Leaded gas and the EPA...here it comes

Palmpilot said:
It sounds like you're saying that all science is dishonest. If so, what do you use as a basis for making decisions? If not, how do you decide which science to believe?
Click to expand...

He uses the same method that a lot of the population do; he reads memes posted by high school buddies on Facebook, that agree with whatever he "feels" is right.
 
Great, here come a crap ton more Californians to central Tx
 
Palmpilot said:
I know that it's STCed for the IO-540, because about a month ago, Civil Air Patrol purchased it for the 182T that is based at my squadron at RHV.
Click to expand...

That is the low-compression (230HP) IO540; no use for the majority of the 540 fleet, which still cannot use Swift's UL94. It is (and will remain), by avgas volume, a niche product.
 
How many airports are in a 20 mile radius that will still have 100LL fuel? I'm seeing a bunch.

I regularly stop by an airport 40 miles from the airport I am based at, for no other reason than the fuel is $0.15 cheaper. And there are many other options if I don't want to stop there.

I'm not seeing a problem. A lot more aircraft can burn 94UL now than 10 years ago. And the few that can't have several fueling options in the vicinity. I'd be delighted to pay a little extra for UL on my field, or any field within 50 miles.
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
That is the low-compression (230HP) IO540; no use for the majority of the 540 fleet, which still cannot use Swift's UL94. It is (and will remain), by avgas volume, a niche product.
Click to expand...
I have corrected my post accordingly.
 
Dry Creek said:
Well, I'd move to the UK, but they'd probably frown at my personal arsenal and love of freedom.
So, as a Native Texan, I shall remain here. Somebody will need to man the effort to thwart the invasion.
Click to expand...

You can move to Yemen and keep your arsenal. A guy I bought a Coke from there had an AK47 slung over his shoulder. Friendly folks, broken government.
 
DesertNomad said:
You can move to Yemen and keep your arsenal. A guy I bought a Coke from there had an AK47 slung over his shoulder. Friendly folks, broken government.
Click to expand...

... and wear a cool hat!
iu
 
FPK1 said:
FAA Launches Investigation Into Santa Clara Safety Concerns...

The FAA is investigating an array of safety concerns including a ban on the sale of leaded aviation fuel at two airports in California’s Santa Clara County.

https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety...vestigation-into-santa-clara-safety-concerns/
Click to expand...

AOPA has an article on that too:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...afety-issues-in-santa-clara-county-california

Both sites have a PDF of the FAA's letter. They really give the County both barrels.
 
Palmpilot said:
There's more to California than the coastal cities.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, in the three west coast states, Washington, Oregon, and California, the west sides of all three dominate state politics. In WA state, politics are dominated by only 3 of the 39 counties, and perhaps only 2 (the SeaTac I-5 corridor).

I've always thought west Washington and west Oregon should merge into a single state, and east Washington and east Oregon should merge. The number of US states would remain the same as would the number of representatives, but 2 senators would be added. At least the east side votes would actually politically count.

East and west Washingon? Oreging? Oregton? Washegon?
 
Domenick said:
Unfortunately, in the three west coast states, Washington, Oregon, and California, the west sides of all three dominate state politics. In WA state, politics are dominated by only 3 of the 39 counties, and perhaps only 2 (the SeaTac I-5 corridor).

I've always thought west Washington and west Oregon should merge into a single state, and east Washington and east Oregon should merge. The number of US states would remain the same as would the number of representatives, but 2 senators would be added. At least the east side votes would actually politically count.

East and west Washingon? Oreging? Oregton? Washegon?
Click to expand...
Politics are dominated by places where the majority of people live? Say it ain’t so…

how about we merge Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Oklahoma, Kansas, and the Dakotas which combined have about the population of NJ?

Rural and small state voters already have way more political power in the senate, electoral college, and house (in that order of skew), than voters in large, populated states. Last thing we need is more power imbalance.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
 
Last edited:
Domenick said:
Unfortunately, in the three west coast states, Washington, Oregon, and California, the west sides of all three dominate state politics. In WA state, politics are dominated by only 3 of the 39 counties, and perhaps only 2 (the SeaTac I-5 corridor).

I've always thought west Washington and west Oregon should merge into a single state, and east Washington and east Oregon should merge. The number of US states would remain the same as would the number of representatives, but 2 senators would be added. At least the east side votes would actually politically count.

East and west Washingon? Oreging? Oregton? Washegon?
Click to expand...
If you have the same number of states, how do you figure two more senators?

Paul
 
Palmpilot said:
Some of us would say "fortunately"! ;)

It seems to me that the real divide is urban vs. rural, so why stop with the West Coast?

