hub and in the oil etc.
So ANNA, Relax.
Well, I agree that Ms. Pavlova is being a bit alarmist and she is commenting about a topic for which she has little knowledge (a common ailment in today’s culture), but that said, when I pull my plugs at annual I clean an awful lot of lead out of the insulators. Considering that I typically run LOP and burn about 8.5 gph, what I find in my plugs is enough to make me feel that the sooner we have an unleaded avgas the better off our engines will be. And I know that everyone likes to ridicule people who have environmental concerns, but the CDC has not been able to determine a safe level of lead in the human body, which is enough for me to want to err on the side of caution and work toward zero exposure to lead.
And despite being called “low lead”, 100LL contains 2.12 grams/gallon TEL. This is close to the 2.2 grams/gallon that leaded gasoline contained prior to 1970, and higher than the 1.7 level in the 70’s and the 0.5 grams/gallon that existed in leaded gasoline post 1979. It was called low lead because it was about 1/2 the level found in 100MON.
Let’s address the first obvious topic. I guarantee that the airport was well established prior to her moving into the house located along the approach path….if you don’t like airplanes and they scary noises they make along with all the “harm” they do to the environment”, don’t buy a house near an airport. Secondly, until they figure out how to make piston driven engines function off Jet A or provide a suitable alternative, is there really anything to discuss?
Hi Rich. I submit that you have forgotten a simple fact – The CDC considers no level of lead safe. There is zero need for it in the fuel. The industry will have unleaded 100 available when it’s forced to provide it.
Another uninformed Liberal comment. The engines were designed to run on this fuel. Second. The airport was there long before her house. Third you. Would need thousands of gallons of 100LL burned directly over the house with no wind in an hour to even measure a trace amount of lead. Lastly if I was ignorant enough to think that my children were at danger from this…. I would have never purchased that house. And I certainly would not stay. She is just showing her liberal ignorance
First the comment from the FAA says “no amount of lead is safe if inhaled or ingested directly.”
The amount of lead in 100LL is in < 0.1% per volume . Toxic levels are around 1% of volume or 10x higher than TEL in avgas. The amount of lead that was present in mogas was also 5x than what avgas has…
Aviation burns less than .5% leaded fuel than what cars burned.
Turbo charged piston engines will NEVER be able to fly without 100LL. The rich mixture octane levels would be to low. No matter what alternative is made. About 60% of current piston engine aircraft will be able to use the no-lead alternative fuel.
There are recent studies that say unleaded fuels pose even greater health risks to people. And studies done on airports have only shown SOME airports produce higher lead found in kids, but not in adults.
That raises the question of just what chemicals they use to replace the TEL. Maybe they get rid of one problem only to replace it with something that is somewhat nastier but less well understood for long term exposure.It would not be the first good intentioned campaign to get rid of a harmful substance only to find the replacement turns out to be worse.
Ok, what happens when liberal states all ban TEL in avgas? If those states also do not restrict methanol from MOGas, GA will be forced to leave those states.
FBOs will be forced out of business in those states due to lack of biz (or they will only serve those who can burn Jet-A).
The FAA will have “won”, in that, they have sat upon their hands vis-a-vis Unleaded Gas requirements going back into the ’70s. And so GA will be the safest it has ever been in this country, because no one can really afford to fly.
This administration needs to change the Mission statement of the FAA to Promote Aviation with Aviation Safety a secondary item to the PRIMARY item.
Just my two cents while watching this political shoving match between environmentalist and Aviation (which BTW, has no say because it is the FAA who certifies the fuel).
Maybe this will help push the development of unleaded avgas. I cannot wait until the lead is out of avgas. Cleaner spark plugs (and no ignition misses from lead fouling), cleaner oil, longer intervals between oil changes, and cleaner air to boot. Unleaded avgas is long overdue. I expect in a long run that unleaded avgas would be cheaper since there would no longer be a need to scrub refineries after production of the only lead based fuel still in existence. Maybe other states should take Oregon’s lead and put up similar bills. Maybe that will accelerate the development and distribution of UL avgas.
UH, The lead is ADDED to the leaded fuel.
IT is NOT REMOVED from the unleaded fuel.
Gasoline does not naturally contain lead.
Just like it doesn’t contain ethanol.
The ethanol has to be ADDED. Not REMOVED.
Not sure what point you were trying to make here. Perhaps you thought that my use of a colloquialism suggested that I do not understand that TEL is added to fuel as an anti-detonation agent. Even if I did not understand this basic fact (which I do), it has nothing to do with the point I was making that a world without lead in avgas is a better place for multiple reasons (and your engine will run cleaner and better).
