Gee if only the FAA could have certified unleaded gas some time in the last 3 decades. It’s not like us GA enthusiasts enjoy depending on an expensive leaded gas.
"Do no harm at all costs" regulatory bodies need to be overhauled. E.g. NRC, FAA
IMHO, it'd be much better to have an explicitly adversarial and separately-funded dual-track system at such agencies, similar to how the justice system works.
E.g. FAA-Innovation (responsible only for their goal) makes their strongest case and presents research on why unleaded gas should be adopted ASAP. FAA-Safety (responsible only for their goal) makes their strongest case on why no change should be made.
All arguments and facts are published in public. Then higher-level decision makers arbitrate and make a call.
The root of all evil is that from a career perspective, "defer and take no action" is always safer for individuals in positions of regulatory authority. Worst case, something that's always been wrong explodes, and you blame it on the last person.
In the current blended safety+innovation system, it's too easy to obfuscate intentional inaction in endless "more study is needed" bullshit.
The "separately-funded dual-track" is already there - It's the EPA, or congress. The FAA's mandate is to ensure safe flight. it shouldn't be up to them to be setting environmental rules. Environmental rules should be set for them, and they should figure out how their industry can meet those rules.
The exemption for leaded fuel in GA should have expired a long time ago. It's ridiculous that the FAA was allowed to keep punting this issue essentially forever, and the only reason a transition is happening now is because they finally decided to take responsibility for it, rather than because there was any legal requirement for it.
The FAA would have been totally happen, probably ecstatic, to allow an external mandate from someone like the EPA end leaded avgas while they had no replacement, effectively killing general aviation. They could have pointed fingers at the EPA who would have pointed back at the FAA, meanwhile GA would be dead.
yeah, that's always the threat - "following basic environmental safety rules will kill ____". but just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
GA flying is important for a lot of industry, and a lot of remote communities. it might have taken some work, but they could have found a way to use unleaded fuel in airplanes in fewer than 50 years.
I've often thought about an evolutionary model of organizations, in which a challenge is presented, an A/B test is created, an the winning process would win out over the loser, making the organization more effective over time.
Having written this, it almost seems like too obvious of an idea to even post about...
I worked at HubSpot for a year before their IPO and a year after. They used this approach of basically spinning up multiple different teams in different orgs to solve more or less the same problem.
For example, before they figured out how to sell and onboard SMBs, there was at least three teams working on solving that problem while I was there, including mine.
Once there was a “winner”, that team would get more funding (aka budget) and the people on the other teams tended to be absorbed into the winning team or would be repurposed onto other projects.
This wasn’t a codified, explicit operating system, but basically is how they worked for awhile (but I’m unsure how it works now.) The gist was to hire smart people and let them figure it out.
Approved but not available. Believe me, everyone wishes we could just move on from leaded avgas, but it seems like the FAA wants to drag this out as long as possible.
Lack of options should never have prevented lead being outlawed. Ask anyone on the street "Would you like to drink this potion making you dumber so that someone else can fly a plane up there" and everyone will say no.
Clearly it isn't okay to harm someone without their knowledge or consent.
Where exactly do you think your airline pilots come from? You know, the ones there is a giant shortage of right now… Do you think they grow on trees? They learn to fly in those small piston planes.
as a diesel engine mechanic ive always figured there was some amazing conspiracy about leaded avgas. Here on the ground, diesel regulations and formulations are basically a yearly theatricality. new scrubbers, new regenerators, fuels you can use and fuels you can never use, and special locations and applications for the fuels if you use them at all. The regulations are pretty rigorously developed and enforced.
I remember conversations about using unleaded gas in aviation 40 years ago. And the pro side's argument is auto grade gasoline is highly regulated with better quality control and standards than leaded aviation gas. And pointed out that cars run just fine at the altitudes light aircraft fly at. SO I hear you on that. It's a bit inane.
If there is a conspiracy I suspect it's the government exerts a light hand on things rich people do.
What surprises me is the refineries didn't tell the light aviation industry they weren't going to make leaded gas anymore. If they'd done that the Feds would have kicked them some cash to develop an unleaded version.
Apart from specialty applications, auto engines run at a small fraction of their full power output the overwhelming majority of the time.
Aero engines run at a substantial fraction of their rated power output basically full time[0].
The fact that auto engines can be run on unleaded, lower octane gas at 10,000' or more doesn't really tell us that the same low octane unleaded gas is suitable for an aero application.
> What surprises me is the refineries didn't tell the light aviation industry they weren't going to make leaded gas anymore.
You can just add lead to unleaded gas (which was legal until 1996 in the US), so even if you could convince them to be altruistic in this way others could just work around it.
Its not so much a conspiracy as just not as big of an issue compared to diesel consumption
About 11 thousand barrels of 100ll are produced every day in the US. Compare that to 4.9 million barrels of diesel daily, and you can see why it is a bigger priority. In this case 100ll is a literal drop in the bucket.
But also its a rich guy hobby that generally isn't very visible.
If your standard diesel engine fails it’s generally not a life threatening emergency though so change is much safer. Aviation has safety and regulatory habits written in blood.
These are multi redundant and generally hospital patient monitoring systems have additional batteries of their own to make sure people don't die, and in the case of a major clusterfuck there are emergency procedures in which it's specified how power will be restored assuming a grid and backup generator failure (usually it involves the fire department shuttling a generator pack to the hospital site).
With engine failures in aircraft however, the consequences can be way more dire - particularly in GA where it's (at least in the US) even being allowed to fly without a license at all (Part 103 ultralights), and forget about regular legit simulator training on what to do in that case.
It's very easy to run emergency backup generators in parallel.
Take your total load (10MW) divide by 5 (2MW) and you need 5 2MW generators, buy 7 and run 6/7 and your "down for yearly maintenance" generator can be offline while your "oh shit we installed the wrong fuel filter and the injectors clogged" generator also fails.
Especially since rarely does anyone care about how heavy the emergency generators are. But if you add 100 lbs too much in the wrong place on a GA plane, everyone is almost certainly going to die.
It sounds like this is setting the stage for the FAA to be forced to make a move...
> the FAA has a statutory mandate to prescribe standards for the composition or chemical or physical properties of an aircraft fuel or fuel additive to control or eliminate aircraft emissions which the EPA has found endanger public health or welfare under section 231(a) of the Clean Air Act. In issuing these final findings, the EPA is making such a finding for emissions of lead from engines in covered aircraft.
The saga of unleaded avgas has been long, expensive, and slightly ridiculous. It's not just FAA - not by itself, although regulatory capture is, of course, a frickin' plague. You had a big ol' mob of aerospace companies racing to lock in their engine designs for the next forever via mandated fuel specifications. This is the Golden Fleece in this industry: if you can get to write the next mandated spec, you can relax on your money bed for the rest of time.
One of my friends that helped me build hours does experimental aircraft and just runs his c172 on 91 unleaded from a highway fuel pump. Pretty sure he has a lycoming IO-360M1A on it. He does have to haul fuel in, however.
American aviation does need an overhaul. I used to fly with some guys out of a private hanger and a few nearby FBOs. Pilots would occasionally grumble about changes made to flight regulations and airport procedures during the 1980’s. Even the most staunch republican would bad mouth Regan for it.
I bought some unleaded AVGAS in 2017 at an airport in Falmouth, MA.
Power tools run much better on it because it contains no ethanol.
My portable generator starts much more easily after sitting for a few months if I use AVGAS instead of what I buy at the pump. It's because the ethanol gums up the carbonator.
