- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
In particular, whatever politicians say, the Republican-controlled House has a rider in the FAA authorization bill which requires airports to continue selling leaded fuel for propeller aircraft forever:
The House version of the bill would require airports that receive federal grants to continue selling the same fuels they sold in 2018 in perpetuity.
While the Democratically-controlled Senate requires a phase-out:
The Senate version would require these airports to continue selling the same fuels they sold in 2022, with a sunset date of 2030 or whenever unleaded fuels are “widely available.”
For context, the FAA approved sale of unleaded fuel for all propeller planes last year, and there are local efforts to ban the sale of leaded fuel in locations where the unleaded fuel is now available
You must log in or register to comment.
What a weird thing to fight over. The Democrat policy seems reasonable.
That said, I don’t know how many propeller aircraft we actually have so I don’t know how much of an impact leaded fuel actually has, but i don’t see a good reason to continue using it.
What a weird thing to fight over. The Democrat policy seems reasonable.
Well yeah that’s pretty par for the course. Republicans don’t have policy, they have “bull rampaging through a China shop screaming that it brought the ball, it owns it, and is taking its ball home, so nobody can play”
All thile yelling that’s it’s you who’s destroying the China shop and about how you didn’t stop them from destroying the China shop.
This is for personal aircraft, so there are thousands.
So probably minimal impact. It seems weird that it’s so divisive then. How about no federal requirements or restrictions on leaded fuel for aircraft, but instead throw on a tax to encourage switching? That sounds pretty reasonable to me, and given that the environmental impact is pretty low, that’s about all the government should need to do.
It was a problem for cars because of how many there were, but I’m not aware of any issues with the scale of these aircraft. But maybe I’m missing something.
It’s enough to be a big deal for communities near airports. Probably half or more of lead exposure if you live under the low-altitude landing/take-off areas
I read this article about it, and it’s a much bigger problem than I thought. Imo, given this, the Republican option is untenable, but the Democrat solution is probably not fair either.
The goal imo should be a dramatic reduction in leaded fuel use until an alternative is available, not a fixed time in years. So perhaps airports could be allocated certain amount of leaded fuel or leaded fuel takeoffs per day, and that amount would be set based on the population within a 1 mile radius of the airport.
To me that seems the most reasonable. I don’t know if a fuel can be made available by 2030, I don’t think banning all takeoffs is acceptable, and forcing airports to allow it is certainly unacceptable.
The thing about unleaded aviation gas is that its availability is regional right now. You can buy it in some parts of California, but not everywhere yet. Somebody needs to light a fire under the refiners to make them produce it, and a deadline is a good way to do that.
It’s one way, another way to is reduce demand, either by taxing the crap out of leaded fuel or by restricting how much of it airports are allowed to sell.
Setting a deadline just delays the fight because refineries know they can postpone the drama for another few years. Let’s say they already know how to make unleaded aviation fuel with enough octane for these older engines, but that it’s more expensive to produce, why would they make it available before the deadline? Just keep producing the old fuel until the last possible moment.
The Senate version does one more thing besides setting a deadline: it requires airports to switch to unleaded fuel when it becomes available. For any location served by more than one refinery, that creates a powerful financial incentive to shift: if you don’t, your competitors might, and take a market away from you.
I’d say it’s well-designed
They doing rebates for gas stoves in Florida.
What does this have to do with leaded fuel in aircraft?
Tax incentive to switch the bad way.
It’s also a solvable problem. Here’s an example of a local flight school which was able to switch from leaded to a lead-free alternative this year.
Not all piston aircraft can run that fuel, but I err heavily on the side of not just accepting some level of lead exposure.
I don’t understand why it’s 2030 vs the end of time? Pick a date if you don’t like 2030.
Or maybe they like the idea of seeing less wealthy kids exposed to lead. Kind of like cutting the amount of money for SNAP or school lunches so that kids will go hungry and not be able to learn.
For context, the house version requires the fuel currently available to stay available in perpetuity, because if it’s banned seven years from now, somebody somewhere will crash and fucking die trying to use an incompatible fuel…
Would you support a 7 year phase out of unleaded in favor of some new geewiz crap that will destroy the car you bought last week? The house version is an attempt to maintain support for some small aircraft owners.
The Senate version completely disregards that small minority in favor of Karen. There’s some merit in the fact that the aircraft industry has had like half a fucking century to do the right thing and didn’t, and if we want to talk about some sanctions on the people who’ve built and sold the aircraft that can’t operate safely without lead for the past fifty years because reasons, I’m pretty on board with that actually, but chopping the lifespan of a brand new small aircraft down to seven years is kinda fucked up. I’d be pissed if a law did that with my car.
A ban on manufacturing of lead requiring engines would be infinitely more reasonable… 30 years ago… that’s the god damned takeaway here, this is knee jerk bullshit trying to fix something that needed attention decades ago. Somebody file a lawsuit against everyone who was building lead required engines from like 1990 to now.
The FAA approved an unleaded fuel last year which serves all small aircraft designed to run on leaded fuel. It’s in use locally, and it doesn’t destroy those older aircraft, and lets them stop damaging the brains of kids who are exposed to the lead that drifts down from the planes.
So no, there isn’t some magic end-of-life for some aircraft due to this. Instead, refiners will start delivering the new fuel so that they don’t lose their market.
Oh… I like you :)
So the Senate is looking to implement a ban that already exists in California and has viable options included already, and the house is doing… what? Trying to help that small group save money maybe?
I’ll switch sides based on that article you linked. Original one didn’t say jack about a viable alternative already existing, and it seems like that little bit of data changes the whole thing just a tad…
Wildly ignorant take.
Weirdest virtue signal I’ve ever witnessed
Not sure “virtue” is the right word here.
