Post #413,137
8/29/16 8:35:31 AM
8/29/16 8:35:31 AM
|
GA aircraft are largest remaining source of lead emissions.
Phys.org: They may seem innocuous enough, those small planes used for weekend getaways, flight training, small freight deliveries, and other civilian purposes. But collectively, the more than 167,000 piston-engine aircraft that comprise the majority of the U.S. general aviation (GA) fleet may pose a significant health threat. That's because these vehicles, which rely on leaded fuel to operate safely, constitute the nation's largest remaining source of lead emissions. Those exposed to low levels of lead, especially children, have been shown to suffer neurological and cognitive impairment, including IQ loss.
Unlike commercial airliners, which do not use leaded fuel, and automobiles, which went all-unleaded by 1995, piston-driven GA aircraft account for about half of anthropogenic lead emissions in U.S. skies. But just how much of an impact is this airborne lead having on the nation's public health and economy? To answer that question, a team of MIT researchers has conducted the first assessment of the nationwide annual costs of IQ losses that can be attributed to aviation lead emissions.
[...]
Efforts to curb leaded emissions from GA aircraft have been underway for at least a decade. Petitioned by the environmental nonprofit group Friends of the Earth (FoE) in 2006 to address the problem of leaded emissions from GA aircraft, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed limiting such emissions in 2010, but has yet to issue a ruling. The FoE claims that 70 percent of GA planes could switch to unleaded fuel without retrofitting. Toward that end, the Federal Aviation Administration aims to certify and distribute an unleaded replacement fuel by 2018. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #413,138
8/29/16 8:45:10 AM
8/29/16 8:45:10 AM
|
Now you will really piss off Mike! :)
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #413,139
8/29/16 9:40:59 AM
8/29/16 9:40:59 AM
|
Bullshit.
The FoE claims that 70 percent of GA planes could switch to unleaded fuel without retrofitting. That is a *CRAP* statement. I say that as an owner of an aircraft with an O-300-C Continental engine *with* the Unleaded Auto gas STC (Supplemental Type Certificate). There are a metric TON of GA aircraft with that STC and guess what? We can't do it. Know why? Because *ETHANOL* eats hell out of fittings and that STC was issued before the farm lobby got ethanol into our auto gas. But, hey, farmers need money too and isn't it a GRAND IDEA to make fuel out of food? I've got no problem switching to unleaded auto fuel if you get the damned corn out of the gas. We pay a hell of a premium for that leaded fuel, btw, right now for self-service it's $4.25/gallon here and I burn 9 gallons an hour. A single "fill up" today costs me over $150.00. The first year I flew that airplane (2002), I could fill up for under $70.00 and I "filled up" at least twice a month. Think I'm doing that now? More like once every three months. Interestingly, my fuel today has more lead in it that it did a decade ago. Why? Because big oil decided they couldn't make enough money to justify creating the two types of leaded fuel used in GA aircraft (80 leaded and 100 Low Lead), so they stopped making 80 years ago (80 is what my engine was built to burn) and 80 actually had *less* lead than 100 Low Lead. But this is a side show. The federal government has wanted to kill General Aviation at least since 9.11.2001 because they're afraid they can't control us effectively enough. I find the timing of this article HIGHLY suspect. After decades of trying, we FINALLY got Airman's Medical reform passed and the FAA is supposed to come up with new regs by January 2017 that are consistent with the Pilot's Bill of Rights which would allow us to fly without a Third Class medical - thereby increasing significantly the number of potential GA pilots qualified to fly old airplanes like mine. The regs for Third Class medicals have gotten ridiculous in the past five years. They kept coming up with "new disqualifying conditions" that permanently grounded some pilots and had f*ck all to do with safety. The new "sleep apnea" change and its reliance upon BMI for "diagnosis" is a case study in this lunacy. Worse, they kept the pilot population from ever going to see their physicians for fear they'd be diagnosed with one of the new idiotic disqualifying conditions. So, we got the House, Senate and *even* Bam-Bam to pass legislation to retire the Third Class medicals for the majority of "hobby pilots" like me. That bill says that even if the FAA doesn't come up with new regs a year from passage (7/15/2016) the FAA is prohibited from taking enforcement action against a pilot without a Third Class medical who abides by the text of the law. IOW, the FAA is *panicked* about how many people might be flying these old airplanes around. What to do? Come up with a BULLSHIT story about how the "lead is hurting the children" and send the entire fleet of affordable, small aircraft to the junk pile. That'll keep us out of the sky.
