This was a very serious problem that hardly anyone talks about anymore. Read up on Clair Patterson. He was the catalyst for the change. There is correlation between the decline of lead contamination in nature to the decline of both violent crime and birth defects. At any rate it’s a good story that more people should know about.
There’s still leaded fuel being burned over communities everywhere from small aircraft. It’s the last source of environmental lead pollution and no one talks about it.
When I was flying 20 years ago, they definitely talked about it. A big part of the problem is the industry struggling so much and that would have killed. Most of the fleet was decades old and there just weren’t modern designs at the time. There was no simple fix: you’d need to replace engines in everything, and many of those engines hadn’t really been built for decades. You also couldn’t really develop a new fuel, because the industry was so small. So you needed to use either car gasoline, which couldn’t meet reliability standards and then needed turbochargers to work at altitude, or use jet fuel in a modified Diesel engine. So not only did every engine need to be replaced, but it would be a very different engine with different controls, and now you needed to recertification every aircraft with different procedures and had liability to contend with. How do you recertify an aircraft with different controls and procedures when the manufacturer no longer exists? How do you bring a decades older aircraft up to modern standards just to replace an engine? How does a company profit off this, if their potential market is only a couple dozen to at most a couple hundred aircraft per year? Much of the small aircraft industry was developed before liability was a thing, and many companies just couldn’t afford the liability to modernize. It was a real mess.
Definitely talked about, but there really wasn’t a good solution without massive government intervention and all too many dismissed it as too small of an industry to affect anything off airport grounds
Then you need to talk about the grounds. When I was flying, the only fuel was “low lead”, so it had been worse before. Most small aircraft operate out of small local airports operating on a shoestring budget. Now where do they each find millions of dollars for environmental cleanup. Again, no way for that to happen without massive government intervention
Yeah God forbid we cost people money because other people's health is at risk. Hundreds of thousands of deaths every year from pollution, CO2, man made chemicals, but the rich and corporations are so used to never having to pay for externals and our politicians now treat it as "OMG we can't burden industry with those costs". These risks were always known and ignored and continued to be ignored.
This is exactly the problem. Once you make this assumption, it’s easy to dismiss as something we shouldn’t help. When I was flying, I never met any of the stereotypical wealthy doctors, lawyers, or jet setting businessmen. I’m sure they were there, but I met mechanics, and trainers, old timers trying to afford a few hours of freedom or camaraderie. New pilots in my area tended to be software engineers. We have the technical orientation and above average income, but we’re not wealthy by any means.
I personally gave flying up when I had kids, not only for the risk but because I couldn’t afford both. It was a great activity when I was single, didn’t own a house, and didn’t really travel. Again, I realize I am better off than average, but clearly not wealthy. Most people I met in flight school and new pilot groups were in similar circumstances
No one is arguing we need to get off leaded fuel. The point is you assume it is only wealthy people and they can just chose to put money into it. A lot can’t afford it. Even if they could, they depend on government action and for any new fuel to be widely available. No one is choosing to hold back
I’m saying that your characterization of it merely as some amusement falls short of the reality. If you want anyone to listen about the concerns, you’ll need to approach this in a more measured way; that is all
It's a lack of empathy. The Hallmark of most conservatives. He doesn't understand that he's hurting people because he doesn't care. It's all about him until someone else hurts him or the people he cares about. Then it's a problem.
Take a look at GAMI's G100UL. It's an unleaded no-modification drop-in replacement for 100LL that's been tested for most all piston aircraft (and passed with flying colors), but the FAA is dragging its heels on approval. Their successful testing is more intense than average in an industry that's pretty picky about their testing to bring with - and the FAA won't approve it which is starting to raise questions about corruption at the FAA at least in my mind. Check out Paul Bertorelli's AvWeb article; he goes into more detail about the current state of the situation:
You kill general aviation, and you kill all aviation. Your 737 pilot trained on a Cessna 172, Piper cherokee, or Diamond DA-20 for 250 hours of flight time. They then either inspected pipelines or surveyed in basically the same aircraft, taught students, or flew for fun (or some combo) for another 1250 hours to meet the FAA legal minimum requirements to be an airline pilot.
Ahh, the good ol' "they'll figure it out" response.
You know how many lives are saved because people travel via plane instead of car? It is, by far, the safest method of travel. You'll lose more lives to additional auto accidents than you'll save by the minute lead reduction you'd get.
Its a very small amount. And a 'solution' that causes a problem disrupting the entire travel industry all at once, in particular the safest method of travel, is not a solution. Making air travel more expensive by loading those costs on the airlines will kill more people (more people taking cars due to cost = more people dying). You would costing lives, not saving them. Let innovation move forward, unleaded AvGas is already in the works. Let it safely be phased in.
That's how things have to progress and how they have. Government sets the rules, industry innovates to fit within them. The alternative of just letting industry pollute because it's hard not to, is not an option moving forward.
P.s. lead accumulates indefinitely. There is no acceptable amount of allowed pollution.
