GA advocates have joined forces to oppose a bill introduced in the Washington state House of Representatives that would ban the sale of leaded aviation gas in that state.
If it becomes law, the bill (WA HB1554) would begin a phased-in restriction on the “selling, distributing, or otherwise making available to consumers” leaded avgas in Washington state starting Jan. 1, 2024.
The restrictions would initially be placed on airports in the areas of greatest population, with additional restrictions culminating in a complete ban for the entire state in 2030.
The letter signed by several of GA’s alphabet groups, including the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Helicopter Association International (HAI), and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), was sent prior to a committee hearing on the bill that was held on Jan. 31, 2023.
In the letter, the associations reaffirm the industry’s commitment to moving to a lead-free fuel. The groups also point out that a ban on leaded aviation fuel would cause an immediate threat to aviation safety in Washington state for owners and pilots of aircraft that require that fuel.
Moreover, the legislation would bring an instant economic hardship for small businesses that sell fuel at airports, as pilots would avoid FBOs in Washington to get fuel just over the border in neighboring states and provinces.
“Progress is being made towards an unleaded future,” the letter states. “At the federal level, HAI, EAA, GAMA and NATA continue to co-lead the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) Initiative with the stated goal of removing lead by the end of 2030. EAGLE includes the FAA, industry, and other aviation advocacy organizations and is supported by federal funding and industry in-kind support for the testing, evaluation, approval, and deployment of unleaded fuels.”
Additionally, Brad Schuster, the northwest mountain regional manager from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), provided in-person and written statements in opposition to the bill. Schuster highlighted to the committee the safety and economic impacts a ban could have on the state’s aviation infrastructure. He also was able to answer questions from the committee to further explain the efforts under way by the industry to implement lead-free solutions.
The committee also heard additional statements in opposition to the bill. The Washington Public Ports Association, which includes approximately 34 airports in various state port authority jurisdictions, as well as the Washington State Department of Transportation, Interim State Aviation Directory also provided statements highlighting the safety and economic impacts these restrictions would have if the bill were to pass as drafted.
In opposing the legislation, the associations offer a better solution in supporting the ongoing EAGLE initiative and the encouragement of operational practices at airports that mitigate lead exposure whenever possible. The associations added they “welcome a dialogue and collaboration with the committee and ask they consider EAGLE and the associations as resources going forward.”
You can read the letter here. You can learn more about the bill here.
The pro-lead alphabet groups have blood on their hands. Eventually they will be sued for brain damaging children. They will pay billions. But I guess their joyrides are all they care about.
Great move by Washington. A little like what WA is doing with the PFAS fire suppression foam the airport is using. They contain cancer causing “forever” chemicals and are being replaced by a healthier, equally effective green alternative.
Anecdotal “I’ve been around leaded fuel all my life with no problems” doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that many chemicals are harming the environment and need to be replaced by a greener alternative. The cumulative effect on the planet by so many of the chemicals that are harming it needs to be slowed as realistically as possible. This seems to have a realistic timeline and will be a good thing in the long run.
Having been a pilot and aircraft owner for 51 years, it is always an angry disappointment when state and local governments who know nothing about aviation impose unreasonable bans on aviation. These uneducated politicians have no knowledge of the compromises to safety, and the economy (including their own). Their simple intent is to impress their constituents to show that “big brother” is “working” for them. That being said, let’s call this situation what it is —an unreasonable and absurd amount of time to certify and implement delivery of UL 100. GAMI has proven that its fuel is tested, safe and ready to go, yet we have to wait until the year 2030 for it to come to market? This is simply ridiculous. That being said, perhaps while I find the state and local governments’ bans as irresponsible, perhaps it is an incentive as to what the FAA and other entities regarding the delivery of the new fuel need to stop procrastinating and get this fuel to market NOW. As such, the aviation industry and its government are self-destructive in and of themselves due to procrastination and poor implementation. It is time to cut the unnecessary red tape and to move our tails (pun intended) to deliver the new fuel— unless everyone is ok with more and more airports imposing restrictions.
