Leaded gas and the EPA...here it comes

[AKiss20]

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 uniform representation path chosen in the Connecticut Compromise was a mechanism to achieve an end, that being of protecting small state voices and the sovereignty of the states, not the end itself. As with any choice in system design, it came with tradeoffs and failure modes, one of which being that if the states became very lopsided in population that they would grow increasingly powerful over the majority. At the time of its creation this was not as much a factor given the small number of states, the more uniform populations, and the greater uniformity in the needs of the states.

Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say that for whatever demographic reasons we end up with a population distribution where the smallest 25 states each have 250,000 people. Then you would have 1.875% of the population represented by the majority of senators and controlling all legislation. Do you think that this is still appropriate? What about 100,000 people each (0.75%)? What about 20,000 each (0.15%)? What about the most extreme possible, 2 people each of whom are senators (1.51e-5%)? Unless you are willing to say that you believe it would be appropriate that 50 people get to decide what legislation is for the remaining ~330 million people, you are agreeing that at some level of population discrepancy the equal representation model no longer makes sense and should be changed. After that we are just arguing about what *level* of population discrepancy is acceptable. I would argue that having 17.3% of the population deciding the legislation for the remaining 82.7% is too far in that direction. You can disagree of course, but let's not pretend that the uniform representation model itself cannot fail and result in outcomes that are more deleterious than the protections it affords. The system we have is the one that came out of the many compromises needed to form the US at the time, but that does not in any way make it infallible, nor does it mean we should/need never change it as times change (and we already have with the change to direct election of senators. I am sure at the time there were was much hemming and hawing about the founders or allowing direct election would negate the point 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.

435 is not actually very large in comparison to other legislatures. There are some 20 other national legislatures that are larger in member populations, all of which are for smaller overall population countries except for China and the EU parliament. [1] The German Bundestag and the French, British, and Italian parliaments are all larger than the US' house with a population about 20-25% of the US. My point was also not necessarily that the US house should grow, although I actually do believe it should, but rather that in each of the 3 major aspects of our federal democratic system that we as the people directly vote for (the senate, the electoral college, and the house), there are significant systemic biases towards small population states and that this results in fewer and fewer people having more and more power as population dynamics play out and we see the population increasingly compress into a few states.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislatures_by_number_of_members

 

[BryanAV8R]

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

Actually, if we rescinded the amendment that called for the direct "popular" election of the Senate, it would restore the balance of power as intended in the founding documents; the Senate was intended to be the balance on the lower house elected by the population by being appointed by the state legislature(s) to represent the states' interest (since we're supposed to be a "union" of sovereign states, not just subdivisions of some 'federal' government structure) and taking a 'longer view' (hence the 6-year term versus the constant rolling campaign for the house because of its 2-year cycle...) than the messy house cretins. As it exists now, there is NO functional difference between the house and the senate except for origination of spending bills and appointment of officials, since both are selected/bought/appointed by whatever least common denominator shows up at the polls (or is busy filling out absentee ballots or canvassing cemeteries) on election day.

 

[Domenick]

If you have the same number of states, how do you figure two more senators?

Doh! I'm looking for the head-slap emoji.

 

[AKiss20]

Actually, if we rescinded the amendment that called for the direct "popular" election of the Senate, it would restore the balance of power as intended in the founding documents; the Senate was intended to be the balance on the lower house elected by the population by being appointed by the state legislature(s) to represent the states' interest (since we're supposed to be a "union" of sovereign states, not just subdivisions of some 'federal' government structure) and taking a 'longer view' (hence the 6-year term versus the constant rolling campaign for the house because of its 2-year cycle...) than the messy house cretins.

That is a valid argument in theory, but in practice it was shown to be invalid by one of the primary reason why we ratified the 17th amendment in the first place: corruption of state legislators. Considering that corruption rates of local and state governments continue to far outpace those of the federal legislature [1,2] it seems we have not solved the problem that resulted in the 17th amendment. Furthermore considering that voter turnout for state legislature races is significantly less than that for congressional elections, it seems that would only exacerbate the issue I am discussing. I understand you would argue it isn't an issue, but I am just explaining within my framework of argument why I would not support rescinding the 17th amendment.

Anywho I’ve said my piece. Have a good rest of the holidays all.
[1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5139&context=flr
[2] https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/mea...corruption-american-states-some-results-safra

 

[Palmpilot]

...As it exists now, there is NO functional difference between the house and the senate except for origination of spending bills and appointment of officials, since both are selected/bought/appointed by whatever least common denominator shows up at the polls (or is busy filling out absentee ballots or canvassing cemeteries) on election day.