The addition of two senators in less-populated areas would tilt the U.S. Senate even further in the direction of minority rule than it already is.
Click to expand...
The Senate was intended to provide the states equal representation, so it's working as it should. It's the House that provides representation based on population. They're different by design.
 
Palmpilot said:
Some of us would say "fortunately"! ;)

It seems to me that the real divide is urban vs. rural, so why stop with the West Coast?

The addition of two senators in less-populated areas would tilt the U.S. Senate even further in the direction of minority rule than it already is.
Click to expand...

The function of the Senate was never intended to reflect the population of the states. Those that complain about it have failed to investigate and understand the reasons why the founders of the United States structured the body as they did.

Abolishment of the filibuster would strip the Senate of its reason for being. That some elected officials are more interested in naked partisanship than the proper function of government is a sad commentary on the vitriol that is running rampant through the country.
 
Palmpilot said:
Or they did investigate and understand the reasons for it and still recognize that it permits minority rule.
Click to expand...

That depends on the definition of "minority rule"... balancing the population rule (kind of the House) and State rule (kind of the Senate).
 
Palmpilot said:
Or they did investigate and understand the reasons for it and still recognize that it permits minority rule
Click to expand...


If by “minority rule” you mean a minority of the people, perhaps it does. Or perhaps it prevents the majority of the people from running roughshod over the rights of the minority.

However, if by “minority rule” you mean a minority of the states, no, it does not. And state representation is the purpose of the Senate.

IBTL
 
GaryM said:
The Senate was intended to provide the states equal representation, so it's working as it should. It's the House that provides representation based on population. They're different by design.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the 3rd grade civics lesson, the problem is that when the senate was originally designed in the constitution the population ratio of the highest population state to the lowest was 19.7 [1] whereas now it is 67.8 [2]. The difference between "small states" and "big states" was much less back then. By not modifying the system at all which was designed to prevent tyranny of the majority we have allowed a tyranny of the minority where the senators representing the smallest 25 states, totaling a whopping 17.3% of the population, get to completely decide the legislative path of the entire nation. The electoral college is almost as bad where 23% of the nation's population could decide the president over the objections of the remaining 77% [3]

This is not to mention that despite the House being intended to be reflective of population, capping the house at 435 by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 means that that there is significant non-uniformity in the population per representative, with the highest being just over twice that of the lowest.[4] So even in that front, the house doesn't do a great job of representing the population.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_historical_population
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
[3]https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/5001...residency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote
[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-era/
 
Quite a few people here don’t understand civics. Sad. Explains a lot about the state of affairs in our country. I view the membership here as generally more successful and educated than an average sampling of the general population. It’s disappointing reading this thread.
 
AKiss20 said:
Thanks for the 3rd grade civics lesson, the problem is that when the senate was originally designed in the constitution the population ratio of the highest population state to the lowest was 19.7 [1] whereas now it is 67.8
Click to expand...

So? The Senate was intended to provide the states equal representation. The populations of the states differed then, they differ now, they'll differ in the future. Basing the number of senators on the population of the state would defeat the entire purpose of the Senate.

AKiss20 said:
This is not to mention that despite the House being intended to be reflective of population, capping the house at 435 by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 means that that there is significant non-uniformity in the population per representative, with the highest being just over twice that of the lowest.
Click to expand...

The House will never be a precise representation of the number of people in a district, unless you put every person in the House; If they want to reapportion seats more often, fine, but some will always represent more people than others. I certainly don't want to see the number of members of the House grow with the population. 435 is already a stupid large number.

AKiss20 said:
So even in that front, the house doesn't do a great job of representing the population.
Click to expand...

Sadly, a large number of elected officials aren't that interested in representing the population. They do, however, do a great job of representing their own interests.
 
GaryM said:
So? The Senate was intended to provide the states equal representation. The populations of the states differed then, they differ now, they'll differ in the future. Basing the number of senators on the population of the state would defeat the entire purpose of the Senate.



The House will never be a precise representation of the number of people in a district, unless you put every person in the House; If they want to reapportion seats more often, fine, but some will always represent more people than others. I certainly don't want to see the number of members of the House grow with the population. 435 is already a stupid large number.



Sadly, a large number of elected officials aren't that interested in representing the population. They do, however, do a great job of representing their own interests.
Click to expand...

You really didn’t do anything but confirm the issues at hand as pointed out by the person you were replying to.

And 435 is nothing compared to the concerns each are supposed to address. Especially with politicians choosing their voters (regardless of party affiliation). Our system is a relic and won’t survive all that much longer as is. Something is going to break sooner or later.

I highly doubt anything more than a minority of people understand that most of the small planes they see are powered by leaded fuel. I have a family member that died at a youngish age because he ran a gas station back in the day of leaded fuel. It’s not sustainable and it’s in the best interest of the aviation community to move to a more environmental friendly solution at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top