It will be a shame when the disconnected people that are making these decisions never realize that kids are getting dumber not because of lead but because our education system is awful and that TV (the most dumbing factor there is) has flourished into a 24×7 industry of mind numbing video games and useless You Tube snippets.
Go into any medical center or hospital… leading issues? Driving/riding/scooter accidents, cancer (not lead related), murder, flu (or Covid, the new flu), drugs, household stuff poisoning (not lead related).
Agreed, get the lead out… but is it really poisoning us over everything else?
Or even in the top 50? Absolutely not.
We should keep in minds that Aviation is one of the few remaining industries that teaches kids about the 3D world rather than the 2D thumb twiddling world to which they’re addicted.
It is a medical fact that even small amounts of lead exposure in early childhood causes IQ loss in children. The loss of a single IQ point is equivalent to the loss of $17,815
in future earnings over a lifetime, according to a 2009 study by Environmental Health
Perspectives, a research journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences? That’s $25,000 in 2023 dollars. Yes kids are getting dumber in today’s world because of the reasons you noted, but that doesn’t mean we should not mitigate one source, leaded aviation fuel, that is contributing to their IQ loss. BTW. both me and my aeronautical engineer husband are proponents of general aviation, but we are also proponents of getting the lead out ASAP and in the meantime offering Swifts unleaded UL94 at general aviation airports until a universal unleaded such as GAMI G100UL can get production and distribution up to speed which will likely take another four, five, or six years. Otherwise, children being born today and taken home to a house near a general aviation airport will suffer IQ loss that will affect the rest of their lives.
I have a couple general statements about this and then, perhaps, too many follow up words.
1- Rarely is it mentioned that GAMI has developed a G100UL (unleaded fuel) that has been approved and is easily produced and 100% mixable with the existing 100LL fuel. The delivery infrastructure utilizes existing infrastructure and is underway.
2- It is also rarely mentioned that the studies that show elevated lead in certain areas corresponds to areas that not only have an airport, but also had some kind of lead based industry (paint, etc) located in that same area previously. It is likely that the airport is being blamed for the previous pollutants. And, like other people that have posted stuff, I have flown for 30 years, washed my hands in 100LL and lived thru leaded car gas and show no signs of lead poisoning (and can still write run-on sentences better than anyone).
I’m encouraged to see so many pilots get behind the integrity and intent of this initiative. However, it’s so disheartening that many have such great concern regarding the ‘economic hardship’ for pilots without an ounce of concern or compassion for the humans, children and wildlife stuck with irreversable lifetime impacts.
Thanks to the pilots who choose to understand, protect and appreciate aviation’s impact on communities you operate in!
I’m curious, did any of the 13 commenters go read the proposed bill ?
I did. It proposes a number of steps to get to an unleaded avgas in WA.
Excellent point Jim. So I just did and it is indeed important to do so to better understand the plan. I am not a lawyer but a couple of things I got from going through it (anyone please correct me if I got it wrong):
First, it seems that the plan to start phasing out leaded fuel is for airports inside larger cities to start doing it by January 1, 2026. Not 2023. January 2023 is used as the date at which the size of the city is determined.
Second, I did like about the bill is that it includes funds to facilitate the implementation of unleaded fuel sale, including infrastructure and education, at the affected airports. It also establishes a dialogue between the scientific community and the airport as well as requirements to gather data.
Nothing is perfect, but I think Washington State is doing the right thing by initiating the conversation and working toward establishing a transition plan. That’s forward thinking and is going to encourage the development of alternatives to 100LL.
BTW, you can always keep your airplane outside of the city. Nothing in the bill prohibits that.
Chris, I don’t see a section on funds being allocated to facilitate unleaded fuel transition. I do see a section for $1000/day penalties that get disbursed to non-aviation causes (that seems like a poor/somewhat unfair concept).
