[JanSolo]

Didn't they just legalize unleaded avgas very recently? After a multi-decade regulatory review process? Seems odd that they were so hesitant to legalize it and now that they did, it becomes the only option!

[crazygringo]

Or it makes perfect sense. Once it's legal, what reason is there to keep the poisonous one around?

It's not odd, it's exactly what you'd expect. The only odd thing is that it took this long.

[TinyRick]

> Once it's legal, what reason is there to keep the poisonous one around?

Many (older) aircraft engines need leaded fuel.

[foxyv]

Mostly because the use of lead in fuels is something to avoid at all costs. I know a lot of GA people were VERY happy to hear that they approved G100UL. Leaded fuels aren't just toxic, but they also cause issues with airplanes such as lead fouling.

AVWeb did a couple videos on the subject here:

https://youtu.be/9F-WngVMJBQ?si=Qb_IYu4QwZlOTDCv

https://youtu.be/ovJBJjZTjsk?si=f2OwwZMmuEUTx6wL

[phkahler]

>> Didn't they just legalize unleaded avgas very recently?

More specifically, I believe they certified that a particular fuel as suitable for use in ALL engines that previously relied on leaded fuel. Until that happened there was a somewhat legit concern about banning leaded fuel. What people are afraid of now is a monopoly on the new fuel leading to higher prices. But there's already a near monopoly on leaded avgas.

It would be really cool if someone developed a new aircraft engine suitable for replacing all the old models and able to run on a wide range of fuels (this may actually exist). But even then its a slog to get that engine certified for all the planes you'd want to use it on.

[SoftTalker]

> What people are afraid of now is a monopoly on the new fuel leading to higher prices

If you can afford private aviation, the price of the fuel is not going to be a big concern. It's already $7-10/gallon and that is a pretty small component in the all-in hourly costs of operating an aircraft.

[marcosdumay]

> It would be really cool if someone developed a new aircraft engine suitable for replacing all the old models and able to run on a wide range of fuels

As a recent article here talked about, nobody is making new aircraft for general aviation. Or at least, nobody is making anything innovative for it.

But there exist plenty of engines that are good enough for planes and can run on a wide range of fuels. They are just not getting into GA planes.

[mchid]

There's literally a monopoly on 100LL so what's the difference?

[codexb]

The problem is that they won't approve engines for general aviation that use unleaded gas. All the engines used in general aviation are basically 60 year old designs. General aviation is not a major concern for the FAA. It's an afterthought. And so they don't devote any time to approving new, modern engines and make it as difficult as possible.

[phkahler]

>> The problem is that they won't approve engines for general aviation that use unleaded gas.

Except that they did approve a lead-free fuel for use in all those engines last year. Banning leaded fuel is the obvious next step.

[jabl]

Many, or even most, of the engines are indeed old designs. But e.g. Rotax offers certified version of some of its 900 series engines, which are a relatively new design, some with fuel injection, FADEC, etc.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

The FAA legalized unleaded avgas recently, yes. The EPA (the agency this article is about) was waiting for a legal alternative before banning leaded avgas. Since the EPA can't authorize a fuel for use in aviation (that's the FAA's jurisdiction) they had no choice but to wait on the FAA approval. Since the EPA can now ban the leaded fuel.

[Kapura]

The only odd part is that it took so long. Leaded gasoline has been known to be toxic for many, many decades.

[SomeHacker44]

Availability of the new unleaded fuel is extremely limited. It is also very expensive. I also believe there may be a fee involved per airplane to use it (one time for an STC). The fee I heard is nominal $250.

I have never flown to an airport with it yet. i have probably landed in over a dozen different airports in the last few months with a leaded gas engined plane.

[outworlder]

> I also believe there may be a fee involved per airplane to use it (one time for an STC). The fee I heard is nominal $250.

What is $250 in aviation terms? It's nothing.

Availability of fuel is a concern, sure. But a fire has to be lit on people's ass, otherwise they will not move.

[scarby2]

the requirement for the STC on a per-aircraft basis is now gone AFAIK. That was the effect of the FAA's "legalization" last year.

[TylerE]

The problem is, "legalizing" it is like 0.1% of the work. The hard part is all the testing/certification you have to do for every single aircraft and engine design.

[FireBeyond]

Except... certification is done: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/september/...

> The FAA signed on September 1 supplemental type certificates that allow General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s 100-octane unleaded fuel (G100UL) to be used in every general aviation spark-ignition engine and every airframe powered by those engines.

All piston engines and aircraft are certified for G100UL.

[tinus_hn]

It’s actually very easy if you are the government; you just say from 5 years from now, using lead fuel is banned. And then someone else has to do the work.

[mulmen]

The FAA recently approved unleaded avgas. The EPA never had a problem with unleaded gas.

[lazide]

It's a pretty dick move to ban something a large portion of the aviation community needs when there is literally no legal alternative no?

There is now a legal alternative. Working as intended.

[TSiege]

Dick move to ban am additive that we've known for over a century has terrible toxic affects on people and the environment from a machine that would release it into the air? Maybe there isn't an alternative, but maybe it doesn't matter?

Edit, looks like there is an alternative https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38040091