Aviation Fuel--It took me by surprise, but where I live shouldn't have

[Hank]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

It's almost as bad as the people who bring politics into threads.

 

9 minutes ago, EricJ said:

That was included in my point.

So you don't want to discuss anything in aviation that is political? Like closing airports so developers can build there? Or FBOs receiving monopolies on services, with resulting high prices? Or how to help your home field apply for FAA loans? 

[MooneyMitch]

If we could attempt to keep political comments out of this, we stand a much better chance of prolonging this extremely relevant and timely thread........the closure of one of our major general aviation airports.

 Thank you.

[EricJ]

16 minutes ago, Hank said:

 

So you don't want to discuss anything in aviation that is political? Like closing airports so developers can build there? Or FBOs receiving monopolies on services, with resulting high prices? Or how to help your home field apply for FAA loans? 

All such topics can be discussed by reasonable people without making them political.   It appears to be beyond the capabilities of some here.

[jaylw314]

37 minutes ago, Hank said:

 

So you don't want to discuss anything in aviation that is political? Like closing airports so developers can build there? Or FBOs receiving monopolies on services, with resulting high prices? Or how to help your home field apply for FAA loans? 

I think most people use the word "political" incorrectly.  You are guilty of using the correct meaning of "political"--anything related to policy

For most common usage, people use the word "political" to refer to ideology rather than policy.

[Bravoman]

48 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

If we could attempt to keep political comments out of this, we stand a much better chance of prolonging this extremely relevant and timely thread........the closure of one of our major general aviation airports.

 Thank you.

The problem is is that you cannot discuss this in a vacuum without bringing politics into it. The closures and the problems that the OP started this thread about regarding the pending unavailability of fuel are driven by those who govern (and of course those who allow them to govern) and the policies they enact. I don’t think there is much utility in discussing a problem without discussing the root cause and potential solutions.

[EricJ]

16 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

I don’t think there is much utility in discussing a problem without discussing the root cause and potential solutions.

Except that people can't keep their political opinions out of it, and tend to express them as fact.   Some seem to not be able to tell the difference, and that makes it even worse.

Edited December 15, 2021 by EricJ

[Bravoman]

Eric, if you were referring to me, I am not stating a political opinion at all. I am stating facts. If it is not the policies of those that govern where the OP lives that are causing airport closures and the fuel supply to be turned off, what else can it be? I can  tell you with certainty that we don’t have such problems down my way. And I don’t think it is the difference in the weather. 

[MooneyMitch]

MSer's.

My point is to ask to please keep this thread alive without the political finger pointing, either way, which can easily result in shutting down a thread.  This thread is indeed important!

Yes, providing input and discussion, signing a keep your airport open petition, etc. ..................just anything that can have a positive effect on keeping this airport [or your airport] healthy!

My experience as a previous Vice President of California Pilots Association, airports are encroached upon with money as the root.  It begins with development around and near the airport [money driven], and winds up with the airport being destroyed for more development [more money].  RHV is no exception and a perfect example of what I've described.  And, it's not the first time RHV has been under attack for closure.  I hope this attempt is not successful either.  Do what you can to help!

 

[Ragsf15e]

We can talk about government policy, aviation policy, and differences from place to place without name calling, negativity, etc (ie “tracking in that blue”).  We can do it without blaming or finger pointing at the “other” side as there are both liberal and conservative pilots.  We will be better as a group with policy that works for all of us.  
 

These airports are being closed for financial reasons, and If we conservative minded people think that our traditional party is above an easy money grab, I think we’re seriously mistaken.  It just hasn’t become a financially viable thing to do in a conservative area yet.  Our best bet is to find good arguments and powerful allies (anyone in the FAA willing to do what’s right??).  And yes, an alternative to 100LL soonest would probably help, but Santa Monica didn’t use that tactic for the most part and the FAA has been giving in to them anyway.

[carusoam]

Use caution with any topic that leads to a complaint…

Too many complaints automatically turns into a thread lock-down…

Thread lockdowns break up the intent of the discussion of the fuel challenge…

 

Lots of people moving out to CA lately, heading to Austin…. Technology, nice weather, lower costs…. Good place to have a Mooney….

Best regards,

-a-

[Bolter]

An interesting read about airport closures in California, created by CalTrans, and seemingly they are in favor of keeping airports going.  

CalTrans Preliminary Investigation (PI-0277), Requested by Kevin Ryan, Division of Aeronautics Prepared by Kendra Stoll, Senior Librarian, Caltrans Library

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/preliminary-investigations/airport-closure-in-the-state-of-california-pi-a11y.pdf

Someone may want to talk to Kevin Ryan at CalTrans and see if he will help, and give guidance.  I think CalTrans has a lot of presence within Sacramento.

I am copying this excerpt, as it shows the magnitude of GA in California as an income producer, and should be a talking point if you are ever in discussions about GA with an average earth-bound individual.  Emphasis is mine...

