Jet fuel doesn't have lead in it. Avgas is 'low lead', and there's at one unleaded prop plane fuel available.

It's 'low lead' compared to the previous 100 octane avgas it replaced, not in some absolute or objective sense. It contains more lead than automotive gasoline back when autogas still contained lead.

While it's nice there's finally some progress made in unleaded high octane avgas (G100UL), from a public health perspective it's not a huge issue compared to many other sources of lead in the environment.

Santa Clara tried to ban leaded av gas and the rich pilots complained and got the FAA to step in

A bunch of land owners/developers and some subset of the government in Santa Clara wanted to kick out the airport so the land could be developed and to make the surrounding land more valuable. Killing all the GA traffic based out of there would do the trick. Banning the fuel would kick out GA. Don't pretend that it was some altruistic pursuit. They only went after the lead because it has a ton of existing ideological baggage they thought they could capitalize on. The FAA looked at the big picture and laughed at them.

> Not gonna lie,

Do you normally?

> a hobby for rich peopl

Most flying is neither a hobby nor done by rich people.

Most flying is done in airliners (at least in passenger-miles), whose engines don't benefit from any lead.

On the other hand, smaller, piston-engine aircrafts are overwhelmingly a hobby for relatively wealthy people, where leaded avgas is commonplace.

This is just anecdotal, but in the aerodrome near where I live, I'd be surprised if less than 90% of the flights are leisure flights.

This is just not true. The vast majority of hours flown (and fuel burned) are for commercial purposes. These are real money-making enterprises, not some rich persons play thing.

I think you've misread me.

Avgas utilizing planes are not simply rich people's play thing. The vast majority of hours flown in these planes are for commercial, money making purposes. They are operated by real businesses that earn profits and should be able to afford the transition to non leaded gas.

> Public safety agencies, however, which account for one-quarter of piston-engine planes registered with the Federal Aviation Administration, are “likely to consume more than half of all the avgas used by the fleet,” according to the January National Academy of Sciences report. These agencies often include law enforcement and firefighting aircraft that need to reliably stay aloft through rapid changes in temperature, pressure and altitude. Personal and recreational flyers make up the remaining three-quarters of planes and consume the other half of leaded gas.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

So roughly 50% of the leaded fuel is used in personal/leisure flights in the US. I wouldn't consider the other 50% anywhere close to "the vast majority", and from the source, and it's largely safety and rescue.

Moreover, demand is expexted to grow precisely because of leisure and high net-worth personal use[0].

Now, unless you include business trips of rich people as "money making business", there are very few commercial fights otherwise, serving mostly remote, low demand areas.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/aviation-gasoline-avgas-marke...