California is a governor's signature away from banning 100LL in 2031

Sounds like there is going to be a captive market GAMI.
 
Weeeeeeee, we will save the planet….
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Is this a problem?
Click to expand...
It’s a problem if unleaded avgas is not as available as 100LL. With this law, they’re assuming that an unleaded product is going to reach universal distribution by then. At the pace that the aviation and petroleum industries are moving on this, it might not happen by then.
 
So glad I’m on the “other” coast.
 
ateamer said:
It’s a problem if unleaded avgas is not as available as 100LL. With this law, they’re assuming that an unleaded product is going to reach universal distribution by then. At the pace that the aviation and petroleum industries are moving on this, it might not happen by then.
Click to expand...
So, California is not a big enough market that refiners, distributors, and FBO's aren't going to bother to switch over to unleaded some time in the next 6 years?

Or perhaps, the reason for the snails pace for converting to unleaded is the complete and utter lack of incentives?

It's not like no one knows how to make unleaded 100 octane that will work in every piston engine aircraft in existence.
 
I’m gonna pick up one of these, they’ll run on just about anything. There isn’t much luggage space, but my RV8 doesn’t have a tremendous amount either.


DeLorean.jpg
 
For comparison, California-Oregon-Washington have approximately 40k aircraft registered. Texas-Florida have approximately 47k registered. Not sure of the lower 48 total
 
As I think I’ve shared in the past, I grew up in So Cal in the ‘60’s to late ‘70’s. Back then, when leaded gas was 25¢ a gallon at the start and cars got 12mpg (and 100,000 miles was end-of-life for most cars), it was RARE to be able to see the nearby mountains unless it had just rained. Today, they’re visible more days than not (except when there’s the “June gloom”).

That’s due to the Clean Air Act and its amendments over the years. It took government regulations to incentivize private industry to produce cars that polluted less, got better gas mileage, and ran without lead in the gas. There was lots of complaining back when I was a kid about the mandates but I doubt any of us want to go back to those times, especially with the number of cars on the roads these days.

We’ve had the ADS-B mandate for 4 1/2 years now. Lots of complaining before it was implemented. Not sure how many people would honestly want to go back to pre-mandate times.

People complain about government regs all the time but the reality is they’re what’s needed to incentivize industry to innovate, in many cases.
 
many times people will bring up the Clean Air Act and the changes to it, apparently thinking that anyone opposed to whatever enviro-utopia-desire-dujour actually wants dirty air/water/whatever.

Maybe there are people that want improvements/changes that are significant, rather than fussing about the color of the chairs on the titanic.
 
mryan75 said:
So let’s solve that problem.
Click to expand...

concur. Unfortunately, too many times people think that a wave of the hand will solve it. If only wishing would make it so...
 
GoFly said:
I’m gonna pick up one of these, they’ll run on just about anything. There isn’t much luggage space, but my RV8 doesn’t have a tremendous amount either.


DeLorean.jpg
Click to expand...
images.jpeg
 
Bob Noel said:
many times people will bring up the Clean Air Act and the changes to it, apparently thinking that anyone opposed to whatever enviro-utopia-desire-dujour actually wants dirty air/water/whatever.

Maybe there are people that want improvements/changes that are significant, rather than fussing about the color of the chairs on the titanic.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that sounds reactionary and like rationalizing.

Aside from the literally visible benefits of reduced smog, the regs drove improved fuel efficiency (saving me money), engine longevity (saving me money), and a host of other positive things that would have taken a LOT longer for private industry to generate, in the absence of real incentives.

One of the biggest issues for our old-technology engines is the impact of lead deposits on valves, etc. Not to mention the crud I need to clean off the belly. Forget the tree-hugger piece (and I agree the amount of lead being put in the atmosphere by GA is collectively tiny) - the improvement in longevity for our engines is enough reason for me to want to see this move forward. But the GA community’s voice for change is tiny. If this, non-GA pressure gets us real benefits for our engines, what’s wrong with that?

Opposing progress with sketchy arguments has been a part of human history for a long, long time. And yet we somehow end up moving forward despite them.
 
mryan75 said:
What’s “stupid” about banning leaded gas for aircraft engines 56 years after it was banned in automobile fuel?
Click to expand...
A generalization, another forced change similar to battery cars. If unleaded is the best thing for aviation engines there would be no reason for the law. Everyone would buy it. Leaded fuel would be gone. The industry and individual owners should decide. After all its their life and money. Not some political hack that knows next to nothing on the subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdb
fast99 said:
A generalization, another forced change similar to battery cars. If unleaded is the best thing for aviation engines there would be no reason for the law. Everyone would buy it. Leaded fuel would be gone. The industry and individual owners should decide. After all its their life and money. Not some political hack that knows next to nothing on the subject.
Click to expand...
Who's forcing any change to battery cars?
 
mryan75 said:
So let’s solve that problem.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what else we as pilots can do beyond requesting unleaded to be sold by the FBOs we do business with. From the discussions here and elsewhere about G100UL and UL94, it’s an executive-level issue. We can make our voice heard, but unless nearly every pilot who flies a gasoline burner insists on unleaded and refuses to buy 100LL, we’re not going to spur much progress.