----

Contribution of General Aviation to the US Economy in 2018, Price Waterhouse Cooper, LLC., 2020. https://nbaa.org/wp-content/uploads/advocacy/legislative-and-regulatory-issues/business-aviation-essential/General-Aviation-Contribution-to-the-US-Economy-20200219.pdf

This report was produced for the following organizations: Aircraft Electronics Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Experimental Aircraft Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Helicopter Association International, National Air Transportation Association, and National Business Aviation Association. It discovered that General Aviation was a strong contributor to the United States economy.

California From executive summary page E-1: At 148,300 jobs, California has the largest number of jobs directly or indirectly attributable to the general aviation industry. The top 10 states ranked by the total number of jobs attributable to general aviation (from the direct, indirect, induced, and enabled impacts) in 2018 were California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Arizona, Kansas, and Pennsylvania (Table E-2, below). Combined, these 10 states accounted for 53 percent of the total jobs attributable to general aviation in the US in 2018.

From executive summary page E-3: The total (direct, indirect, induced, and enabled) contribution of general aviation to GDP is largest in California at $18.5 billion. The top 10 states ranked by total GDP attributable to general aviation in 2018 were California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, New York, Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Kansas (Table E-4, below). These 10 states accounted for 56 percent of the total GDP attributable to general aviation in the US in 2018.

From page 13: General aviation’s total labor income impact ranges from a low of $112 million in Rhode Island to a high of $11.3 billion in California. The top 10 states in terms of total labor income supported were California ($11.3 billion), Florida ($6.4 billion), Texas ($5.5 billion), Georgia ($3.8 billion), New York ($3.4 billion), Ohio ($3.0 billion), Pennsylvania, ($2.9 billion), Kansas ($2.6 billion), Illinois ($2.2 billion), and North Carolina (2.2 billion).

[steingar]

There are STCs for burning auto gas.  I had one for my first airplane, but not my second.  I would think I could burn it in my C, but there's no STC.  There's STC's for Pipers, Cessnas, even one for some Bo's.  Bu none for the Mooney.  I suspect there's. good reason in that.

It's pretty academic at this point.  I can't get gas in my neck of the US without booze in it except at marinas, and they're quite pricey as well.

[MooneyMitch]

Speaking of fighting for, promoting and publicizing airports.........during our attempts at helping to keep Ocean Airport an airport several years ago, we were quickly coming up with ways to do so. 

One attempt was to put up a movie night in the airport campground.  We tried to put it up in March.......dummy me.......turns out that weekend was probably the only time snow ever fell in Oceano, CA.

A dear friend of mine created this caraciture that cracks me up to this day !!

[N201MKTurbo]

I just listened to an hour long show on NPR about the evils of lead.

We are all screwed. Now NPR is coming for our fuel...

[JWJR]

There are STCs for burning auto gas.  I had one for my first airplane, but not my second.  I would think I could burn it in my C, but there's no STC.  There's STC's for Pipers, Cessnas, even one for some Bo's.  Bu none for the Mooney.  I suspect there's. good reason in that.
It's pretty academic at this point.  I can't get gas in my neck of the US without booze in it except at marinas, and they're quite pricey as well.

I think the reason Peterson would not STC UL auto gas for C was a vapor lock issue. Anyway the swift 94UL and the 100UL currently in testing are ok for the C The upside is a promise of longer cylinder life and extended time between oil changes Down side is price. Just a dollar more is very optimistic. I’m not a scientist and I lean way far to the right, ( political affiliations) however from what I know or think I know about lead. If I had young children and lived within a 1/4 mile of an airport with lots of training in the pattern. I would move. Fingers crossed this 100UL is available soon and not overpriced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

3 minutes ago, JWJR said:

I think the reason Peterson would not STC UL auto gas for C was a vapor lock issue. Anyway the swift 94UL and the 100UL currently in testing are ok for the C The upside is a promise of longer cylinder life and extended time between oil changes Down side is price. Just a dollar more is very optimistic. I’m not a scientist and I lean way far to the right, ( political affiliations) however from what I know or think I know about lead. If I had young children and lived within a 1/4 mile of an airport with lots of training in the pattern. I would move. Fingers crossed this 100UL is available soon and not overpriced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even the NPR show said that lead levels in people and the environment are down 98% since the 70s. Back then your lead exposure was because you had a car or lived near a road, like the one in front of your house.

[carusoam]

Big problems were underground storage tanks of fuel… in the 70s…

the single wall tanks had no monitoring of their integrity…

Automotive fuel stations bled gasoline for years into local neighborhoods…

Local neighborhood water pumps delivered really interesting things in their water…

 

In modern times… it is much easier to accurately measure your exposure to lead in both air and water…

Living in a 100 year old house with lead paint dusting and falling off the walls… combined with asbestos insulation around the heater and pipes next to the laundry machines…. And lead pipes delivering the water to your house…

It was hard to be concerned about lead in the air by a passing plane….

 

So many home testing devices have become available over the years… for all of these concerns…

Lead affects brains differently depending on their age…. So I have read…

Remediation has been going on for decades…

It is taking time to get down the list….

