United States | News & Politics

7227 readers

155 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

118

A Colorado airport said it was powerless to stop using leaded fuel. After a public outcry, it’s racing to get rid of it (www.kunc.org)

submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/usa@lemmy.ml

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Key things here:

The gas used in the small planes with piston-driven propellers has lead in it. Yeah, the same stuff that was banned from automotive fuel because it causes brain damage in kids.

That lead in the fuel airplanes burn? It ends up in kids blood

There's a new fuel mix starting to be available which doesn't contain lead, and which works for all airplanes. It's available in some places in the US, but not all of them yet.

The FAA has a plan to make going lead-free a requirement by 2031...but right now there isn't anything stopping airport owners (often local governments) from making the switch happen faster. Only thing which might stop this is that the Republican version of the FAA reauthorization bill contains a requirement that airports keep on selling leaded fuel forever, so it's also important to stop that from becoming law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ultimately, bureaucracy.

The aviation industry is second only to nuclear in regulatory conservatism. They grind through change slowly, methodically, and expensively.

Every engine manufacturer went through a lengthy certification process to get their engines approved to run on avgas. If you want to burn a slightly different kind of fuel, you either need to go through that entire process again, or you have to convince the FAA that there is so little difference in the new fuel that it will perform identically in every engine that has ever been certified on the old fuel.

They finally achieved that second one earlier this year, after decades of work.

[–] Heratiki@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This makes the most sense by far. I think it has a lot to do with we just don’t put the money towards research and development we did in the 40’s and 50’s. Sure we still R&D but no one is dreaming up completely new ideas from the ground up and getting funding.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The most promising short-term approach is switching from spark ignition to compression ignition: Jet fuel is very comparable to diesel fuel, and doesn't have the same problems with lead that avgas has. It has a higher energy density, providing lower fuel burn and longer range. And it is significantly cheaper than 100LL, let alone 100UL.

Europe has a significant number of diesel-engined general aviation aircraft burning Jet-A. Several manufacturers have received supplementary type certificates to swap out gasoline engines for diesel in many of the most popular GA aircraft.

Longer term, electric and hydrogen are being researched, but it will be a long time before they are viable options in the GA fleet.

[–] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're forgetting the easy third option. Just ground everything that requires leaded fuel. Problem solved.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really an option when pretty much every flight school in the world uses them, and we already have a shortage of qualified pilots.

[–] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

We already have an excess of flights. Just reduce the amount of unnecessary flying.