For the 40-odd years we’ve been trying to eliminate tetraethyl lead from avgas, general aviation has been a target of opportunity for dirty-little-secret headlines. The industry’s amazing persistence in preserving this problem has cost me at least several pairs of shoes trooping to press conferences where the various “stakeholders” offered progress reports we were all expected to believe revealed movement toward a solution. The latest of these is EAGLE, which now sets the goalpost at 2030, another at least seven years away.
Has there been a study on blood lead levels for pilots, mechanics, refuelers? The exposure level would be vastly higher (1000x+ I would think) for a pilot who flies piston engines every day than for someone in a house near the airfield. I would be genuinely curious of the results.
It’s time we move forward and eliminate TEL. Then we’ll figure it out from there. Some regions like Alaska have been using Auto Fuel forever because many communities do not have anything but a boat fuel stations.
So many certified aircraft are over 50 years old. It’s time for change and if changing the fuel pushes the industry forward, let’s do it. ?
Not only could it measure toxicity to RECENT exposure, but also for LONG TERM EXPOSURE.
Many pilots–like myself–have been exposed to aviation fuels for a LONG time. Even better, many FBOs (again, like myself) have been exposed to it EVERY DAY FOR DECADES (55 continuous years in the business, ON AN AIRPORT.)
This cohort of people exposed for many years means that we can get this study done QUICKLY–not a study that takes DECADES.
Let’s study the workers and tenants at Reid-Hillview (as well as those across the country!) --we should be able to prove/disprove this theory of “lead poisoning” once and for all–quickly–and at low cost.
I agree that this would be a good study topic. Hopefully someone will fund it and develop a sound process.
As I understand it, lead levels in blood typically show short-term exposure. For adults, most of the lead in blood is gone after two weeks. But for children the lead remains in the blood for a lot longer. And in adults, lead can be ‘stored’ in the bones for 20-30 years, only to return later.
Because children’s bodies store lead differently and, by definition, are growing, the effects of lead poisoning are more pronounced.
So a study of lead levels in blood alone may not tell us enough. A study of lead-poisoning in airport denizens may need to look at other tests. But I don’t know enough to know. Hopefully some one with appropriate credentials can chime in.
Paul is right and no amount of studies or rationalization will change the trajectory of what’s happening here. We pilots and operators believe we have a right to fly, but the public does not agree with that idea here in the US or anywhere else.
Most of the public are afraid of “little airplanes” and dislike the noise. They get actively angry when someone mentions lead and carbon. There are no rational excuses for aerosolizing lead into neighborhoods (or anywhere else), only lame excuses (it isn’t as bad as something worse).
Let us also not forget the unpopularity of carbon emissions. Airlines are increasingly public about their CO2 emissions and there are no defenders of GA, whether piston or turbines.
The only way that GA’s future can be positive is if the industry wholeheartedly moves into a “public good” model. No more lead in fuel. Noise abatement. Multiple uses at airports. Sustainable fuel, preferably electric (yes, electric). Real public engagement.
The airports here in LA are rapidly shutting down. Santa Monica is in hospice. Whiteman and Van Nuys are both under attack from their owners (County and City of Los Angeles). Similar stories are happening in all cities everywhere, including NorCal. The story is significantly worse in other parts of the world where the concept of general aviation is universally regarded as inequitable and unsustainable.
While aviation folks may react with some political point of view, the fact is that defenders of GA are outnumbered by many orders of magnitude by those afraid, concerned, envious, or oblivious. The Politico piece is a shot across the bow. Time to wake up.
The fight is over and GA lost. The merits of the argument don’t matter anymore, it is imperative that we all get ahead of this.
Everyone has to come together with a plan to transition to unleaded Avgas on a realistic timeline. Otherwise we seed the initiative to the anti GA folks who will force airport closures and and early chaotic outright ban on leaded Avgas.
Here’s a scary theory: For decades our entire population was exposed to copious amounts (as compared to aviation’s miniscule contribution) of lead from motor fuels dispensed by every service station. Lead, they say, causes mental problems. Today we are exposed to the thinking of our fellow humans as never before, and what conclusions must we draw from that?
You may not be far off. There is a strong correlation between leaded gasoline usage and crime. As leaded gasoline increased, there’s a corresponding increase in crime 20 years later. And as leaded gasoline was phased out, there was a similar drop in crime about 20 years later. The theory is the two-decade lag was due to children exposed to lead growing up to become criminals.
Surprised that the current regime in office hasn’t just banned import of lead or lead based products into the country by executive action. That has been done in the past with certain kinds of firearms. With no 100LL, no flight school would be able to operate which could create a real “pilot shortage” for the airlines, until a substitute is distributed.
