"Much of the avgas sold today uses less than the maximum amount of lead allowed by the current 100LL specification and already meets the new “very low lead” specification."


Sounds like the FAA put a new name to the fuel to please the EPA.

I hope this leads to certifying a newer, lower cost, unleaded fuel.. But, if the FAA just defines a tighter tolerance that most fuels already meet, where is the big leap?
 
Last edited:
Although no real impact, it may be statistically helpful

iwannarv said:
"Much of the avgas sold today uses less than the maximum amount of lead allowed by the current 100LL specification and already meets the new ?very low lead? specification."


Sounds like the FAA put a new name to the fuel to please the EPA.

I hope this leads to certifying a newer, lower cost, unleaded fuel.. But, if the FAA just defines a tighter tolerance that most fuels already meet, where is the big leap?
Click to expand...

I hear from a knowledgable friend that the EPA's impact calculations of GA lead emissions are done using the maximum lead spec. If the industry adopted 100VLL (obsoleting 100LL) our calculated lead impact would drop by 19%. Although our real lead emissions won't change much the effect of now using the lower lead spec is that GA would no longer be the #1 contributor of lead in the atmosphere, on paper.

That takes political heat off this. Helpful only in that sense, but that could be very helpful in buying time. Otherwise this is not a big deal. A case of saying you improved the air, but really didn't. Only government could love that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.