FYI, it's revenue bills, not spending bills, that the Constitution requires to be originated in the House.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." (Article I, Section 7)​

 

[Echo419]

Let's not forget that the structure of the federal government was at its core a compromise in order to get all states to sign on. The senate and the 3/5ths rule were to get the lower population southern states on board. This is not some optimal governing structure ordained by God. It was a pragmatic compromise to satisfy the political concerns of the people at that time. Jefferson argued the constitution should expire every 19 years. Paraphrasing: The earth belongs to the living. The dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

 

[kyleb]

Jefferson argued the constitution should expire every 19 years.

The problem is you reach a point where you become like Italy. They sack governments faster than I can eat a box of doughnuts.

 

[Echo419]

The problem is you reach a point where you become like Italy. They sack governments faster than I can eat a box of doughnuts.

Yeah, I'm not arguing the 19 year idea. It would be unstable. But instead arguing that the Founding Fathers did not believe they had created a perfect system. Nor should they and the constitution be given sacred status. The values of liberty and equality are timeless. The mechanical implementation of the government is not. The United States and its people have changed in ways the Founding Fathers could not have hoped to imagine.

 

[bflynn]

FYI, it's revenue bills, not spending bills, that the Constitution requires to be originated in the House.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." (Article I, Section 7)​

the “work around” used is to amend an existing bill. The bill text is stricken in its entirety and replace with the new Senate bill. This is how Obamacare got passed.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, I'm not arguing the 19 year idea. It would be unstable. But instead arguing that the Founding Fathers did not believe they had created a perfect system. Nor should they and the constitution be given sacred status. The values of liberty and equality are timeless. The mechanical implementation of the government is not. The United States and its people have changed in ways the Founding Fathers could not have hoped to imagine.

Thankfully, we have a way to amend the constitution, but the process makes it very difficult to do on a whim and I'm in agreement with that.

 

[Bob Noel]

Jefferson argued the constitution should expire every 19 years. Paraphrasing: The earth belongs to the living. The dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

one man's opinion

 

[squincher]

Yeah, I'm not arguing the 19 year idea. It would be unstable. But instead arguing that the Founding Fathers did not believe they had created a perfect system. Nor should they and the constitution be given sacred status. The values of liberty and equality are timeless. The mechanical implementation of the government is not. The United States and its people have changed in ways the Founding Fathers could not have hoped to imagine.

I'm waiting for someone who is smarter than the guys who started this to put forth a better idea. Hasn't yet happened.

 

[Piperonca]

one man's opinion

In a famous toast at a White House dinner in honor of 49 Nobel Prize winners, John F. Kennedy said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

 

[Jeff Oslick]

While this conversation has been civil, the content has migrated to what is not typically allowed in the FF forum....

 

[FPK1]

Anyone know how this going?

Don't see anything more current:

August 20, 2020: Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) Update

Fuel Testing and Evaluation

The FAA, fuel suppliers, and aerospace manufacturers continue to develop high octane, unleaded fuel formulations. The goal of these efforts is to identify fuel formulations that provide operationally safe alternatives to 100LL. The PAFI program continues to support the efforts of fuel producers as they bring forth alternative, unleaded fuels for testing and evaluation.

The FAA requires the fuel producers to complete the following "pre-screening" tests prior to a candidate fuel formulation entering into more extensive testing through the PAFI program:

Successful completion of a 150 hr. engine endurance test on a turbocharged engine using PAFI test protocols or other procedure coordinated with the FAA;

Successful completion of an engine detonation screening test using the PAFI test protocols or other procedures coordinated with the FAA;

Successful completion of a subset of the material compatibility tests using the PAFI test protocol or other procedures coordinated with the FAA.

Development and pre-screening testing is taking place at both private and public testing facilities across the country. The FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center is providing engine-testing services through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) with the individual fuel companies. While COVID-19 has delayed the completion of the pre-screening tests, the tentative schedule is to re-start formal PAFI testing in 2021.

The FAA will provide additional details to the public regarding the fuel authorization process via the federal register as required per Public Law 115-254 (FAA reauthorization Act of 2018 HR 302, Section 565). The FAA also continues to support other fuel applicants who have decided to pursue engine and airframe approvals that would allow the use of their fuel formulations via traditional certification processes.

 

[SCCutler]

Anyone know how this going?

Don't see anything more current:

August 20, 2020: Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) Update

Fuel Testing and Evaluation

The FAA, fuel suppliers, and aerospace manufacturers continue to develop high octane, unleaded fuel formulations. The goal of these efforts is to identify fuel formulations that provide operationally safe alternatives to 100LL. The PAFI program continues to support the efforts of fuel producers as they bring forth alternative, unleaded fuels for testing and evaluation.