|
Post #413,142
8/29/16 10:40:38 AM
8/29/16 10:40:38 AM
|
Retrofitting or not
Screw that. Ground the planes. Lead in the air is bullshit; we figured this out years ago, so why are they still allowed to use it? Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,143
8/29/16 10:45:14 AM
8/29/16 10:45:14 AM
|
Guppy.
|
Post #413,144
8/29/16 10:45:35 AM
8/29/16 10:45:35 AM
|
Yup. This is a solvable problem. Lead is bad news.
|
Post #413,146
8/29/16 10:46:56 AM
8/29/16 10:46:56 AM
|
You guys are mighty damned liberal with MY freedom to fly.
|
Post #413,147
8/29/16 11:30:58 AM
8/29/16 11:30:58 AM
|
Regulating the use of public spaces is a problem? ;-p
Honestly, I sympathize. But we know, and have known, that lead in gas is bad news. I wouldn't be surprised if there are change-over costs. Thems the breaks.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if fossil-fuel-based AV gas is outlawed in the next 50 years (or sooner). It won't kill GA, it'll just mean there's going to be a transition to other fuels and there will be some costs with that - there always are.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #413,152
8/29/16 12:23:56 PM
8/29/16 12:23:56 PM
|
You don't know the fleet.
Since we *have* to have Ethanol in our auto gas (which is idiotic - burn 1 gallon of fossil fuel to create a gallon of ethanol with lower energy capacity), there are a whole host of aircraft engines that *must* be retired. Those are the old airplanes like mine that are still affordable for non-millionaires. To get my airplane to burn unleaded fuel means one of two paths: convince the oil companies to create unleaded fuel without ethanol or replace my aircraft engine. Those are the only two options. My airplane's worth around 25K. Putting a new engine in it - even if that were possible which at present it isn't since there are only two engines approved for my aircraft and they both burn leaded fuel - would run around 30K. Obviously, the cheaper option is to get ethanol out of the gas (and that's still doable and done for some auto gas - racing, off-road, etc - but they jack the price of it up to around AvGas prices). But if you do that, you have another enormously expensive task you have to perform: You have to rip out all the storage tanks at airports currently used to store AvGas. All the supply lines have to be replaced, all the pumps have to be replaced, all the ground and above ground storage has to be replaced because you cannot ever put unleaded fuel into a system (including delivery trucks) that once contained leaded fuel. Why keep using leaded fuel?
First and foremost, the use of leaded fuels is an operational safety issue, because without the additive TEL, the octane levels would be too low for some engines, and use of a lower octane fuel than required could lead to engine failure. As a result, the additive TEL has not been banned from avgas. Aircraft manufacturers, the petroleum industry, and the FAA have worked for over a decade to find alternative fuels that meet the octane requirements of the piston engine aircraft fleet without the additive TEL. However, no operationally safe, suitable replacement for leaded fuel has yet been found to meet the needs of all of the piston engine aircraft fleet. ...
There are approximately 167,000 aircraft in the United States and a total of 230,000 worldwide that rely on 100 low lead avgas for safe operation. It is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United States that contains the addition of TEL. https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754And that's from the organization trying its best to keep all of us out of the sky. What you'd be accomplishing by banning lead in AvGas is the elimination of the safe use of 167,000 GA aircraft in this country. That's out of an estimated total of around 230,000, or around 70% of all GA aircraft. It will be the *end* of affordable GA. For instance, I fly a 1960 Cessna 172A. Cessna still sells "new" 172's and they haven't changed much. A little lower service ceiling in the new ones, a little bigger engine that yields about another 8-10 knots at cruise, more crap in the cabin so you have less useful load - same number of seats, etc. I paid 24K for mine, but you can buy one like mine today for around 25-30K. A new one with almost identical performance costs $307,000. Sure, the 1% will still be able to fly one, but who else? Nobody.
|
Post #413,156
8/29/16 1:10:19 PM
8/29/16 1:10:19 PM
|
Is this guy full of beans?
|
Post #413,158
8/29/16 1:55:29 PM
8/29/16 2:00:31 PM
|
No, he's not. He's referring to Ethanol Free auto gas.
