The FAA certification process is the largest limiting factor for bringing an unleaded fuel to the market. There are about 9 different formulations of unleaded fuels flying in experimental aircraft right now. I have my own "favorite", but it's unclear when, if ever, that will be available for sale to non-experimental aircraft.

The magazine article you reference says that 70% of aircraft could use (a lower octane) unleaded fuel available today. That's true, but paints an incomplete picture. That's 70% by aircraft, not 70% by flight hours or fuel consumed.

Cape Air and similar and other turbocharged piston aircraft are the ones that can't use the available unleaded "mogas". Those are also the aircraft that fly the most hours and thereby use the most fuel. Fixing the 172s and Cherokees doesn't move the needle much on TEL emissions.

I want to get rid of the lead from my aviation fuel, both for environmental reasons and for practical reasons. (Practically, it's a pain to deal with on the supply chain side, is expensive, there's only one manufacturer of TEL worldwide, it tends to gunk and foul plugs, etc.)

The FAA is the regulatory body that is presiding over this, much more than the EPA. End running the FAA to get the EPA to make another "lead is bad" proclamation won't do any good, IMO.

My engines can't burn any available and certified unleaded fuel.

AOPA lobbies to delay unleaded fuel at every opportunity [1] [2] [5]. Unleaded fuel is available now [3], but 10% of owners would have to spend some money to stop poisoning 3 million children [4].

[1] http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/April/01/Bi...

[2] http://www.agairupdate.com/article_detail.php?_kp_serial=000...

[3] http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/flying-time/transition-unlead...

[4] the link in my GP post

[5] http://blog.aopa.org/vfr/?p=870

That UL fuel that's "available now" [3] is available now in Sweden only and doesn't work for the 10% of engines that require 100 octane fuel, those 10% of engines likely consuming >50% of the avgas sold.

If it was a matter of spending some reasonable (say mid 5 figure per airplane) sum of money to burn a readily available UL fuel, I'd do it. I literally can't do that.

There is no current path to certification for me to run that 91/96UL here in the US. It's a technical problem (maintaining adequate detonation margins on a high/hot takeoffs), a regulatory problem (getting the airframe and engine certified for the fuel), and a market problem (getting that fuel sold at airports here in the US). You have to solve the first to get to the second. I believe there are several viable compounds/blends now in testing and we're on to the second phase: getting one or more of them certified by the FAA. Only once that's done is it viable to talk about banning or curbing TEL use. If there's one clear winning fuel, the adoption by the industry will be swift (no pun intended, as SWIFT is one of the contenders, though I don't believe a leading contender).

I don't read any of those three AOPA links as AOPA trying to "delay unleaded fuel" in any way, shape, or form. One is an objection to an increase of tax on avgas (certainly one of the things I/we pay AOPA to lobby against), and the other two are presentations describing the technical reasons avgas contains lead now and the status of initiatives underway to create an alternative, unleaded fuel.