EPA targets lead in avgas

guest user said:
Any chance we could push back with something along the lines of "This ruling would disproportionally affect the poorest and most flight time vulnerable of pilots."
Click to expand...

How about "this ruling will impact an already short pilot shortage and make flying less safe".

The issue is being handled, but now they're trying to push the implementation before the supply chain is ready.
 
I know, I know, most folks here despise AOPA, but this is what they said,

"This is news to nobody, certainly not the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) coalition of industry, government, and aviation stakeholders including AOPA, which in September hailed the first FAA approval of a 100-octane, lead-free fuel that may one day be available at airports across the country."

This is just a bunch of posturing.
 
Last edited:
Shepherd said:
Mogas!
Click to expand...

We have 93 E-Free Mogas available at Barnwell (KBNL). I recently flew over to purchase a tank and see how my experimental would run with it. It seems to like it very well as the engine just purrs along ... and it should as the Mogas cost more than the 100LL.

I can buy 90 E-Free Mogas in town at a much better price but my engine is set to run at 93 octane. So I've been using as much of the 90 as I care to transport and splashing that with a bit of the 100LL to keep the octane levels up. Cross country flights are usually 100LL & Decalin.
 
red4golf said:
You would need to remember some of the 70s and most of the 80s...... She was even on the Muppet Show and Creep Show. Too young for those?
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I don't remember the 80's. Only alive for about 6 months of it.
 
Shepherd said:
100LL here is almost $9.00 a gallon.
Mogas is $4.95 for 93 E-free. No brainer.
Click to expand...
I filled up with 94UL at GBR a couple of weeks ago, a dollar and change cheaper than 100LL. I asked my local FBO why they didn't sell it, since their old 80 octane tank is unused... they'd never heard of it but were interested.

I'd happily run mogas but you can't get it without ethanol in CT.
 
Closest airport with ul94 is 35 miles away and has it for 6.50... but their 100LL is 5.50. I have to fly past an airport that has 100ll for 4.89.

Thinking of putting some bladders in the pa32 when it comes back next week from it's upgrade and storing it in a transfer tank at that price.

Ok, not really. But why would I put 94ul in my 180? And Mogas isn't an option for me since id have to spend 3.5amu's on the stc and fuel pump and then pay to have it installed.
 
Racerx said:
Closest airport with ul94 is 35 miles away and has it for 6.50... but their 100LL is 5.50. I have to fly past an airport that has 100ll for 4.89.
Click to expand...

Where the heck has 100LL at under $5 per gallon????
 
Are the releases of lead to the air from general aviation harmful enough that specific impacts can be scientifically observed? If yes, then ok. If no, then the people complaining (including the EPA) should make it their goal to help general aviation get over to lead-free fuel, not by banning fuels, but by incentivizing making the better one available and safe/legal to use for existing aircraft.
 
Dana said:
I filled up with 94UL at GBR a couple of weeks ago, a dollar and change cheaper than 100LL. I asked my local FBO why they didn't sell it, since their old 80 octane tank is unused... they'd never heard of it but were interested.

I'd happily run mogas but you can't get it without ethanol in CT.
Click to expand...


I have to drive an hour father upstate, but my daughter lives up there so it's worth it.
Two birds, one stone.
 
Frankly I see this as a good thing. This is what it will take for a nationwide/fleet wide adoption of the GAMI fuel. Remember the ADS-B incentives? That was strictly FAA, now with the EPA/greenies on board as well we can very likely be looking at a bigger pool of money with subsidized STC's and the FBO's getting subsidies for a wholesale switch over to the new fuel.

Everyone complaining about the lack of availability of the new fuel will lose that gripe when it basically replaces 100LL across the board.

And Brenly (I think that's his name) said the price delta with 100LL will shrink with volume, which makes sense. If this stuff can be trucked and even pipelined with other fuels instead of needing that dedicated infrastructure because of lead, that will further reduce the price delta.
 
robin ardoin said:
How many Scotch-tape splices in that one. LOL
Click to expand...

You know your 8-tracks! I try not to play mine very much these days but I have a portable player with detachable speakers and one installed in my Dad's old 73 pickup. It was the only upgrade he ever made to the truck and I remember him being so proud of it. My brother had a player in his 67 mustang with a fancy cassette player mounted under the dash. Sorry for the thread hijack.. back to your regularly scheduled banter..
 
guest user said:
Any chance we could push back with something along the lines of "This ruling would disproportionally affect the poorest and most flight time vulnerable of pilots."
Click to expand...
bflynn said:
How about "this ruling will impact an already short pilot shortage and make flying less safe".
Click to expand...

Why not both? We'll get a response from one set of of people with one, and another set with the other.
 
Shepherd said:
I have to drive an hour father upstate, but my daughter lives up there so it's worth it.
Two birds, one stone.
Click to expand...

No Stewarts near you?

My new home drome might be closer to some marinas, I may finally end up schlepping some E0.
 
I honestly don't get it.

Other than a lack of lead deposits building up in the oil, and no more lead fouling of the spark plugs, what's the difference? Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I honestly don't get it.

Other than a lack of lead deposits building up in the oil, and no more lead fouling of the spark plugs, what's the difference? Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Click to expand...
Maybe because it’s not actually available in the real world?
 
That new 100UL is going to be even more expensive than 100LL. Not good for us hobby pilots. I may have to start hauling ethanol free mogas.
 
Mxfarm said:
Because it’s not available?
Click to expand...

Salty said:
Maybe because it’s not actually available in the real world?
Click to expand...

No, not this week. But the EPA isn't outlawing lead this week either.

texasclouds said:
That new 100UL is going to be even more expensive than 100LL. Not good for us hobby pilots. I may have to start hauling ethanol free mogas.
Click to expand...

Certainly more expensive in small batches. How much will the premium be once it is a total replacement?

I remember when ADS-B was going to be the end of GA...
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
Are the releases of lead to the air from general aviation harmful enough that specific impacts can be scientifically observed? If yes, then ok. If no, then the people complaining (including the EPA) should make it their goal to help general aviation get over to lead-free fuel, not by banning fuels, but by incentivizing making the better one available and safe/legal to use for existing aircraft.
Click to expand...
To respond, I'd have to delve into greenie politics, the politics of envy, arrogance, and greed, plus the political pursuit of power.
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
Are the releases of lead to the air from general aviation harmful enough that specific impacts can be scientifically observed? If yes, then ok. If no, then the people complaining (including the EPA) should make it their goal to help general aviation get over to lead-free fuel, not by banning fuels, but by incentivizing making the better one available and safe/legal to use for existing aircraft.
Click to expand...

I think the reality is that if you do enough studies, you can find one that shows harmful lead pollution from general aviation.

If the EPA wants it, the EPA will get it.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
No, not this week. But the EPA isn't outlawing lead this week either.
Click to expand...

I believe the concern is that in a race between the FAA approving a new fuel for fleet wide use and the EPA outlawing an evil, child and planet killing fuel, none of us would put our money on the FAA.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I remember when ADS-B was going to be the end of GA...
Click to expand...

I don't remember anyone claiming ADS-B would kill GA.

But it sure added an unnecessary expense to my small airplane. It was the main reason I sold my 140.
 
bflynn said:
I believe the concern is that in a race between the FAA approving a new fuel for fleet wide use and the EPA outlawing an evil, child and planet killing fuel, none of us would put our money on the FAA.
Click to expand...
Given that the FAA has already approved a new fuel for fleet wide use, and the EPA has yet to outlaw the evil child and planet killing fuel, it doesn't seem to be much of a race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top