The FAA requires the fuel producers to complete the following "pre-screening" tests prior to a candidate fuel formulation entering into more extensive testing through the PAFI program:

Successful completion of a 150 hr. engine endurance test on a turbocharged engine using PAFI test protocols or other procedure coordinated with the FAA;

Successful completion of an engine detonation screening test using the PAFI test protocols or other procedures coordinated with the FAA;

Successful completion of a subset of the material compatibility tests using the PAFI test protocol or other procedures coordinated with the FAA.

Development and pre-screening testing is taking place at both private and public testing facilities across the country. The FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center is providing engine-testing services through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) with the individual fuel companies. While COVID-19 has delayed the completion of the pre-screening tests, the tentative schedule is to re-start formal PAFI testing in 2021.

The FAA will provide additional details to the public regarding the fuel authorization process via the federal register as required per Public Law 115-254 (FAA reauthorization Act of 2018 HR 302, Section 565). The FAA also continues to support other fuel applicants who have decided to pursue engine and airframe approvals that would allow the use of their fuel formulations via traditional certification processes.

PAFI is essentially a dead program - it failed. None of the PAFI participants could field a fuel that worked, and was realistically producible. No interest in rehashing it, but the reportage and a little research can show you that the core limitations and requirements of teh pAFI program doomed it ab initio.

On the other hand (and included in the above quote by reference to the "other fuel applicants"), GAMI, of Ada, Oklahoma, has developed the best hope for an unleaded 100LL replacement, and it has been approved by STC for a number of aircraft / engine combinations, with the expectation that nearly all will be covered by mid 2022. GAMI (led by George Braly) declined to participate in PAFI, because they deemed that pursuing that path with its inherent limitations and strictures would inevitably fail. They were right.

 

[FPK1]

PAFI is essentially a dead program - it failed. None of the PAFI participants could field a fuel that worked, and was realistically producible. No interest in rehashing it, but the reportage and a little research can show you that the core limitations and requirements of teh pAFI program doomed it ab initio.

On the other hand (and included in the above quote by reference to the "other fuel applicants"), GAMI, of Ada, Oklahoma, has developed the best hope for an unleaded 100LL replacement, and it has been approved by STC for a number of aircraft / engine combinations, with the expectation that nearly all will be covered by mid 2022. GAMI (led by George Braly) declined to participate in PAFI, because they deemed that pursuing that path with its inherent limitations and strictures would inevitably fail. They were right.

Thanks, found what you were referring to here

https://www.avweb.com/insider/gami-crosses-the-finish-line/

 

[Datadriver]

Actually, if we rescinded the amendment that called for the direct "popular" election of the Senate, it would restore the balance of power as intended in the founding documents; the Senate was intended to be the balance on the lower house elected by the population by being appointed by the state legislature(s) to represent the states' interest (since we're supposed to be a "union" of sovereign states, not just subdivisions of some 'federal' government structure) and taking a 'longer view' (hence the 6-year term versus the constant rolling campaign for the house because of its 2-year cycle...) than the messy house cretins. As it exists now, there is NO functional difference between the house and the senate except for origination of spending bills and appointment of officials, since both are selected/bought/appointed by whatever least common denominator shows up at the polls (or is busy filling out absentee ballots or canvassing cemeteries) on election day.

This is a great point, because if US Senators were more responsive to their home state governments the locals would be more empowered. Whatever your own politics, it is hard to deny that senators today answer largely to the national party agendas first

 

[PaulMillner]

PAFI is essentially a dead program - it failed.

Certainly PAFI round 1 generated no usable result. But, the FAA re-incarnated PAFI, under different rules, round 2.
The players the second time around are Lyondell/VP-Racing (Lyondell used to be part of ARCO Chemical), and reportedly Phillips/Afton Chemical.

But the time frame for PAFI seems quite elongated... hopefully GAMI and even Swift Fuels will be on the street long before the PAFI candidates emerge, if and when they do.

Paul

 

[Kenny Phillips]

There's more to California than the coastal cities.

Yes; when I was working there, a cohort pointed out the "normal" places.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

California is just the start of states that will eliminate AvGAS.... That's the biggest GA market in the world and expect to see higher prices where Avgas will be available as supply will significantly decrease. Expect same nationwide as other states follow and demand continues to fall. It's a good time to get MOGAS STC if your engine allows.