PP thoughts only not an environmental engineer…

Best regards,

-a-

[steingar]

I doubt in the strongest possible terms that the lead in our fuel could cause any physiological lead poisoning in anyone.  the only cases of lead poisoning which I've ever heard were from kids eating lead paint. That, and lead leaching out of pewter.

[N201MKTurbo]

So the show on NPR started with a scientist trying to determine the age of the earth by looking at the uranium/lead ratio in old rocks. He was using a mass spectrometer to do the measurements. He found the lead levels were off the charts. There was lead everywhere. In the water, in his skin, in everybody's skin and hair. The background lead levels were throwing his measurements off. He started looking for where the lead was coming from. He finally looked at ice cores from the arctic and determined that there was no lead in the environment before 1936 and then there was a huge spike. That was the year they first started using leaded gasoline. The lead levels in the environment started reducing after 1973 when they started phasing out lead in gasoline. This scientist lead the movement to get lead completely out of the environment. He lead the RoHS movement. he wants to ban lead mining worldwide.

[Will.iam]

On 12/16/2021 at 1:24 PM, steingar said:

There are STCs for burning auto gas.  I had one for my first airplane, but not my second.  I would think I could burn it in my C, but there's no STC.  There's STC's for Pipers, Cessnas, even one for some Bo's.  Bu none for the Mooney.  I suspect there's. good reason in that.

It's pretty academic at this point.  I can't get gas in my neck of the US without booze in it except at marinas, and they're quite pricey as well.

Do you have buckeyee’s stations where you live? They sell 93 octane no ethanol gas at their pumps. About same price as premium fuel but well worth it for boat tanks storage for winter. 

[Yourpilotincommand]

On 12/8/2021 at 7:17 AM, Rusty Pilot said:

Sorry this is happening to the aviation community in CA, but other parts of the county are moving less rapidly against 100LL.  Hopefully we have a long time before we see that happen in VA and WV where I do most of my flying.  I am strongly committed to flying and would have to consider relocating.  TX is nice!

Shhh, don’t mention Tx.  We got enough problems with Californians moving here already. Austin is now screwed up and the wine grown here sucks!

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So the show on NPR started with a scientist trying to determine the age of the earth by looking at the uranium/lead ratio in old rocks. He was using a mass spectrometer to do the measurements. He found the lead levels were off the charts. There was lead everywhere. In the water, in his skin, in everybody's skin and hair. The background lead levels were throwing his measurements off. He started looking for where the lead was coming from. He finally looked at ice cores from the arctic and determined that there was no lead in the environment before 1936 and then there was a huge spike. That was the year they first started using leaded gasoline. The lead levels in the environment started reducing after 1973 when they started phasing out lead in gasoline. This scientist lead the movement to get lead completely out of the environment. He lead the RoHS movement. he wants to ban lead mining worldwide.

Yeah, there were good reasons that lead got banned from general gasoline use.    Once in the atmosphere it was pretty much coating the entire planet, and it's seriously toxic.   Got pulled out of house paint, too, and a bunch of other things for the same reasons.

Getting it out of avgas is way overdue.   Obviously it's still gonna take some time, but the forces pushing in that direction are increasing.

 

[jaylw314]

5 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So the show on NPR started with a scientist trying to determine the age of the earth by looking at the uranium/lead ratio in old rocks. He was using a mass spectrometer to do the measurements. He found the lead levels were off the charts. There was lead everywhere. In the water, in his skin, in everybody's skin and hair. The background lead levels were throwing his measurements off. He started looking for where the lead was coming from. He finally looked at ice cores from the arctic and determined that there was no lead in the environment before 1936 and then there was a huge spike. That was the year they first started using leaded gasoline. The lead levels in the environment started reducing after 1973 when they started phasing out lead in gasoline. This scientist lead the movement to get lead completely out of the environment. He lead the RoHS movement. he wants to ban lead mining worldwide.

Sadly, the one thing I recall about lead is that, unlike many other substances in the environment, there is no known safe level of exposure to lead in children (or adults, for that matter).  That doesn't mean that kids will go keeling over to a tiny exposure--the risk is still dose-dependent, but it never goes down to zero, and it means that any exposure that can be avoided will reduce risk to some degree.  The key debate, of course, is what amount of avoidance is reasonable.

We, of course, go under the argument that of the amount of lead industry in the world, aviation fuel is a tiny proportion.  I'd imagine the biggest lead industry out there is lead-acid batteries, and the biggest environmental exposure source is still old infrastructure--plumbing, paints, building materials, etc.  Those should be much higher priorities, but, unfortunately, I have zero data to back that up...

[steingar]

19 hours ago, Will.iam said:

Do you have buckeyee’s stations where you live? They sell 93 octane no ethanol gas at their pumps. About same price as premium fuel but well worth it for boat tanks storage for winter. 

Thanks for the tip, indeed I do.  Academic at the moment, again my aircraft isn't STC'd for mogas.  

[Hank]

34 minutes ago, steingar said:

Thanks for the tip, indeed I do.  Academic at the moment, again my aircraft isn't STC'd for mogas.  

It's not that you or I haven't purchased the STC for our planes, but that the STC doesn't cover them so we cannot.