Which is no problem EXCEPT that it is not widely available at airports. Look at the map linked at one of your links and see how many of those places where ethanol-free auto gas is available are *at* airports. Within 100 miles of me, for instance, there's ONE that has it on field and it's a grass strip (so no going there in the winter).
Sure, I can haul 4 ten gallon cans to the nearest gas station selling ethanol-free autogas, fill them up, throw them in the back of the car and then haul them into the hangar and fill up my airplane. But what happens when I land somewhere that doesn't have it on the field? How am I going to get home? Am I supposed to haul those 4 empty cans around with me in the back of the airplane (a safety nightmare), land, rent a car, drive to the gas station and then haul 40 gallons of gas back to the airport to fill up again? It's impractical. The reason its not widely available at airfields I've already alluded to: nobody wants to rip out and replace all the stuff they'd have to rip out and replace in order to sell this fuel. If the taxpayer wants to fund that effort, I'm all for it. But you and I know they don't want to do that. The public perception that "Ooooh, he flies his own airplane. He's riiiiiich" is too strong.
A few years back, at Purdue, an allegedly 100% compatible lead-free fuel was developed, but I lost track of where that was going (Swift fuel, IIRC). ISTR that it was some kind of bio-mass fuel that you could "mix" with 100LL (not that you'd do that, but it meant no ripping/replacing of existing infrastructure, draining your existing fuel - including unusable, etc.). Since I haven't heard anything about that in years, I imagine its not going too well.
My point is that we do NOT at present have a workable, safe replacement for 100LL *at* airports and until we do, banning it will mean the death of GA for all but the most monied. I'm not against using unleaded fuel at all. I'm not thick enough to hold that lead in the air is "not so bad." But I don't want to see GA harmed anymore than it already has been. If 100LL got banned this year or next, the value of my airplane would disappear and I'd never again be able to truly look down on the rest of the nation. ;0)
Edit: "ethanol free auto gas", there is no ethanol in any AvGas for a reason.
Edited by mmoffitt
Aug. 29, 2016, 02:00:31 PM EDT
|
Post #413,162
8/29/16 2:17:11 PM
8/29/16 2:17:11 PM
|
Good points. Thanks.
|
Post #413,148
8/29/16 11:35:01 AM
8/29/16 11:35:01 AM
|
You can fly. It's not the flying that's the problem.
|
Post #413,151
8/29/16 12:16:56 PM
8/29/16 12:16:56 PM
|
This. Fix your goddamned plane then you can fly. It's pretty simple.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,153
8/29/16 12:24:50 PM
8/29/16 12:24:50 PM
|
Give me $250,000 and I'll do it. Don't give me your unfunded mandate.
|
Post #413,155
8/29/16 1:03:24 PM
8/29/16 1:03:24 PM
|
Not my problem. Planes putting lead in the air is.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,160
8/29/16 1:56:23 PM
8/29/16 1:56:23 PM
|
Pilots didn't put the lead in the gas.
|
Post #413,163
8/29/16 2:30:59 PM
8/29/16 2:30:59 PM
|
Who. Cares?
Other than the pilots? It's lead in the air. It needs to stop. I don't give a rat's ass if you can't do your favorite hobby anymore. Tough shit. Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,165
8/29/16 2:34:29 PM
8/29/16 2:34:29 PM
|
How about holding those responsible, responsible for a change? And that ain't us.
|
Post #413,172
8/29/16 5:33:56 PM
8/29/16 5:33:56 PM
|
Not holding you responsible
But that doesn't mean you should be flying around putting lead in the air. It's pretty simple.