For what it's worth, I burn cheap ethanol car gas in our c172 V8 engine. I posted about our experiences, but it really wasn't an issue after changing out o-rings in the FUEL system that were ethanol rated. If you don't keep your fuel in the tanks for extended periods, it's not an issue and fuel is cheaper and more readily available than REC fuel. Maybe such a new seal kit could be part of STC.

THE BIG CONCERN when converting to ethanol is really first cleaning the tanks and system as ethanol is a heck of a solvent and will break up gunk that's been there for decades, and clean filters often initially.

 

[PaulMillner]

I burn cheap ethanol [mogas] in our C172 V8 engine

So that's experimental exhibition category? I suspect that gives you more latitude than folks with certified aircraft enjoy.
There's still the variable water soluability with temperature issue... if you never fly above the freezing level, no issue. But, if you do, exercise extreme caution!

Paul

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

The c172 has multipurpose AC.... website www.corsairv8.com for info.

The water contamination issue is over blown. When have you ever heard of issues with a car, which doesn't even have inspection drains and many cars store fuel for far longer periods than recommend, and have little in filtering. We have well over 500 hrs with nothing but ethanol fuel that been in tanks well over 2 months without issue. We had a lot of inquires about car gas in a plane and posted more info on the website above under FAQs.

 

[mandm]

Can a plane just run unleaded fuel? Or does there need to be a change to the engine. Interesting.

 

[FPK1]

Isn't this the solution if no more leaded fuel?

https://www.avweb.com/insider/gami-crosses-the-finish-line/

Or am I missing something...?

 

[Palmpilot]

So that's experimental exhibition category? I suspect that gives you more latitude than folks with certified aircraft enjoy.
There's still the variable water soluability with temperature issue... if you never fly above the freezing level, no issue. But, if you do, exercise extreme caution!

Paul

I ran into that problem when I was renting an LSA that had a Rotax engine that was certified to run on Mogas. The owner was putting the commonly available stuff that has ethanol in it, since ethanol-free gas was not readily available around here. I saw fuel samples in which the water had come out of solution.

 

[Joe_B1]

Isn't this the solution if no more leaded fuel?

https://www.avweb.com/insider/gami-crosses-the-finish-line/

Or am I missing something...?

I know, really. If this is a done deal, why have I not seen it popping up in places. There isn't any word from my A&P except for a few bulletins. Why haven't we heard about any STC's. This miracle fuel announcement seems premature! I for one am enthusiastic about ridding engine from the problems associated with lead fouling but aside from the announcement last year I have heard bupkis.

 

[PaulMillner]

The water contamination issue is over blown. When have you ever heard of issues with a car

Cars don't typically fuel up then climb within minutes to much colder temperatures, where the differential solubility of water in hydrocarbon causes water to drop out of solution and then freeze, blocking the fuel system. Unless maybe you spend your days fueling in Denver then driving up Pike's Peak.

 

[PaulMillner]

Can a plane just run unleaded fuel? Or does there need to be a change to the engine. Interesting.

Depends on WHICH unleaded fuel. If you have a 100 *motor* octane gasoline that meets the other aviation fuel grade specifications, the engine shouldn't know the difference. That's what GAMI, Swift, Lyondell, and Phillips are seeking. Shell was seeking it too, but is sitting on the sidelines for now...

The goal is a fuel that doesn't require aircraft modification. Stay tuned!

Paul

 

[PaulMillner]

I know, really. If this is a done deal, why have I not seen it popping up in places. Why haven't we heard about any STC's. This miracle fuel announcement seems premature! I for one am enthusiastic about ridding engine from the problems associated with lead fouling but aside from the announcement last year I have heard bupkis.

Don't know where you've been reading, but AOPA and GAMI's website both have the details. GAMI's fuel has been approved for some of the fleet... they're hoping for fleetwide approval before Oshkosh this year. They're working logistics issues... it's not easy to just start blending 800,000 gallons a day of avgas. It will take time to develop the infrastructure.

Swift 94UL has been approved for lower compression engines. See their website for details. They're working on a 100R fuel as well, hoping to have certification in the next year or so.

Here's the latest update from AOPA... if you subscribe to their emails, you would have received it this week.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...7.1623287599.1641593017-2012057217.1638557712

Paul

 

[Katamarino]

"FAA Executive Director for Aircraft Certification Service Earl Lawrence explained that “technically” it would be possible for the FAA to approve the STC candidates from GAMI or Swift as that fleetwide solution. But, administratively, the FAA has never made an approval like that, and it could take years to work out the regulatory process by which such a determination might be made."

Once again, meaningful progress held back by useless bureaucracy and paperwork.

 

[PaulMillner]

Once again, meaningful progress held back by useless bureaucracy and paperwork.

