[n468ac]

EPA looks into lead emissions from GA aircraft

By AOPA ePublishing staff
The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking feedback from the public and general aviation industry on leaded aviation fuel in response to a 2006 petition from the Friends of the Earth.
AOPA met Nov. 5 with the EPA, FAA, and general aviation industry groups to discuss the petition, state of the GA industry, concerns about transitioning from current avgas and associated safety-of-flight implications, and the fact that currently there is no unleaded fuel that will work for the entire GA fleet.
"Replacing today's avgas with a new fuel is a critical issue and must be carefully thought through by the agencies involved," said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs. "Right now there isn't an unleaded fuel that would meet the needs of the entire fleet without requiring aircraft modifications or decreasing aircraft performance and utility."
AOPA participates as a member in both the Coordinating Research Council and ASTM International, a not-for-profit organization that facilitates voluntary consensus standards for things like aviation fuel, to come up with safe alternatives. The association also helps secure funding through Congress each year for the FAA to test possible replacement fuels at its William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, N.J.
The Friends of the Earth wanted the EPA to make a finding that lead emissions from GA aircraft endanger public health and welfare and to issue emission standards.
"At the meeting I attended last week, it was clear that the EPA is working with the FAA and other industry groups on this issue," said Rob Hackman, AOPA senior director of regulatory affairs. "We're committed to helping the agency understand the impact this could have on the GA fleet and provide information to help ensure a viable GA community well into the future."
Right now, the EPA is not undertaking a study but is requesting environmental and health information from the public. For more information about sending comments to the EPA, see the notice.
November 14, 2007


Hmmmmmm

 

[frankh]

Actually I see this as a good thing

It really is a small percentage of the GA fleet that cannot use Mogas and most of those could be fixed with the addition of low pressure lift pumps...Of course in a certified airplane that won't be cheap.

The high compression (9.5:1 and above) 360's and Turbo 540's that really do need 100 octane fuel will be the spendy ones to modify.

For me if no lead = keeping ethanol out of premium autofuel then its a winner....Making the assumption that 92 OCT cost the same at the airport as it does at the local 76...One can dream right?

Frank

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

We've gone through the lead issue many, many times here on VAF. It's been 30 years here in the US since the introduction of unleaded gas and cars that are equipped with catalysts and require unleaded gas.

When they converted autos, the standard was that all new engines after a certain date would have to run on unleaded gas and it would be illegal to put leaded gas into the vehicles. The reason was that the lead would foul the emission catalysts, but there's a good idea here - make all new engines after X date operate on a certain unleaded fuel standard. That would require the development of a standard unleaded fuel to replace 100LL and approval by the FAA first, of course. But if you don't require new engines to run on unleaded, then the problem is simply going to continue on and on.

So: First step is to agree to a formulation to replace 100LL. Second step is to test and eventually require that all new engines run fine on the unleaded gas. Neither of these should be that difficult technically.

Then comes the hard part: Convincing everyone that we need to use the unleaded gas. This means energy companies who will have to supply it, FBOs who will have to invest in new tanks, aircraft owners who will have to decide to buy and use the new fuel. If we don't do it ourselves, popular environmental groups will fight to make us do it. Better that we control our own destiny.

TODR

 

[RVbySDI]

Then comes the hard part: Convincing everyone that we need to use the unleaded gas. This means energy companies who will have to supply it, FBOs who will have to invest in new tanks, aircraft owners who will have to decide to buy and use the new fuel. If we don't do it ourselves, popular environmental groups will fight to make us do it. Better that we control our own destiny.TODR

It is not a matter of convincing all of these groups of people. Not the energy companies, the aircraft manufacturers, not even the FBO's. No, the group that has to be convinced is the aircraft owner. This is the group that will drive all of the other players. They are the reason for the energy companies, the aircraft manufacturers, the FBO's. And I might add, they are the most stubborn of all the groups mentioned.

All of the others will be driven by the bottom dollar. If it will make them money to do something different they will do it. If it does not make them money they will not change. And where does this money come from except from the aircraft owners? If they do not accept the change no one else will either.

So it boils down to this! How is that 65 year old owner, who has "always done it this way", going to accept the fact that he needs to change to "doing it that way" now?

 

[rv6ejguy]

Unleaded race gas (up to 105 RON + MON/ 2) has been available for years from companies like VP so it can be done right now if people wanted to pay the price. Now is unleaded fuel with heavy aromatics (toluene, xylene) safer for us than leaded fuel? Second, how safe are existing aircraft fuel system plastic and rubber parts with aromatics?

Perhaps compounds like iron carbonyl or nickel carbonyl could be substituted for lead and we could retain the same 100LL type base stocks.

There are plenty of aircraft still needing good fuel- radials used in firebombing, bush and AG, PA31s, Aerostars, 421s, Dukes, Malibus etc. but I agree, if lead is to go, let's study it quickly and get on with it. It ain't rocket science.

Catalysts might be next- how to hang those off an R-2800!?