[ultrarunner]

I don’t think that an unleaded fuel is 100% ready to go, but you’re absolutely right that the FAA is a huge reason why. My plane is certified for 80/87 (a fuel no longer produced) but the paperwork involved means I’ll just keep burning 100LL for the foreseeable future. With all the engine damage that incurs.

[garbagewoman]

Choosing to burn a fuel that poisons everyone around you just to avoid some paperwork is an incredible feat of individualistic thinking

[ultrarunner]

I'm sure you wouldn't throw stones from a glass house. Either way, I suspect you're reading what I wrote as "well, this is easier and I don't care enough to put in the effort." Conversely, there is currently no realistic (not to mention safe) path forward. I am subject to significant and rigid regulation that precludes any other action. My comment was intended to point out the absurdity of the situation in the hope that awareness can lead to change.

Aviation is currently going through a chicken & egg situation much like the electric vehicle charging network. Unfortunately, it's hampered by regulatory inertia. To blame that on an individual is wildly counterproductive.

[AnthonyMouse]

It seems more like an incredible feat of bureaucratic perverse incentives. How is the thing that poisons people the default and the thing that doesn't is what requires specific government-imposed costs?

[Scoundreller]

And for some aircraft, the only thing stopping you from legally switching to automotive gas is writing a cheque for a certificate.