California Legislature Passes Leaded Avgas Ban

You’re missing the start of the reg.:

§ 47107. Project grant application approval conditioned on assurances about airport operations

(a) General Written Assurances.—The Secretary of Transportation may approve a project grant application under this subchapter for an airport development project only if the Secretary receives written assurances, satisfactory to the Secretary, that—

(1) the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination;

(2) […]
.
.
.
(22) the airport owner or operator may not restrict or prohibit the sale or self-fueling […]

Section (22) falls under section (a) which pertains to project grant applications. No grant app, no fuel restrictions.

OK, I missed that beginning text.
So then, the question is, how many of the 5,000+ public use airports have not received Fed funds ?

I’ve forwarded the question to my CA legislators…what fuel do we use after Dec. 31, 2030.?

This is very good and long overdue. I wish we had the same ban (with the same timeline) at the Federal level. The only thing keeping us from having unleaded gas available is corporate laziness and greed. The fuel exists (GAMI) and is proven to be a drop-in replacement. As a bonus, you get fewer spark plug issues. What more do you need?

Just recently, both Continental and Lycoming started to threaten warranty voiding for people using G100UL even though it was properly STC’ed and tested to be safe for the engine. I think they’ll just use it to try to weasel their way out of potential metallurgical defects on their side; these folks can’t be trusted. On the other hand, fuel manufacturers will do anything in their power to not invest a single additional dollar – they will never be at a forefront of unleaded fuel adoption. Without laws like this, we’ll still have leaded fuel at the end of this century. This is just a complete circus.

I’ve forwarded the question to my CA legislators…what fuel do we use after Dec. 31, 2030.?

Unleaded fuel. That’s the point. Things like G100UL, for example.

No, it’s the other way around: if the law is adopted, the fuel manufacturers/distributors would have no choice but to start ramping up unleaded fuel production. Manufacturers of GA airplanes and engines would have to make sure unleaded fuel is properly STC’ed instead of pretending it doesn’t exist and it’s not their problem. Once this happens – these communities will lose their convenient excuse (and I agree – they do use it a lot).

Let’s solve the problem; we have the tools. This is a good law; as an operator of a GA airplane, I support it.

My contacting our legislators is exactly that…They have banned our only fuel, so
now they need to legislate a replacement, and organize a plan to approve and distribute it.
Whether it’s G100UL or some other UL fuel, 100 octane or some combination of fuels, we need a follow up plan.
It took 30+ years to get to where we are now. I hope that a fuel will be readily available within the next 5 years.

BTW, I too fly a GA aircraft, a 1961 Cessna 175B, that was originally certified to use 80/87 octane fuel.

No one what’s the lead out of avgas more than the engine manufactures.

1 Like

People in cali once again showing how nuts they are out there, doing everything they can do to ruin their economy. $20 an hour minimum wage, large gap between the rich and the poor, middle class disappearing. Ban gas vehicles by 2045 I think it is. I enjoy watching them going down. Oh yeah, just think about all those poor kids at Oshkosh every year that has lead “spewed” on them, OMG.

Mixing water to remove ethanol will work, but it reduces octane by around 2.5 points. The solution to that is to add about 25% 100LL. The other problem is that the resulting water/ethanol mix is considered in some states to be hazardous waste. Disposing of that puts one in danger of violating anti polution laws.

CA up to its same ole tricks.

I hope Elon Muck directs his attention to developing GA turbines. If someone was to design a complete throw away turbine with a TBO around 3,000 hours, I imagine it could be produced cost effectively enough to replace all the gas engines. If there was a turbo prop in the 350hp range and a turbine in the 1,500lb thrust range, we could start running those and just use Jet-A.

The environmentalist are just way off the reservation with leaded fuel. They won’t stop till whatever fuel we use costs $25 a gallon.

There were web sites helping you find mogas without ethanol.

Some fiefdoms, like B.C., facilitate the top octane to not have ethanol, so Chevron stations don’t, perhaps Peninsula Co-op stations as well. (The facilitation is specifying an average ethanol content in total sales, the top octane may be a small proportion of sales.)

I’d ask car racers.

I’m confused. Any studies or FACTUAL information about how gas station attendants were more at risk of ingesting lead from the fuel? Were they drinking it?

I think asking the industry to finally find a viable solution in seven (!) more years is not undue pressure. If against all odds no lead elimination solution can be found then I’m sure there will be a proposal for an extension after 2030 to get it done.

Small correction; the ban is on new sales. Used gas burners can continue to be resold.

We love lead, especially in California!

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.