And, what do you mean, “keep your plane outside of the city”? There is no provision that I can see banning aircraft, only the fuel.
It would be great if you clarified with what section indicates these things… I’m just not seeing them.
This green extremism is going to be the death of GA, it will become a hobby for only the elite, and I have yet to see a study of anyone having an actual quantifiably noticeable damage done to them from a Cessna 172 flying overhead.
It is interesting – no one has mentioned that lead in gasoline has two primary benefits – helping to eliminate detonation which causes the piston to rock side to side on the power stroke and to help cool the engine valves. With modern material science improved components are in some cases available but aircraft owners are on their own to take advantage.
The fuel, oil, and additive specifications of what can be used in each specific aircraft engine is the purview of the FAA. It is folly to believe that any pilot can just go to the local auto store and pick up some additive. Planes falling from the sky with seized engines pose a greater risk than any proved from lead exposure.
What may be needed is just a little more emphasis on getting the FAA to finally provide the alternatives which have been under study for years. Announcements I see are that solutions are close to promulgation.
Trying to be a ‘home chemist’ and choosing to add something that has probably already been considered by the FAA seems to be risky guesswork.
Talk all you want but an aircraft TCDS requires certain fuel that allowed to be used. A state can interfere with the FAA requirements. They don’t have the constitutional authority. So, until the US Senate changes the law or engine manufactures change the fuel requirement, 100 LL is here to stay.
I have expressed this opinion before but initiatives to adopt lead free fuel have been around in the past but nothing happened. News that 100LL would be phased out have been around for a while and again nothing happened. My Rotax 912S runs happily on unleaded premium auto fuel and that engine has a compression ratio of 11.1:1 compared to 6.5:1 to 8.5:1 for Lycs or Contis and still, the US engine industry has done nothing to update their engines to use lead free fuels (well, I’m being harsh on this one because Continental is trying to introduce diesel piston engines but its a hard sell until more interest drives sales up). Rotax is slowly but surely catching up on the horsepower scale, with high horsepower engines that can run on unleaded auto fuel.
Porsche claimed in 1985 that they could run their short lived aviation engine with unleaded fuel so it’s clearly not a technology issue. Is it a regulatory one? I think that is just a poor excuse to not want to spend time and money to actually certify engines with new technology.
It is clear that at some point, the government has to set deadlines or nothing will happen so I applaud them for doing their job to finally force the industry’s hand.
Washington State state deadline of Jan 2024 is tight, I agree, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Maybe the GA organizations should stop whining and get to work to convince these states that something meaningful is now finally happening and to revise their deadlines accordingly. But if they don’t, oh well. Aviation choose to ignore the writing on the wall. We have only us to blame (well, I have one airplane that needs 100LL but also got my little Rotax powered airplane two years ago just in case 🙂 ).
And I think that, like the Y2K Panic, we will survive this one just fine.
Chris,
Compression ratio for air cooled and liquid cooled engines is not a apples to apples comparison. The different ways the engine are cooled affects how the two fuels perform, especially with regard to detonation. 8.1:1 is probably the limit for a UL94 octane fuel.
As for Unleaded, Non Ethanol Gas. That’s all I use and have since the STC came out over 20 years ago. I only use 100LL only when I am away from my airport on a long cross country. Best decision I ever made. Also I agree that if all of the ALPHABET groups really wanted to help GA Pilots they would have indorsed Unleaded, Non Ethanol fuel many years ago. But as someone said. You just need to follow the Money to see the real reasons people or company’s or in this case the ALPHABET groups do what they do.
That’s my Two Cents.
Perhaps the response should be; without fuel, we can no longer provide emergency medical transportation or assist with emergencies (specifically, fire fighting). Once a few citizens/voters die, maybe they’ll recognize the benefits of General Aviation and the need to allow them to be fueled.
Your toxic lead-spewers have already killed a few voters and citizens. We don’t want you.
There’s plenty of GA planes which run just fine on unleaded fuel and there have been for DECADES, and they’re documented in the comments here. The lead-huffing group is just pretending to care about GA. Actually, they’re just cheap and lazy and irresponsible.