Your hobby Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,197
8/30/16 8:17:55 AM
8/30/16 8:17:55 AM
|
Tell you what.
You park your car until that "safety stuff" is worked out. After all, that *kills* around 100 people a *day*. If you're really concerned about the well being of the masses, eliminating driving an automobile will reduce their likelihood of ill effects *vastly* more than ending GA ever will. And let's not forget about the GA that involves piston helicopter medical evacuation. Fuck them. You get hit by a car and the only available aircraft to airlift you to a regional health center burns AvGas, you die. You good with that too?
|
Post #413,201
8/30/16 9:32:26 AM
8/30/16 9:32:26 AM
|
You don't need to fly a hobby plane for the helicopters to fly.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,204
8/30/16 11:17:49 AM
8/30/16 11:17:49 AM
|
They are GA aircraft and a lot of them burn the same fuel.
In the fixed-wing aircraft group, airplanes perform a number of medical evacuation, flights, or medevac. Piston engine aircraft perform a substantial quantity of these medical transportation flights. Piston-driven airplanes possess the advantages of greater speed and range than most choppers. Additionally, piston-powered airplanes are often able enough to control from runways that are very short, providing entry to the vast majority of airports. http://prsync.com/cobb-medicaid-transportation/air-ambulance-aircraft-your-choices-for-medical-transportation-867148/HTH. I LOVE IT when non-pilots talk about aviation as though they possess some thorough knowledge. We *should* ground these bastards, too, amirite? http://www.angelflight.com/
|
Post #413,210
8/30/16 12:15:28 PM
8/30/16 12:15:28 PM
|
YOU don't need to fly a hobby plane.
The emergency aircraft can still fly while you sit on the ground. This has fuck all to do with type of aircraft; I mentioned helicopters because you did. The emergency aircraft can also get their engines upgraded. FYI: both of my parents have their licenses. I grew up in GA planes and reading my dad's instruction manuals. I know the difference between VFR and IFR and I can plot a VOR course. Piss off with your elitist attitude you entitled ass.  Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,211
8/30/16 12:42:54 PM
8/30/16 12:42:54 PM
|
Stylish clan there! :-)
|
Post #413,212
8/30/16 12:46:12 PM
8/30/16 12:46:12 PM
|
:-)
You should see the pictures in the living room from that era. Shag carpeting, mod furniture. Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,213
8/30/16 12:58:40 PM
8/30/16 12:58:40 PM
|
Arrow?
|
Post #413,190
8/30/16 7:47:19 AM
8/30/16 7:47:19 AM
|
Omfg. 167k out of 300+ million
Gimme 250k for my hobby or I will keep poisoning you. Wow.
You are part of the less than 1%.
Your right to swing your arm is limited at the point it hits my face. You lose. Hope they ground you. Overweight? Gone. Sleep apnea? Gone. Say something stupid on the Web? Gone.
|
Post #413,194
8/30/16 8:11:05 AM
8/30/16 8:11:05 AM
|
Your math is as bad as the rest of you. 167K aircraft != 167K people. HTH.
|
Post #413,196
8/30/16 8:16:28 AM
8/30/16 8:16:28 AM
|
Do you timeshare your craft?
|
Post #413,198
8/30/16 8:19:00 AM
8/30/16 8:19:00 AM
|
Flight Club. Heard of them? Of course not. You're out of your depth.
|
Post #413,199
8/30/16 8:19:25 AM
8/30/16 8:21:19 AM
|
And I find it interesting the point you picked
You don't want to be part of the elite. Fine. How many people does it need to affect (effect?, f'it) until the base point of a small minority poisoning the majority is ok?
Edited by crazy
Aug. 30, 2016, 08:21:19 AM EDT
|
Post #413,202
8/30/16 9:35:17 AM
8/30/16 9:35:17 AM
|
For a communist he's a pretty entitled SOB at times.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,207
8/30/16 11:52:10 AM
8/30/16 11:52:10 AM
|
I earned it. ;0)
You know, "to each according to his need" and all that.
|
Post #413,216
8/30/16 2:24:52 PM
8/30/16 2:24:52 PM
|
Only in theory!
