100LL Debacle

kmacht said:
There are a lot of publicly available studies that also say the world is flat or that we did not go to the moon. It doesn’t mean they are right.
Click to expand...
"Studies"?

I think most people use that term to mean research that applies the scientific method.
 
RyanB said:
The interesting fact is that carbon monoxide, which is emitted from all of our ICE vehicles, is just as harmful as lead exposure.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false. There are safe levels of CO and your body gets rid of CO reasonably quickly while it bioaccumulates lead.
 
Baked Potato said:
I mean... Crime rates there (and most US locales) are a lot lower than they were in the 80s and 90s, right?
Click to expand...

In Baltimore the crime rate is lower, because they are not prosecuting "minor" crimes, like theft up to $1000. REALLY?????
 
172andyou said:
Absolutely false. There are safe levels of CO and your body gets rid of CO reasonably quickly while it bioaccumulates lead.
Click to expand...

the body will get rid of lead. really slowly, but when exposure is eliminated (or reduced) BLL values go down over time.
 
Well the forces working to get rid of 100LL are alive and well in S. Cali. This sign is posted on the entrance to my city owned airport. Note the organization named at the bottom. It's not a governmental organization but I suspect it gets quite a bit of public funding, and interesting CV of its board. I suspect more and more airports will follow the lead of Santa Clara County well before there are any results form EAGLE.IMG_3485.jpg
 
Why would the airport allow that sign to be posted in the first place if it isn’t being done by or required by a government entity? If that were my home airport I would be asking for it to be removed as you have no idea what is or will be posted to that organizations website. Did they even get permission to put the sign there or did it just show up one day?
 
DaleB said:
Doesn’t everything in California have a Prop 65 warning on it?
Click to expand...

Apparently anything that generates sawdust will have a prop 65 warning...
 
Palmpilot said:
"Studies"?

I think most people use that term to mean research that applies the scientific method.
Click to expand...

You mean like global warming and climate change.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
kmacht said:
Why would the airport allow that sign to be posted in the first place if it isn’t being done by or required by a government entity? If that were my home airport I would be asking for it to be removed as you have no idea what is or will be posted to that organizations website. Did they even get permission to put the sign there or did it just show up one day?
Click to expand...

It is required by CA law.
 

Attachments

  • Disneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg
    Disneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg
    292.2 KB · Views: 24
Lead is bad for motors - fouls plugs, deposits on pistons/ combustion chambers, accumulates in the sump... Particularly bad for geared engines.
We want lead in our fuel. The more the better.
 
SebIp said:
I don’t think lost of 100LL will doom everything. It will be painful but a lot of the fleet can use mogas. The planes that can’t will be stuck but the mogas capable ones will just switch.

And you can argue that if 100LL doesn’t exist maybe then someone will make engine solutions for those remaining planes that allows them to use mogas as well.

The 100LL situation will either resolve by accepting the new alternatives or as above via other engineering solution. What the other engineering solution means it that it’ll cost way too much.

Is 100LL the top priority? Maybe. I for one would love to not have to worry about lead.
Click to expand...

You're talking somewhere between 25,000-50,000 per engine to replace them if not more since the old cores could end up having all the value of a boat anchor depending on what the replacements look like.

That would absolutely be a monumental blow to GA.

We'd be held even more captive than we are today with only 3 major manufacturers and rebuilders.

To go from a scratch design on paper into full approval would require an investment of millions which is why our choices are already so limited. There's just not a large enough market to make it practical or economically viable.

Then of course the likelihood of it taking years from development through full approval during which time we could be grounded and those companies attempting to break into the market being out millions with no return on investment during that lag time.
 
3393RP said:
Everyone is discussing the wrong three letter acronym. The FAA isn't the problem, it's the EPA. With the current political climate (irony intended), there are dangerous ideas floating around that could foment a crisis any day.
Click to expand...
It's actually both since you'd have to meet the reg's put out by both to get an engine replacement certified.
 
Half Fast said:
@PaulMillner , any news about the promised FAA response to George?
Click to expand...
The FAA met the two-week promise. Then ensued some clarification discussions - what did the FAA *mean* by what they said?! I think it's settling out now... hopefully something to share by next week.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top