Perhaps it was this line that caused some confusion for Rich,”I expect in a long run that unleaded avgas would be cheaper since there would no longer be a need to scrub refineries after production of the only lead based fuel still in existence.” Simply misreading of that may cause one to not understand that you are referring to the refineries piping and the dedicated equipment that is now needed to produce the leaded fuel. Avgas is not segregated because it is avgas but rather because it,as you said,is the sole remaining leaded gasoline in the U.S.
Shell Oil, several decades ago now, stopped producing 100LL. The Shell branded fuel is produced by other refiners. My understanding is that the lead injector systems required replacement and Shell decided it was not cost effective to do so. Also as you state,TEL does nothing good,other than reduce “knock”, new auto engines run as long as they do more because of the no-lead fuel than any engine changes.
We do have a chance to operate with unleaded fuel if 94UL can get broadly distributed.
I would guess that you are running too cold a plug. I run ROP with an IO540, and we don’t seem to have lead fouling very often. Usually it is oil fouling and I can clear that in about 20 seconds by running up and leaning the engine to stumble — does not get close to detonation.
I would like to weigh in about Harrison Ford’s big mistake while flying his Husky into SNA. The news media is all over this and that won’t be good for Ford. Ok, instead of landing on 20L he landed on taxiway C that parallels runway 20L and flew over the top of an American Airlines B737 in the process. This kind of mistake has been made by professional airline pilots so Ford isn’t the first, but this is a major mistake.
We all know taxiways are marked with yellow lines and runways are marked with white lines so how does someone make this kind of mistake. I suspect Ford was in overload going into SNA since it is a very busy and hectic environment. He obviously could not be familiar with SNA, so this presents a tough challenge for him. It would have been better if he could have taken someone along with him who is familiar with SNA. At this point, though, it is up to the FAA to figure out exactly what happened and how to handle the aftermath.
The media is reporting this like it put people in the American B737 at danger. That is simply not true. I used to flight instruct out of SNA and I currently often fly my C180 in and out of SNA and I can tell you it is perfectly normal to fly very low right over the top of Airliners that are on taxiway A when taking off from runway 20L at SNA. So please tell me why it is dangerous to fly low over an airliner when landing but not when taking off? I’d say it could be dangerous to mistaking land on a taxiway without a clearance to do so for some reason, but just because an airliner or any plane was parked perpendicular on the end of the taxiway at the time doesn’t make it any more treacherous. If I am wrong about this then why do I fly extremely low (about 100ft) right over the top of airliners all the time on takeoff from 20L out of SNA as normal procedure! What if my engine quit on one of those takeoffs? I am just offering this up for something to think about. I hope all of this can be kept into perspective, and hey, let’s be careful and stay aware out there!
Not sure what this has to do with 1100LL.
I think Harrison Ford has lead poisoning, which caused him to land on the taxiway.
As off topic as this might be but sometimes taxiways can also be runways. Back in 81 I was taking a local shuttle flight on a Twin Otter from Houston Intercontinental to a privately operated STOL strip down near the space center. It was night and they did not close cockpit doors in those days so I had a good view of the flight deck. As we turned onto a taxiway the crew advanced the throttles to full and I was starting to wonder just what was going on. We actually took off and flew away from an obvious blue lighted taxiway. On the return we landed on what was an obvious taxiway so before leaving the aircraft I made a quick and polite inquiry about the situation. It seems to keep the little Twin Otters away from the airliner runways and approach path they designated several taxiways as dual use runways and they even had runway markings to show the acceptable landing areas. So it just goes to show that some taxiways do get used as runways (or did) and maybe Harrison just got confused.
To claim the lead in AV fuel causes no harmful health effects is false.
It looks like there will be a lead free replacement soon, so who cares? I wish the lead was gone today. This will only push the industry to actually get it done. As Sam noted, Swift 94 is already exists. 100 won’t be far behind considering this won’t take effect until 2022.
For 100 octane necessity folks good luck. The rest of us can fly 93 octane E0 just fine if available. Oregon folks MOVE!
I think introducing a bill to ban the sale of leaded gas is the wrong way to go about this. At the same time I am hopeful that this will help to spur the development of fuel that is cheaper than 100LL. I think one of those fuels already exists with Swift Fuels UL94. I hope they can continue to gain traction with this fuel. It is common knowledge that 70-80% of the GA fleet doesn’t need high octane leaded fuel. It would be awesome if an additive was developed that could be added to UL94 for the 20% that need the higher octane, much like prist is added to Jet A.