Honestly I have doubts about Quality Control with these small batch new blends that use disparate base materials. If nothing else 100LL is a known stable commodity and I like that when it comes to safety.
In Washington State, some legislative representatives have, of course, included eliminating “leaded aviation fuels” in a bill (Washington House Bill HB 1554) which was in committee discussion last week. This bill contained mandates such things as forcing airports to sell only “unleaded fuels” (relatively immediately), relocating run up areas to be distant from any nearby housing and, believe it or not, legislating limits on the length of time any aircraft engine can be run up on the ground.
Of course, there was no harmonization with any national efforts or plans.
Needless to say various local pilot groups are up in arms at this lunacy/ignorance with a lot of people submitting comments to the legislative committee involved and also subsequently emails to individual committee members urging them to vote the bill down. Of course, the committee has now revised the bill (some concessions) and watered it down a bit. However, it still is written without any reference to national programs/timescales that industry groups have been working with the FAA. The revision also pushes a lot of work onto airport owners/operators to now work with lead monitoring agencies and create plans that need to be implemented within 1 to 2 years to mitigate and monitor lead issues.
To be clear, the original and revised bill ignores the general lack of supply for unleaded aviation fuel, the authority of the FAA over the operation of aircraft/airports, aircraft/engine certification/approval processes for fuels, the fact that aircraft routinely cross state borders so they would be “tanking” leaded fuel back into the state just through normal operations, the simple safety of flight issue that comes from having a pilot worried about a potential fine should he/she run up for too long instead of worrying about the aircraft/engine performance during run up, the cost of extra airport staff to enforce the bill’s airport requirements, etc. The bill is truly epic in its departure from any reasonableness.
We all want to eliminate lead from our lives, and in our aviation fuel, but to do so in ways that sacrifice safety, process and which also potentially cost owners, pilots and airports more money, is nothing short of ridiculous. (Yes, the bill still proposes a $10K fine for violation of any of its points that are not “fixed” within 30 days of notification of the problem - either levied against airport owners/operators/staff and/or aircraft owners/operators/pilots).
There are so many people we collectively need to educate to avoid this type lunacy springing up in a patchwork of “concerned” State Legislatures …
With cars, the argument was that lead, either in the pump or from bottles was necessary for older cars with soft valves, which would not run on unleaded.
Guess what – 20 years down the line, many, if not all, of these engines have been taken apart and harder valves, and if necessary, valve seats, have been installed, so they run on unleaded.
The price of hardening a set of valves is not very high, €150, but the kicker is in the labour to take the motor apart. Even so most owners have made the change, for convenience
and above all for resale value.
I am sure a similar scenario would play out with aircraft, but only if unleaded fuel was made the norm, as it is with car fuel.
Perhaps the whole issue is the engine, not the fuel. A lower compression, high rpm, automotive type engine with a reduction gear for propeller speeds may be the answer. Horsepower is a function of basically 2 factors - rotating mass and rotational speed.
Our high compression lumbering dinosaurs using 1940’s technology should be scrapped. As engines reach TBO they can be slowly replaced with modern engines. Honda makes a 2.2 liter racing engine that revs to 12,000 rpm and produces 550-700 horsepower in a 250 pound package. Obviously there are less extreme alternatives.
Reliability of automotive engines today is definitely ‘aircraft quality’. The only downside would be that our aircraft technicians are not ‘automotive quality’.
The argument that lead “cushioned” or “lubricated” the valves turned out under analysis to be incorrect. The theory came about because there was anecdotal evidence of an increase in valve-seat recession problems when leaded gasoline was phased out. The grass-roots theory was that lead somehow deposited on the valves and valve seat to prevent this.
The reality is the problem was actually due to pinging due to low (but legal) octane levels. Leaded gasoline often had a higher octane that what was listed on the pump. Lead was cheap, it was easy to add a little extra to insure the gasoline met or exceeded the rated octane. When lead was banned it was now much harder to meet that value.
As a result, the 87-octane gasoline coming out of the pump was now exactly 87.0 octane instead of being 88 or 89 octane. Cars that would normally run just fine on “87” octane (that was really higher) would now ping running on the ‘same’ gasoline. The light pinging over time would cause valve seat recession.
With airplane engines, the problem is much more pronounced. Low octane gasoline in an engine designed for 100 octane can quickly self destruct from “knocking” or detonation, regardless of where there is lead in it or not.
GAMI’s 100 octane unleaded fuel (“G100UL”) provides the high octane without lead, and without needing to modify any existing engines.
