This comment makes me think you don't actually understand the situation. The vast majority of aviation fuel used IS Jet-A, which does not contain lead.
Small piston engine general aviation aircraft are the only ones that use leaded gas, and most of those can not use anything else that exists currently.
I too have a pregnant wife and a young child, but I worry far, far more about residual lead paint exposure than I do about avgas. Both get tested regularly and show no detectable levels (<2ug/dL), so that makes me feel like the risk exposure is acceptable. Yes, your quote about "no known safe level" is true, but at undetectable levels I'm confident it's in the noise along with all other environmental factors we don't know about.
If you're worried about lead exposure, are you testing?
After decades - does it make public policy sense to still sell NEW planes that REQUIRE leaded gas?
I don't believe so.
Literally every other method of propulsion, some with much stronger claims in terms of life utility, have moved off leaded gas. Ie, the ambulance, the race cars the everything, except GA.
Reality -> GA has a well connected / rich pool of users with influence. If you had a bunch of poor minorities spraying even trace amounts of lead over someone's nice golf course my guess is you'd be getting well off activists to shut you down in no time for environmental or other reasons.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-360
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-550
To my knowledge some ultralights use regular unleaded (called MOGAS in some aviation contexts) and of course anything that you can buy an airline ticket for outside of perhaps Alaska will use jet fuel.
It appears that most versions of the O-360 can run on mogas, or unleaded gas of some sort.
https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070AB%20Spec...
Indeed, there does appear to be a 100UL drop in out here too.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/july/27/ga...
To be clear, none require leaded fuel, per se, but until this year there was no approved unleaded 100-octane fuel.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#100LL_(blue) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL)
Yes, planes 50 years ago -> maybe those were designed for leaded. But the idea that we are selling new planes, today, that "only" run on leaded gas is a farce and goes to show how seriously aviation is taking the transition away from leaded gas (which has been delayed as I've said decades).
At some point you just lose patience.
A measure like this may be reasonable.
But C/D totals the entire piston aircraft fleet-- $50B+ of capital equip, plus the whole infrastructure and industry around it-- for only a very moderate change in lead exposure. Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total population burden from lead by well under 5%.
Much more sane, IMO, to put in a progressively escalating tax on leaded aviation fuels that over time becomes steep. Then airplanes can gradually transition as overhauls become due, etc, as the pressure from operating costs mounts. Presumably those burning the most fuel would transition first, and an industry capable of retrofitting a few percent of the aircraft per year would spring up.
Except they can't, since there is no approved alternative.
The other problem is that even planes that can run unleaded gas often don't, because it's not available at the airport. Avgas is a tiny market and because of costs most FBOs can't or won't set up another fuel delivery infrastructure to run two fuels over some short transition period.
Because of this, an additional requirement on a replacement is also that it be safely mixable with 100LL in any ratio, because during the transition period this will happen as people fly from airports where it exists to airports where it doesn't.
This problem is being solved (https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/).
There's an increasing number of diesel engines for GA aircraft, and supplemental type certificates to retrofit them into the same. If 100LL got more expensive, you'd see more people opting for the diesels when an engine reaches the end of its life.
e.g. http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/fileadmin/_centurion/...
Yes, it'd be really cool to end up with a lower-lead fuel that's safely combined with 100LL. That's been "imminent" for the last 25 years.
The poster above advocates for a "rip off the band-aid" approach. GA advocates for a gradual, painless transition that, in practice, will never happen. Surely there's some middle ground?
Data seems to imply that the diesel engine lifecycle cost is slightly better now than conventional engines, so electing for a diesel replacement instead of a conventional engine overhaul can make sense... but it's a razor thin difference.
If you made leaded fuels more expensive-- more airfields are going to want to move to UL94, and more people at overhaul time are going to go the diesel path, and the problem will gradually get better.
There's not going to be one single tidy drop-in solution for the entire market. That's why we should tax leaded fuels, and everyone can pick the appropriate solution for them. Some will pick diesel conversions. Some airfields will go 94UL and people will purchase STCs. Presumably some other people will take other paths. And those with the hardest time transitioning can instead pay the tax and burn leaded fuel, still.
3 years is also basically a second at the speeds GA changes at.
Swift charges $100 for a STC, and has coverage of two thirds of the GA fleet.
Really, all that needs to happen is an airport needs to decide that lead free is important to them and they'll pay the premium for Swift's fuel.
But if you taxed the crap out of lead-containing fuels, I suspect more would be interested...
That sounds pretty great actually, for such a simple solution.
If you threw a few billion more at leaded paint remediation, I think you'd make much more of a difference. I think the aviation lead problem should get fixed, but because it's such a small part of the overall problem it makes sense to take a graduated approach instead of giving GA businesses the death penalty. Tax leaded aviation fuels, and use the proceeds to pay for leaded paint remediation.
Graduated approach ignores the decades that have ALREADY been provided as an exception to the lead fuel rules that apply everywhere else - it's already been graduated.
Start at 10% with a commitment to ratchet it up by 4% per year or something. That's enough to start an immediate reduction without destroying the industry.
If you're making choices about engine overhaul now for an overhaul that will last you 7-8 years of light use, fuel costing 40% more at the end of that overhaul will definitely get your attention.
> it's already been graduated.
Doing nothing for decades when it was impossible; and then doing nothing for a decade or two when transition became possible; and then pushing the industry off the cliff is not graduated.
Perhaps that's wrong, but I distinctly remember the statistic and it stuck with me.
Or perhaps this is the benefit of having younger people in government. Because 50 year old like me thinks "massive progress made, don't waste time on diminishing returns" by comparing the current situation to the distant past. Whereas someone younger sees the threat differently.
Frankly, the propellor airplanes I do see are mostly military which will likely not be impacted by any regulations. I am also making the assumption only propellor airplanes could be using unleaded gas.
edit: perhaps "all", not "almost all", in the US.
Just awful.
It's amazing that airports aren't required to purchase and relocate the (typically poor) people who are absolutely getting their lifespans shortened by living near an airport.
The question is, given that it's so clearly a poison (maybe a top 10 poison) - why spray it into the air above residential neighborhood?
Lead impacts are around things like "anaemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioural effects of lead are believed to be irreversible."
Reality is measurable increases in lead concentrations in blood near airports is very small. But does look like it exists.
No Chemtrailer here, btw.
a) Leaded aviation fuel, an absolutely KNOWN hazard, has been given a pass for literal DECADES.
b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes.
c) Ban the sale of leaded gas to fill planes with changes in registrations after 1/1/2023.
d) Ban the sale of leaded gas period after 1/1/2025.
Industry has been given (more) than enough time to solve this - and does not care.
I live near an airport, with a pregnant wife and a young child. The total hassle it is to deal with just old lead paint if you try and follow code is rediculous, but they still have planes flying over burning LEADED fuel!! WHY?
Most planes don't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can also be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA planes may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for decades now.
"There is no known safe blood lead concentration; even blood lead concentrations as low as 5 µg/dL may be associated with decreased intelligence in children, behavioural difficulties and learning problems. As lead exposure increases, the range and severity of symptoms and effects also increase."