Hopefully not! It would be less confusing if the FAA didn't use common terms as semi-secret code words. But, at the end of the day, the STC'd fuels will be available and usable by all... and there's even some hope that the FAA might simplify the STC installation process for these no-brainer STCs.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

and there's even some hope that the FAA might simplify the STC installation process for these no-brainer STCs.

We're talking about an agency that creates confusion over whether a sun visor is a major alteration...

 

[Ghery]

California is just the start of states that will eliminate AvGAS.... That's the biggest GA market in the world and expect to see higher prices where Avgas will be available as supply will significantly decrease. Expect same nationwide as other states follow and demand continues to fall. It's a good time to get MOGAS STC if your engine allows.

For what it's worth, I burn cheap ethanol car gas in our c172 V8 engine. I posted about our experiences, but it really wasn't an issue after changing out o-rings in the FUEL system that were ethanol rated. If you don't keep your fuel in the tanks for extended periods, it's not an issue and fuel is cheaper and more readily available than REC fuel. Maybe such a new seal kit could be part of STC.

THE BIG CONCERN when converting to ethanol is really first cleaning the tanks and system as ethanol is a heck of a solvent and will break up gunk that's been there for decades, and clean filters often initially.

It may not be that simple. I remember the salesman's parting words as we drove off in our 1986 Dodge Van. "Don't put ethanol in that thing!" Less than a year later California mandated "oxygenated" gasoline. "Oxygenated" is a code word for "polluted with ethanol"! What was so bad? A bit later I found gasoline pouring over the engine block as the ethanol had eaten the seals on the fuel system. Did California help pay for the damage they did to my engine? Are you kidding? I paid for all the modifications to make the fuel system ethanol proof. And airplane owners will foot the bill, as well.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I love that

435 is not actually very large in comparison to other legislatures. There are some 20 other national legislatures that are larger in member populations, all of which are for smaller overall population countries except for China and the EU parliament. [1] The German Bundestag and the French, British, and Italian parliaments are all larger than the US' house with a population about 20-25% of the US. My point was also not necessarily that the US house should grow, although I actually do believe it should, but rather that in each of the 3 major aspects of our federal democratic system that we as the people directly vote for (the senate, the electoral college, and the house), there are significant systemic biases towards small population states and that this results in fewer and fewer people having more and more power as population dynamics play out and we see the population increasingly compress into a few states.

Nothing like admitting that there is poor representation of the population in large part due to corruption and partisanship of House members, while saying the solution is just to add more of them, lol. The overall number of House members doesn't need to be increased. You just need to have members that are worth more than a plug nickel. Get a 3rd political party in between them and see what happens when every decision isn't "you either for us or against us".

 

[EdFred]

Oh look, someone in a populous state wants representation eliminated from less populous states. Surprise, surprise.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Oh look, someone in a populous state wants representation eliminated from less populous states. Surprise, surprise.

I think the biggest crux of the issue isn't the difference in populations itself, it's just the completely different ways of life from those who live in densely populated areas vs those who are in more rural states. Trying to make decisions simply based on the majority ignores the needs/wants of a significant portion of the country. Federal gov't already has more power/influence than it was ever designed to have by the forefathers, so giving more power to a handful of states makes little sense.

 

[Tantalum]

the completely different ways of life from those who live in densely populated areas vs those who are in more rural states

which is what the original point of having 'states' was (is).. to let states largely govern themselves and set their own policies. Individual state rights seem to be eroding unfortunately. In my opinion there ought to be very few federal mandates and laws, and those should be relegated largely to protecting our collective interests from foreign entities, etc.

 

[SoonerAviator]

which is what the original point of having 'states' was (is).. to let states largely govern themselves and set their own policies. Individual state rights seem to be eroding unfortunately. In my opinion there ought to be very few federal mandates and laws, and those should be relegated largely to protecting our collective interests from foreign entities, etc.

Agreed entirely.

 

[AKiss20]

Get a 3rd political party in between them and see what happens when every decision isn't "you either for us or against us".

I 100% agree which is why I advocate for eliminating our FPTP voting system and using some variant of RCV/IRV. FPTP naturally promotes the two party system (see Duverger's Law).

Oh look, someone in a populous state wants representation eliminated from less populous states. Surprise, surprise.

No, I want representation to be more balanced. If I lived 45 miles away, across the border in NH, the 30th most populous state, I would argue for the exact same policies.

I advocate policies that would harm my personal political partisanship all the time, e.g. advocating for non-partisan re-districting, even if it means losing gerrymanders in states that give power to my political party of choice. I do so because I believe it is the right thing to do, not because it increases my, or my representatives, political power.