In my last column, “Deep Pockets,” I talked about the lack of deep pockets in the companies working on the next generation of unleaded avgas.
Another big problem is the lack of an agreed-upon specification.
Work began on a new ASTM specification in the late 1990s — and it is still a work in progress. While the FAA and the general aviation industry have set a deadline of 2030 to transition to using only unleaded fuel, it might be time to think about moving that date back.
For the switchover to unleaded avgas to be successful, the industry needs to be united and behind a common specification. Right now, we have two of the candidates debating over a possible ASTM specification that has been in the works for over 25 years and the third is using the STC route.
This raises several problems, but the biggest is the lack of backing by GA manufacturers. If airframe and engine manufacturers endorse a single specification, that will carry significant weight in both the legal arena and the court of public opinion.
Without the acceptance of a single specification, there will be a continuous debate and bickering as to which fuel is best, as well as finger pointing at each other about problems with the other fuel.
Some of the bickering will involve:
- Knock complaints because of inadequate octane quality of one fuel or the other.
- Inadequate energy content due to oxygenate fuel.
- Fuels that do not mix properly with other fuels.
- Fuels that do not operate properly at altitude.
- Fuels that are not compatible with all fuel system components.
- Fuels that do not protect exhaust valve seats.
- Fuels that have a strange odor.
- Fuels that do not meet all EPA standards.
- Fuels that are not qualified for my aircraft.
- Fuel that is not available at my airport or at airports across the country.
The list goes on and on. Having two or more standards is not a workable system for a widespread distribution system like the general aviation community in the United States. And I have not even touched on the international aviation community.
So what is the solution?
I feel that since the EPA and the FAA are forcing this on the GA community, they need to be the joint qualifying agencies. Like the military specification approval for many products, the two federal agencies could take the 25-plus years of work by the ASTM committee, plus the STC spec from the FAA, and issue a specification that will go into effect on a predetermined date. Then, if a company wants to be part of the avgas business, it will need to produce a product that meets that spec.
If there is a problem in the field after that, the EPA and or the FAA will be in charge of dealing with it.
Wow, this topic really does bring out the comments. A quick couple of points…
1) Lets find a solution that works for ALL of GA, we are a tiny group and if we start splitting up among ourselves we all will lose.
2) Never knew there were so many NASA haters, of course from what I can tell NASA has 0% to do with the TEL (Lead) issue.
There’s absolutely NOTHING WRONG with out curent blue tinted 100LL AvGas. It hasn’t killed anyone, and nobody I’ve known in my 58-years of flying has developed ANY DISEASE from being around it. Maybe there’s something ELSE afoot here. Have you considered this: “The $50,000 “Fuel” Tax: Why the EPA is Quietly Grounding the American Pilot” ? Watch this video, as it says many of the things I’ve been thinking for a LONG TIME. This really IS a WAR ON 100LL AVGAS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u00a_fKwt0
It still sounds like of lot of BS to me, These kinds of alleged explanations have been going on way to long, there sounds and still sounds like there is a rat in the in the explanation on why we cant make aviation fuel at a nominal cost, after all we can do everything else with ease. It all stems down to greed !!! that’s all it is, again & again & again,, tell me again that in another 25 years we will not be able to mfg. avgas with no lead in it and I’ll kiss your behind !!! Maybe we ought to get NASA involved in this giant problem that we aviators have, they would of knocked it out in three months, guaranteed, how about it dumb dumbs ??? we have waited way to long for absolutely nothing, but lame excuses.
The same NASA that spends 100x what Elon does for the same result. You must work for NASA!
Get Elon to do it !!!!!!
BTW; Avgas costs less than diesel in the Soviet Socialist State of Washison !!!!
Forget about NASA (NOT A SPACE AGENCY) and Elon Musk, and for that matter, JEFF BOZO. None of them have been to “OUTER SPACE!” And remember, Katy Perry OPENED the door of Bezo’s phalic symbol of a “SPACE” capsule before Jeff Bezos had a chance to use his special door “unlocking device” resembling a HAMMER! All faked for the consuming, confused Lilliputians on Earth. Meanwhile, NASA is continuing to suck out $77-MILLION A DAY from our taxpayer wallets and have provided us with exactly what tangible product? NOTHING! Oh, I forgot, maybe they grew Daisy’s on the ISS? NASA is a total FRAUD!
I agree except for pushing back the timeline. 25 years is 20 too long already. There is nothing wrong with competition, and there are multiple ways to meet a specification. Reducing lead content is not a good path for a few reasons; TEL supply, pipeline compatability with unleaded fuels, and politics. This has not been a scientific problem for a few years already, it is politics.
A lot of the GA fleet can operate on ethanol-free automotive gasoline–
If not 87 octane, then 92 octane.
There are at least two “mogas” stc’s available.
My own airplanes have been happily operating on at least 75% mogas for over 3800 hours, the last thousand hours or more on 100% mogas.
I don’t understand why the mogas option is not being pushed more by the powers that be.
If all the airplanes that can use mogas were doing so,
it would result in a big decrease in leaded-fuel emissions by the GA fleet.
And then maybe extending the lead-free deadline past 2030 until a better solution can be found would be more acceptable.
I’ve had a mogas stc for over 20 years, but have never been able to use it since auto gas in California has 10% ethanol in it.!!
Maybe we could get the EPA to mandate 91E0 at a gas station near GA airports ?
[ wishful thinking !!]
There is NO appreciable, or even measurable amount of “leaded-fuel emissions” exposure by the G/A fleet overall. It’s all EPA propaganda, and behind them, the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 BS! We do not need a “solution” to a non-existent problem!~
Logic, reason and compromise. Thinking we don’t see with our world these days very often. The Lead issue probably could have been solved long ago with a combination of ultra low usage of lead and other materials. But no, we have to get all the lead out or nothing.
When all is said and done, a lot more will have been said than done.
Thank you Ben. You are right on target. My only comment is to extend the 2030 deadline for 10 years to let your suggestion materialize, or we will end up in a little over three years with no fuel at all!
Makes too much sense for FAA or EPA to do the right thing. Neither has a real interest in a solution