In practice the top 3% do OK, the bottom 97% get subsistence. And the top, all party members, contributes next to nothing. Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #413,221
8/30/16 3:49:19 PM
8/30/16 3:49:19 PM
|
I don't think the amount contributed by the top is limited to communist societies. ;0)
|
Post #413,224
8/30/16 8:33:32 PM
8/30/16 8:33:32 PM
|
No argument there. But, it's that communism is not a solution.
Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #413,234
8/31/16 12:05:55 PM
8/31/16 12:05:55 PM
|
MMoffitt's Communisim explained . . .
. . . by a Polish Joke (actually from Poland).
A Polish peasant with a pig over his shoulders is entering the agricultural fairgrounds. He spots a Communist Party recruiting table.
Peasant: "Oh, I've heard there are a lot of advantages to being a member of the Party - it's a really good thing".
Recruiter: "Yes, many advantages. Your social status is improved, you learn a lot, and all your needs are taken care of".
Peasant: "That sounds really good, I'd like to join".
Recruiter: There are some requirements to qualify as a party member, because under Communism all property is shared".
Peasant: "Ok, that sounds good!".
Recruiter: So, are you willing to donate your house, your property and your bank accounts to the Communist Party?".
Peasant: "Well yes, I would, if being a member is so good".
Recruiter: OK then, lets get started with the paperwork, then you sign it and we submit it to the party for acceptance".
Peasant: "Great!"
Recruiter: "Oh, one more thing, that pig on your shoulders, you will need to donate that pig to the Communist party".
Peasant: "What? The pig? Ummm, ummmm, I don't know . . . The pig?".
Recruiter: "What's holding you up about that pig? You've already agreed to donate your home, lands, bank accounts and other property to the Party. Why are you sticking at the pig?".
Peasant: "Well . . . the pig I've got".
Back in the days when Americans were telling Polish Jokes, the Poles had two kinds of jokes: Communist Party jokes and Ukrainian jokes.
|
Post #413,235
8/31/16 12:24:09 PM
8/31/16 12:24:09 PM
|
:-)
|
Post #413,150
8/29/16 12:15:30 PM
8/29/16 12:15:30 PM
|
YTF are you ok with putting lead in the air?
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,154
8/29/16 12:25:50 PM
8/29/16 12:25:50 PM
|
Because there isn't a safe alternative yet.
|
Post #413,157
8/29/16 1:53:31 PM
8/29/16 1:53:31 PM
|
Safe for *whom*?
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,159
8/29/16 1:55:53 PM
8/29/16 1:55:53 PM
|
The people in the airplane and the people on the ground they might crash into.
|
Post #413,164
8/29/16 2:31:20 PM
8/29/16 2:31:20 PM
|
Not a problem if they aren't in the air. HTH.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #413,166
8/29/16 2:37:37 PM
8/29/16 2:37:37 PM
|
heh. Thanks for making my point.
|
Post #413,186
8/30/16 4:10:07 AM
8/30/16 4:10:07 AM
|
Yeah, there is.
Not flying until you get your unleaded shit together.
Why do you think you've got a free pass to emit something we know is seriously bad mojo - so much so that the car makers sorted their shit out, and you can be sure they didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts - just so you can do your hobby?
|
Post #413,195
8/30/16 8:14:13 AM
8/30/16 8:14:13 AM
|
My ancestors didn't listen to you folks. Why should I?
|
Post #413,205
8/30/16 11:39:39 AM
8/30/16 11:39:39 AM
|
Well, that's one way to not answer the question.
But I think we all know that you don't actually have an answer other than "I wanna fly, so fuck you!"
|
Post #413,206
8/30/16 11:51:21 AM
8/30/16 11:51:21 AM
|
You won't just be screwing me.