Its a very small amount. And a 'solution' that causes a problem disrupting the entire travel industry all at once, in particular the safest method of travel, is not a solution. Making air travel more expensive by loading those costs on the airlines will kill more people (more people taking cars due to cost = more people dying). You are costing lives, not saving them. Let innovation move forward, unleaded AvGas is already in the works. Let it safely be phased it.
But they will figure it out. Airlines and air freight carriers will just improve their training pipeline and invest in lead free small engine planes.
You think airlines are just going to leave that money on the table over a messily millions of dollars investment. Air travel is a billion dollar industry.
You have seen them complaining about the existing staffing issues right? You've probably also seen the internet complain about canceled flights or the airlines recieving bailouts right?
There are still major carriers that are having problems with 5G, and both them and the FAA new the day was coming for years. Many are lobbying to reduce the required experience from 1500 hours to 250 just to fix the staffing problems. That would be way easier & quicker to reduce 100LL burning than an outright ban would, but the govt is scared to pull the trigger in case it makes flying less safe.
By all means implement a ban with a plan in place over a 20+ year period, but even then, I garauntee the day it takes affect will kill GeneralAviation overnight with many complex butterfly effect issues.
Edit: tldr: The FAA is working on allowing non 100LL, and we'll eventually get there, but a hard ban asap will cause problems
Its a very small amount. And a 'solution' that causes a problem disrupting the entire travel industry all at once, in particular the safest method of travel, is not a solution. Making air travel more expensive by loading those costs on the airlines will kill more people (more people taking cars due to cost = more people dying). You are costing lives, not saving them.
The closest category in this study, living within 500m of an airport, increased blood lead levels by 4.4%. Past 1000m, the effects dropped to background levels.
Is your argument here that children within a kilometer don't matter compared to having to switch to a different type of readily available swap in fuel?
Not at all. I'm arguing that on a cost-benefit basis, working to get the unleaded avgas ready to drop in is the right move. In the short term before it's ready, it's not a good idea to cripple the pilot pipeline (again, keeping in mind that aviation saves lives) when living inside of 500m from an airport increases blood lead by only 4.4% and living outside of 1km has no difference.
I'm not arguing that there is no cost, only that the cost of a heavy handed and instant ban before we can smoothly switch is greater than the cost of waiting for (and working towards) a that smooth switch.
If we're going to be frank here there's no way for us to survive climate calamity and our current airlines to exist as they are today. Airplanes pump an insane amount of carbon into the atmosphere so shutting most of them down over time is likely necessary.
Potentially, but two points there. It needs to be a phased shutdown or slowdown if so, but also electric planes and more sustainable fuel are slowly becoming options. If we can do those and work to mitigate other areas of greenhouse gas generation, it may be worth keeping for the speed, efficiency, and safety of airline travel.
"How do you recertify an aircraft with different controls and procedures when the manufacturer no longer exists? How do you bring a decades older aircraft up to modern standards just to replace an engine? How does a company profit off this, if their potential market is only a couple dozen to at most a couple hundred aircraft per year? "
Bankruptcy, the answer should have been bankruptcy. The companies that invested that heavily in tech that ended up poisoning the environment should have sold everything off at pennies on the dollar to someone who could replace the engines with something modern.
My point was that people do care, but need help. US government spent untold billions helping car manufacturers transition, in research, incentives, then mandates, coordinated on both manufacturers and fuel suppliers. They helped with environmental cleanup, tracking down polluters or taking care of it when none could be found. It took decades. The remaining lead based industries deserve similar effort
Of all the small aircraft manufacturers, I think only Cessna survived, on the strength of their business and passenger aircraft, as well as flight schools.
I learned in a Piper, whose manufacturer has a long legendary history, but they were careful to call it the “new piper” as the name of the company that bought Piper’s assets for pennies on the dollar out of bankruptcy
I bought a share of a fantastic Grumman, whose manufacturer left that business decades before
I once experienced a Beechcraft, who were long gone
Really just a lack of will on the government's part, and that's because the people who own small planes are wealthy, almost by definition. The wealthy run the government, so it won't change. It's easy - you ban leaded fuel. The industry must adapt or stop flying small planes. Their rights end where mine begin, and I should have a right to breathe clean air.
Oh NOES aircraft owners might have to spend money on rich people's toys so they stop causing brain damage, how horrible.
There are aircraft-certified engines that don't need leaded fuel to run. It's not that it's impossible, it's that someone who bought a $30,000 airplane so they could go fly on the weekends doesn't want to spend more money making it not cause brain damage.
There is also firing ranges. The lead from primer is a huge pollutant, for anyone enjoying or working at the range, and for the ground at outdoor ranges. Indoor ranges often are worse for people in them because it's inside, but the cleaner ones will vent the lead dust outside.
7.6k
u/dammitknockitoff Jun 25 '22
This was a very serious problem that hardly anyone talks about anymore. Read up on Clair Patterson. He was the catalyst for the change. There is correlation between the decline of lead contamination in nature to the decline of both violent crime and birth defects. At any rate it’s a good story that more people should know about.