During a Nov. 1, 2022, Environmental Protection Agency hearing on the agency’s proposed endangerment finding on lead emissions from aviation fuel, general aviation was represented by Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Jim Coon, who emphasized that the transition from 100LL to an unleaded alternative must be done in a way that protects safety.
The hearing was part of the EPA’s process of gathering public comments before the agency makes its final determination, which is expected sometime in 2023.
Other speakers included environmental activists, city officials, and private citizens, according to AOPA officials.
During his comments, Coon emphasized three points:
- The GA industry supports a safe transition to an unleaded fuel;
- The transition must be done safely and smartly;
- Real progress with unleaded fuel is underway.
He reported that the first 100-octane unleaded fuel — from General Aviation Modifications Inc. of Oklahoma — has recently received FAA approval, while Swift Fuels in Indiana is also working on earning approval for its 100-octane unleaded fuel.
He also pointed out that several fuels are being tested through the FAA’s Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative, as well as the work of EAGLE — Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions — a coalition of industry, government, and aviation stakeholders with the shared goal of removing lead from aviation fuel by 2030.
“The general aviation community remains committed to removing lead from aviation gasoline and having it widely available by the end of 2030 — and it may be sooner,” said Coon. “But we cannot compromise the safe and efficient operation of the fleet or economically destroy the United States general aviation transportation infrastructure by prematurely removing an essential fuel that many aircraft need.”
Some critics urge the EPA to ban 100LL immediately, following the example of the County of Santa Clara, California, which banned the sale of 100LL in January 2022 from its two airports, Reid Hillview and San Martin Airport.
AOPA officials say the rush to ban 100LL is a “critical safety issue,” noting many of the 220,000 piston engine aircraft require higher-octane 100LL fuel to fly safely. Putting the wrong fuel into an aircraft can cause catastrophic engine failure.
Banning the fuel also violates federal rules for airports that use federal funds for airport improvements, AOPA officials said, noting the association filed a formal complaint against the county Oct. 14, 2022.
I actually no longer am a member of EAA or AOPA because of this very issue. If they truly cared about GA they would use their lobbying power to push for automotive engines as a viable solution and a way to reduce maintenance costs. They could lobby to have the FAA take a common sense approach to the solution instead of essentially bankrupting any company that may want to take this path. The certification process is so onerous and expensive it all buy guarantees there will never be true progress in GA.
Lead was removed from car gasoline engines not because of health hazards but because it damaged the catalytic converters in the 70s. The only way you can get lead poisoning is to eat lead unless you’re just standing around sucking in dust from lead being ground up. This whole issue about leaded gasoline for private planes is not about the health hazard but just because people are jealous about plane owners
There are even better solutions how about the FAA allow the Corsair engines to replace the Lycoming and Continentals so that we have V8 automobile style motors that are more dependable run better and use normal gasoline from the pump at any gas station. Now the problem is gone and we can put a $10,000 motor in our airplane instead of a $50,000 motor and they go all the way up to 325 horsepower can be turbo-normalized but of course our friends at Lycoming and Continental maybe funding some campaigns to make sure that that doesn’t happen even though it’s already been proven with thousands of hours in experimental airplanes
I so agree this I’d far and away the best solution and reduces ownership cost over the life of the aircraft. Improved performance, better rate of fuel consumption, essentially off the shelf parts, and unleaded mogas. It seems like a no-brainer. Which is why the no brains at the FAA won’t entertain the idea.
Humm… let me see. As I leaf through AOPA’S Pilot and EAA’s Sport Aviation magazines I see not ONE ad saying that their engine is diesel or runs on unleaded gas and not ONE gas making company touting their wonder high tech engine fuel. Why is this? Anyone with half a brain and owns an airplane knows why. Fuel was a chemistry problem that had a known solution and the engine was a technology problem with a known solution but it’s something every business student is taught. Maximize your margins, harvest your returns and jack up your stock price, and block every new tech competition using every antimarket tool including using government entities rules and legislation, and hijack the agendas of user groups to defend the status quo so the customers don’t know any better. It would have been a miracle that we DIDN’T end up here 25 years later.
I am a long time AOPA and EAA member but have spent the last several years wondering why both organizations don’t seem to represent my and everyone in the hangars around me best interests. But it sure seems that the folks who buy the ads in the magazines sure do.
As for me, it appears that whether I belong in AOPA doesn’t matter. The true path to change is ti admit errors and short comings. All I want is Mark to say, one time, that he and others screwed up, got it wrong all these years, didn’t fight for what was best for the long term interests of airplane owners and pilots, and that he will take on new initiatives to at least move GA into this century concerning technology of powerplants and structures. Then I will believe that things will really change for the folks coming up behind us. Until then, I can tell you that it will be highly improbable the new gas will ever be less than the old gas and engines will be better or more affordable than the old ones because there is no economic reason otherwise. In monopolies “fat cats don’t hunt”.
Amen!
But instead of pushing for real solutions to our problems they will celebrate every time Gulfstream sells an $80-million jet to some “climate change” preaching fat cat in the Bay Area and use it as an illustration of how great “General Aviation” is doing.
Since the consumption of avgas in the US is but a few tenths of 1% of the total consumption of all gasoline, this push to de-lead or reformulate avgas is ridiculous! No block test or series of block tests will show what the real world effects on engines will be! There are a bunch of people getting rich off this sideshow!
The aviation alphabets could have solved this problem 40 years ago by embracing ethanol-free autogas as the solution, when the EAA and Petersen Aviation first obtained STCs for it. The world’s largest maker of aircraft engines (Rotax) designs its products to operate on this relatively inexpensive, widely available, lead-free fuel. A second viable solution is to be found in Jet-A burning Diesel engines. Instead, the Alphabets and our inept government wants yet another boutique fuel that will only cost us more and drive thousands more once-active pilots to seek other uses of their money. I would say that the leaded fuel issue has been the biggest of many belly flops of what have become little more than large bureaucratic lobbies focused primarily on self-preservation of their cushy jobs instead of truly looking out for the majority of pilots and aircraft owners, especially in sport aviation. The late, great Paul Poberezny confided in me years ago that “every other person at EAA headquarters is a lawyer these days”, in his expression of frustration over what the organization had become in his retirement from daily operations.
This is a made up problem. GA leaded fuel is the least of our EPA concerns. There are so many other areas to reduce emissions. This is purely an attack on GA and it seems to follow a constant pattern of pushing out GA in every possible way. The safety issue raised by this “New” gas is another example of putting pollitical agendas ahead of Aviator’s and the public’s safety. This is not good government, not good for anyone. We need more pushback on this issue.