California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a ban on leaded aviation gasoline that comes into effect in 2031. That's the day after the FAA has said it will have a fully approved replacement fuel for 100LL through its End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) program. Newsom signed the bill, which passed by votes of 59-11 in the House and 30-8 in the Senate in August, on Sept. 22. It's the first such law in the U.S. but several other states are contemplating similar action.
Sorry, itâs sarcasm. I forgot to add sarc at the end of the post. May bad.
Of course the powers that be (and suppliers) are NOT concerned about costs to consumers. Thatâs probably why lower cost fuels (like unleaded AvGas or MoGas) have not been available for the GA training fleet. My fear is that as the deadline get s closer is that it then become a âwhatever it costs!â situation and all pilots lose.
Unfortunately, there are no lower cost 100 octane fuels for the trainer fleet. Unless your local flight school has old 150s, they need a higher octane fuel than mogas can provide. Modern 172s and Piper Archer TXs need higher than 94 MON (as evidenced by UNDs detonation-induced valve seat recession due to too low octane fuel useage).
Glad to see California doesnât trust the FAA who have earned that badge of honor for the way theyâve handled this whole unleaded fuel fiasco, which is their normal pathetic operational mode.
Of course six years is a ridiculous amount of time to get rid of lead in the Fuel. I know that California is still going to try to push to have unleaded fuel available now rather than in six years.
For some of us who want the unleaded product now to reduce our maintenance cost which results from using unleaded fuel, still want to know why it took so long to get to this point but actually know that the poor leadership at the FAA leads us to the point where innovation is being stopped dead in their tracks.
GAMIâs fuel is available, which is great, but competitors are doing their best to keep it from going to market. If Newsome really wants to get rid of lead, heâd help with getting G100UL to the California market and let the rest take care of itself.
If you filter out all the political bias and garbage spewed here, this process is totally sensical and reasonable. California asked the FAA âhow long do you need to get this doneâ, the FAA gave them a date, and California said, âSounds good, weâll go with thatâ.
I donât see how you can complain about this process. Itâs not like they demanded it be done now. Itâs not like the FAA wouldnât give a date and said they were âstudying itâ indefinitely. Both of those are much more typical government, and much less rational.
In the world of cynical reality, is it likely the FAA will have it done by then? Yeah, rightâŚ
California, with more pilots, flight schools, piston-engine aircraft, and airports than most states, plays a major role in U.S. aviation. While frustration is understandable given the slow progress toward alternative fuel standards tied to the FAAâs 2031 deadline, thereâs also room to be hopeful. The stateâs bold move to ban leaded avgas, despite the uncertainty surrounding new fuels, shows leadership in driving change. Yes, costs and delays are concerns, but the eventual transition could lead to cleaner, more efficient aviation. While G100UL is approved for all piston engines, some older aircraft may require adjustmentsâbut this modernization could ultimately benefit the industry. Itâs going to be an interesting ride, with the potential for long-term gains.
Seems real simple to me. If you donât allow fuel, you donât get any GA services. When (not if) they have the next earthquake or flood, or need a medievac flight (whether they burn jet fuel or avgas) - no service. How long do you think it would take for the fine citizens of California to revolt when they start dying becasue thereâs no medivac flights?
I used to fly a Medic vac aircraft, Dave, but itâs been about four years and I donât remember a single piston airplane in California doing Medic vac, so what youâre saying really is an effort to distort the facts for some sort of political gane, which seems to be the political climate of the day, to bad, the truth would be a better choice.
Most of our low compression piston engines were certified to use 87 octane gas.
So, if California would allow 91 octane, â0â ethanol auto gas, we could use that at about $2 less per gallon.
The high compression and turbocharged engines need the 100/130 octane fuel.
California has more pilots, flight schools, piston-engine aircraft and airports than most states, and plays an important role in the U.S. aviation industry. You are right. With the rapid development of the tourism industry, I have found that it is now being updated and modernized, which is a long-term industry benefit