In part I have to blame the aircraft manufacturers for this problem as well by not converting this gas engines over to diesels. There are plenty of suitable diesel engines that could be used in all GA aircraft. But this just shows also the stupidity of the people that want to ban 100LL since the diesel engine emits its own set of environmentally adverse pollutants as well. But they cannot band diesel of course because that impact all the airlines and trucking industry. This move to ban 100LL is mainly I think backed by socialist who just want to do anything they can to control life and destroy businesses so that they can take more control over everything to advance the transformation of America into a Socialist state.
If the aviation alphabets had gotten behind Mogas at all airports, which can power 80% of the fleet, this would probably be a non-issue. They could have demonstrated that aviation was working on phasing out 100LL, while switching most aircraft over to a plentiful, lead-free, ethanol-free alternative that was approved by the FAA over 40 years ago and that has had a near-perfect record of safety and lowering costs to pilots. But no, the alphabets preferred to be led instead by companies doggedly sticking to high-profit 100LL and the mythical boutique one-size-fits-all solution that will always cost more. Their chickens have come home to roost.
I posted my option above but want to comment on this one: The Rotax 912S needs high octane unleaded fuel. It can run 100LL just fine bit it makes a mess inside the engine so unleaded is preferred. They stopped selling Mogas at my airport a few years ago (that fuel was great). My only option now is to go with jugs to the local gas station and buy fuel. Besides the (un)safety aspect of doing that, auto gas sold in the gas stations is terrible for use on airplanes (ethanol, vapor lock, carb ice, etc) so I am really hoping we see more aviation grade Mogas at the airports in the near future.
When I travel with my Rotax powered airplane, I try to stop at airports that carry Mogas but there aren’t many around. I also had issues with stale Mogas sold at airports so I use 100LL when traveling but don’t like to do that much. It is embarrassing that in Europe unleaded aviation gas is readily available but here in the US it is so hard to find.
Again, I am happy we are finally moving in the right direction. Welcome to the future.
Chris
My goodness, Chris, you are striving to be the majority of commenters.
Welcome to the future?
Your cliches and incorrect generalized statements are simply a warning that sharing the skies with you is simply dangerous.
Fortunately, science is prevailing and an approved unleaded fuel exists from GAMI (G100UL).
So go buy your STC for it, put your money where your “futuristic mouth” is (instead of spewing cliches and inaccurate statements), and join our pragmatic and knowledgeable pilot community.
Ah… The communists pushing to take over… Folks… it will not stop at fuel. Between power hungry state and federal governments the Communist will not be happy until travel means ox and cart. Just like Congress getting involved in how much water your toilet flushes… get the government out of your business !
Wow Washington state legislatures are all about shutting down anything and everything. They don’t care and are not willing to even get the truth or education to understand why some fuels are formulated, the way they are. The low lead fuel has just enough lead to ensure the internal parts that are exposed to fuel and the environment in general to provide lubrication . The fuel which is been in use for decade’s. Many other craft require or use such fuel as a safe effective alternative to regular road fuel. Stay out of something you know nothing about Washington unlaw makers
I get a bit tired of the “save the children” narrative…I grew up in aviation, my first job in aviation was a line boy (and proud of it) in the mid to late 1960’s. Practically bathed in avgas, had to change coveralls every day. Have lived on a busy residential airpark for over 40 years, and raised two children one of which is an airline pilot and lives on another airpark with his family. We even pick and eat the blackberries that grow at the end of the runway!
Between us we own and operate five and a half airplanes, my girlfriend also has one and we all do our own refueling.
I know of NO ONE in my family or circle of aviation friends who have any symptoms of lead poisoning.
You showed symptoms of lead poisoning in your comment, right there.
Have always had an interest in aviation. I just want to learn. Am too old to get my license now…I regret not having done so in my younger years.
Thanks,
This is so wroug and Dangers to use pilots