Ask Bill how easy things would be in Alaska, for example, if piston aircraft were grounded. Or the recipients of Angel Flights. Or Pilots N Paws rescue pilots. Or look at what us bad, privileged piston aircraft pilots did after Katrina hit. A lot of people will suffer if you ground piston aircraft because of the fuel. You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. On balance, GA contributes vastly more than it harms. And we're getting rid of it anyway (see link below).
|
Post #413,209
8/30/16 12:09:04 PM
8/30/16 12:09:04 PM
|
Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-fuel/Some of the health effects of repeated exposure to lead include damage to the central nervous system, kidneys and red blood cells, and decreased function in the cardiovascular and immune systems. Lower IQ levels and learning disabilities can also result from lead exposure, especially in children, whose young bodies are more sensitive than those of adults. And scientists at the National Toxicology Program have concluded that lead and lead compounds are “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes lead as a neurotoxin and in 2008 set tough new standards for how much of it is safe in our air. In 2010 the agency identified 16 U.S. regions that fail to meet clean air standards for airborne lead; all either contained or were near airports where leaded avgas is the norm. But the EPA has not yet restricted lead in avgas, even though unleaded avgas is available.
A 2011 Duke University study found that kids living within 500 meters of an airport where leaded avgas is used have higher blood lead levels than other children, with elevated lead levels in blood found in kids as far as one kilometer away. The EPA estimates that 16 million Americans live close to one of 22,000 airports where leaded avgas is routinely used—and three million children go to schools near these airports. GA pilots should be pressuring the relevant suppliers and authorities to develop the required fuel ASAP. (It should have been done decades ago, obviously.) You know that the phase-out of lead is coming, you know that lead is toxic, you know that post-Flint political pressure to get lead out of kids is going to increase, so you might as well show that you're a responsible group by getting out in front of it. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #413,214
8/30/16 1:08:03 PM
8/30/16 1:08:03 PM
|
I'll stop at Anderson whenever I get the chance.
Of course, I'll have to check with the FAA that UL94 is approved for Continental O-300 engines. I'm dubious and unwilling to take a chance. Unleaded AvGas has been "being worked on" for quite some time. However, and this point cannot be overstated, the auto industry could move faster because they never had to contend with the FAA. The FAA is lapped by glaciers routinely.
|
Post #413,218
8/30/16 3:01:43 PM
8/30/16 3:01:43 PM
|
Looks like you're good to go, but I may be missing something.
|
Post #413,220
8/30/16 3:48:09 PM
8/30/16 3:48:09 PM
|
Thanks, I'll look.
But unless they've issued a new one, I already have the Unleaded Fuel STC. A few years back, the FAA issued a statement that none of those were good because none of those were issued when ethanol was in the fuel. With this fuel, though, I might be good to go. Worth looking into anyway. Thanks again.
|
Post #413,208
8/30/16 11:53:42 AM
8/30/16 12:06:00 PM
|
Pretty much
I had a lesson once. It was an amazing feeling. I can understand the godlike draw of flying a small plane. It was better than skydiving. Hell, I'd risk a bunch of other people to continue the experience. So I understand the irrational viewpoint.
Edited by crazy
Aug. 30, 2016, 12:06:00 PM EDT
|
Post #413,161
8/29/16 2:05:37 PM
8/29/16 2:05:37 PM
|
I did remember the Purdue fuel correctly. Don't worry. Be happy.
The aviation community is on it. The FAA has selected two unleaded fuels to move to the next phase of testing for use in general aviation aircraft.
In a March 29 announcement, the FAA said fuels from Shell and Swift Fuels will move to Phase 2 testing in aircraft and engines. The fuels were selected from four initial candidates—two from Swift Fuels, one from Shell, and one from TOTAL—identified in September 2014.
Additional tests on the two finalist fuels are scheduled to begin this summer and be completed in 2018, according the FAA. Data from those tests will be used to help the companies obtain an ASTM International production specification for their fuels, which would allow the FAA to authorize the existing GA fleet to use the new fuels.
“It’s important for general aviation to be ready to move away from leaded fuel, and today’s announcement that two fuels have been selected for further testing is another key step down that path,” said David Oord, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. “The program is on track and the candidate fuels are promising, which is good news for GA.” https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/march/29/faa-announces-unleaded-fuel-finalists
|
