Chickens spew nastier stuff than lead, so that’s not an option.
Can you state the research that supports 100LL produces any meaningful lead into our ecosystem? What new “the sky is falling “ will be discovered about the replacements? Trading a known for an unknown is a crap shoot.
1 Like
If it is banned, then there is no interstate commerce involved.
I’m not a constitutional scholar (nor do I play one on YouTube), but I don’t think that the federal controls trump a state’s right to impose unilateral bans on items that the state deems to be potentially harmful. Consider California’s existing bans on certain agricultural products, which also involve interstate commerce.
California’s decision to phase out leaded aviation fuel by 2031 will lead the U.S. into a new era of cleaner, safer aviation, setting a precedent on a national scale.
2 Likes
I’m a political conservative and worked in the oil & gas industry for 37 years. This is good. It reminds me of low sulfur diesel regs that finally cleaned up diesel fuel. Sometimes there has to be an absolute mandate and it will happen.
1 Like
The article does indeed highlight fuels, as well as the other half of the equation… replacing the engines that use 100LL. There are alternatives, as the article suggests.
By the way, this article is scheduled to be published in the December issue of AvBuyer, which is dedicated to alternative fuels. As I write articles for AvBuyer, I took the liberty of posting a link to it here, inside the AvWeb ecosystem.
Hope it helps the discussion.
As annoying as my California’s government typically is to me, I have to admit my initial knee-jerk reaction of “geez, here they go again” has morphed into viewing this as being (hopefully) useful in breaking the logjam. Of course, I can be somewhat more sanguine than most because it is unlikely I will continue flying that long anyway 
I’m a newbie to GA, but I have lived in L.A. 60 years. IMO, the reason for such a negative reaction to lead gas ban is because in the last 10 years CA govt acts first and then walks away, forcing John q public to pay for the changes. Paper government only.
Banning leaded may be good, but even if it is, CA will create the law with no regard for how the public has to spend billions on equipment, supply side gas, conversion kits for legacy planes, bla bla.
Newsom is large on decisions, but very tiny on caring how we get through the change.
Ya think CA is going to help pay for all the new changes to infrastructure? No. That’s why we end up leaving.
1 Like
What California has done is MEANINGLESS, since the US Congress has passed the FAA Re-authorization bill, which INCLUDES section 49 U.S. Code § 47107 section [22]; ‘…prohibits the sale of 100LL after Dec. 31, 2030…’
So, the comments on CA, or other states or airports are moot. The FEDs have put the stake in the ground.
100LL is GONE in Jan. 2031.!!!
I wonder if ForeFlight, or any of the other EFB’s have considered adding a map layer that will specifically show Mogas or 94UL availability across the country. Currently, if I drill down, I can see everything an FBO offers with regard to fuel, but on a map layer, I can only see prices for 100LL or JetA. It would be good to see where 94UL can be had across the country when planning my flights. Not sure about everyone else, but I fly long distances and only about 1 in 4 fuel stops are at my home base.
1 Like
It’s a mess. give G100UL the green light and let’s move on. You can only push a snowball so far uphill until it is gone. As someone once said 'don’t confonfuse me with the facts, just make a decision"! Some logic prevails but it’s relegated to the self interest factor which doesn’t score high on public opinion. The time is not right to oppose the tidal wave, better to pick a more favourable timeslot.
Instead of banning 100LL fuel, why not subsidize the installation of 100UL tanks like the electric charging stations have been subsidized. Sneak in a few cents higher UL AVGAS FET and it’s paid for.
1 Like
Let’s be real: this leaded avgas ban isn’t just about health—it’s a convenient excuse for some communities to push out general aviation from small airports that they’ve encroached upon. The ban could be used to restrict operations and limit access, threatening the future of GA. We need to fight for our rights as pilots to ensure that aviation remains accessible, rather than allowing these communities to chip away at our freedom to fly under the guise of environmental concerns.
1 Like
California’s approach to environmental issues, from the 1947 Air Pollution Control Act to today’s green aviation initiatives, shows that bold actions can make a big difference. Just like there were doubters—whether politicians or skeptical civilians—who questioned the 1947 Act, which is now recognized as a key turning point in environmental policy, there will always be naysayers who question new initiatives like those in aviation. But California’s track record proves that bold, forward-thinking solutions are essential for long-term success, even if the benefits aren’t immediately obvious. So, to the skeptics: quit your complaining and recognize that real progress takes vision and strong action.
Thank you, Raf, for always working to climb above the dark clouds.
Dave Miller
1 Like
For what it’s worth, it appears that 47107 only applies if the airport is getting federal funding.
Out of the 200 public-use airports in California, I estimate that about 30 to 50 airports might not receive federal funding. This number includes small public-use airports, private-use airports, and landing strips like Ocotillo Wells.
The 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing was the realization of President John F. Kennedy’s vision, stated in an address to a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961, that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.”
Americans do some amazing things when we set goals. Removing lead is not only a good thing generally, if we don’t, the public at large will remove us from the sky. I suggest the naysayers step aboard and join their fellow Americans in resolving this issue.
Theres a way to remove ethanol from fuel. I know a guy who does this for his vehicles. Unfortunately you will need containers to do it.
Basically you get a container almost full of gas, pour water in it, and mix it around a bit/wait. The ethanol loves water and will come out of the fuel. This is basically forcing what happens with vehicles that sit with ethanol fuel for a while. Condensation forms, pulls the ethanol out of the gas and it pools conveniently at the bottom.
A huge inconvenience but it may be worth trying.
That’s not what I read;
" (22) the [airport] owner or operator may not restrict or prohibit the sale or self-fueling of any 100-octane low lead aviation gasoline for purchase or use by operators of general aviation aircraft if such aviation gasoline was available at such [airport] at any time during calendar year 2022, until the earlier of—
(A) December 31, 2030; or
(B) the date on which the [airport] or any retail fuel seller at such [airport] makes available an unleaded aviation gasoline that—…"
It applied to all US airports, no mention of fed funding.