Many pilots and owners - and not just the folks posting in forums, but many who I’ve spoken with in person - don’t care about or are highly skeptical of unleaded avgas. A lot of them earnestly believe that lead is absolutely critical to their valves’ survival.

And then there are the businesses involved in selling it. The fuel distributor who delivers to our airpark had no idea that unleaded avgas was under development. He’d never heard of G100UL or 94UL, and basically said it’ll be bad for our engines. Our next conversation was a couple months later, and he’d not even looked into it. Same with some FBOs - no knowledge or interest.

The other issue is price. Where 94UL can be found, it’s quite a bit more than 100LL - more than two bucks a gallon more at the only place anywhere near me. Even with increased oil change intervals and less spark plug cleaning, it’s a hard sell just on dollars and cents.

If unleaded was available, I’d switch. If the cost at the end of the year is comparable. I’d love to have a cleaner engine, exhaust and belly, and go to 100 hour oil changes and potentially longer TBOs/valve work. But at flying only 100-ish hours a year, that cost will be spread across another 10+ years in my last plane before it needs a major, and 20 to 25 in a fresh engine, versus stinging my wallet hard every time I fuel up.

I’d be surprised if the competing companies and (dis)interested retailers can agree on anything anytime soon. We might think that as diehard fans, we have a say in our favorite team’s roster and schedule, but it’s the team owners who run baseball. The other 90% are the casual fans and contribute more money to the revenue stream.
 
ateamer said:
I don’t know what else we as pilots can do beyond requesting unleaded to be sold by the FBOs we do business with.
Click to expand...
Contact your local congresscritter. The FAA reports to Congress, so if you want the FAA to change the rules (or if you want them to NOT change the rules), you have to start there.

Personally, I see the fuel price comparison as a bit of a red herring. Sure it's a bit higher today to purchase UL, but over the long run the price will be driven by volume demand and production costs. As with UL street gasoline, it will level out once production volumes transition; it may in fact be lower over time as we no longer pay to be the last users of TEL.
 
Bob Noel said:
concur. Unfortunately, too many times people think that a wave of the hand will solve it. If only wishing would make it so...
Click to expand...
This thread seems to be about a wave of a pen on a piece of legislation.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Contact your local congresscritter. The FAA reports to Congress, so if you want the FAA to change the rules (or if you want them to NOT change the rules), you have to start there.

Personally, I see the fuel price comparison as a bit of a red herring. Sure it's a bit higher today to purchase UL, but over the long run the price will be driven by volume demand and production costs. As with UL street gasoline, it will level out once production volumes transition; it may in fact be lower over time as we no longer pay to be the last users of TEL.
Click to expand...
It’s not an FAA issue. G100UL and UL94 are approved. The FAA can’t tell FBOs that they have to sell it, or what the price has to be.
 
ateamer said:
...The other issue is price. Where 94UL can be found, it’s quite a bit more than 100LL - more than two bucks a gallon more at the only place anywhere near me. Even with increased oil change intervals and less spark plug cleaning, it’s a hard sell just on dollars and cents....
Click to expand...
I wonder if that problem could be solved by federal and state governments eliminating tax on unleaded avgas.
 
Palmpilot said:
I wonder if that problem could be solved by federal and state governments eliminating tax on unleaded avgas.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a reasonable short-term option to kick-start things but would need to be short term. I absolutely prefer “we” carry our freight for our share of FAA costs with a tax on avgas rather than a user tax (which was proposed just a few years ago).

It’s like the electric cars: I’m kinda OK with the fact that because they don’t pay taxes at the gas pump they’re not paying their share for the roads - to a point. There’s getting to be enough of them now that I think they need to pay their share. Maybe a per-mile tax at the time of re-registration or something.
 
ateamer said:
It’s not an FAA issue. G100UL and UL94 are approved. The FAA can’t tell FBOs that they have to sell it, or what the price has to be.
Click to expand...
FAA could set a timeline for de-certifying 100LL, just as California has done.

I'm not saying that it's the right way to do it, but it COULD be done by the FAA, if they were instructed to do so by Congress.

It could also be done by the EPA, again under Congress' authority.
 
ateamer said:
Even with increased oil change intervals and less spark plug cleaning, it’s a hard sell just on dollars and cents.
Click to expand...
Perhaps among the LyContisaurs. The Rotax guys I’ve talked to seem more than happy to pay for 100 hour oil changes on unleaded vs 25 on 100LL. Of course it helps that they’re only burning 5gph or so.
 
I hear that Europe is banning TEL in Avgas starting May, 2025. So will the price of 100LL go up or down in the US due to lower world-wide demand? I'm thinking the price will go UP because Innospec will have to reap profits from a smaller crowd, or they will just call it quits and end TEL.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Who's forcing any change to battery cars?
Click to expand...
Requiring chargers and higher capacity electric at some new business construction. No ICE cars in a few states by 2035 and I believe here in Washington that's 2030. Rebates to make EV's "appear" more appealing.

Not going any further with this, I will get banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top