EPA Eyes 2023 for Leaded Fuel Endangerment Finding...AIN

[Mooneymite]

EPA Eyes 2023 for Leaded Fuel Endangerment Finding

by Kerry Lynch

 - January 14, 2022, 9:54 AM

 

 

After holding off on a proposed endangerment finding on piston-aircraft emissions from leaded fuel for most of the past decade, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week laid out a timeline for such action. The agency said such a proposal could be released this year, with a final finding in 2023.

A determination that emissions from leaded fuel contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare lays the groundwork for an outright ban on leaded fuel. “Protecting children’s health and reducing lead exposure are interlocking priorities at the core of EPA’s agenda,” said EPA administrator Michael Regan in announcing the timeline on Wednesday.

“EPA has been investigating the air quality impact of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft near airports for years, and now we’re going to apply that information to determine whether this pollution endangers human health and welfare,” he added. The EPA points out that although airborne lead in the U.S. has dropped 99 percent since 1980, piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded fuel are the largest remaining source of leaded emissions.

For years, environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth have pushed the EPA to issue an endangerment finding. The EPA had initially planned on 2018 for such a finding as the general aviation community in concert with the FAA had collaborated on a Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI) that had targeted the development of a new unleaded standard.

[N201MKTurbo]

[N201MKTurbo]

I like amber. Not as much as blue, but its still OK.

[McMooney]

GRRRRR, wish they just get on with it. 

Phase out the lead and just move the heck on

[A64Pilot]

On 1/14/2022 at 8:26 PM, McMooney said:

GRRRRR, wish they just get on with it. 

Phase out the lead and just move the heck on

If they could have, they would have. The issue is the big bore turbo motors just can’t do without, and apparently even though they are a minority of aircraft, they burn the most fuel.

I’m awfully sure that leaded aviation fuel has been refined illegally since the mid 70’s when leaded fuel was outlawed, no provision was made to exclude aviation. Yes I agree the law meant Auto fuel and apparently so did the Guvment cause of course 50 years later we still have it.

[cujet]

5 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

 

I’m awfully sure that leaded aviation fuel has been refined illegally since the mid 70’s when leaded fuel was outlawed, no provision was made to exclude aviation. 

It has always been the FAA's position that the FAA has authority on all things aeronautical. I suspect the FAA and EPA will have a urine distance contest of epic proportions on this one. 

Clearly, the FAA can argue that inadequate octane due to misfueling will result in actual lives lost due to catastrophic engine failure. 

[ReconMax]

So, what is the implication for us Mooney drivers? If leaded fuel were outlawed tomorrow an unobtainable, what would/could we do? I've seen some references to some planes having automotive gas STCs, but I don't know enough about the various engine models to know which ones are suitable to run unleaded gasoline. Frankly, I'm not even sure today's unleaded gasoline is suitable for my lawnmower. I've heard that the ethanol is a problem. 

[0TreeLemur]

55 minutes ago, ReconMax said:

So, what is the implication for us Mooney drivers? If leaded fuel were outlawed tomorrow an unobtainable, what would/could we do? I've seen some references to some planes having automotive gas STCs, but I don't know enough about the various engine models to know which ones are suitable to run unleaded gasoline. Frankly, I'm not even sure today's unleaded gasoline is suitable for my lawnmower. I've heard that the ethanol is a problem. 

Some kind MSer posted a list of Lycoming engine designations and their minimum octane requirements.  Many Lycoming engines are approved for 94UL.   There is another thread on this topic where that list was posted.

[1980Mooney]

50 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

Some kind MSer posted a list of Lycoming engine designations and their minimum octane requirements.  Many Lycoming engines are approved for 94UL.   There is another thread on this topic where that list was posted.

But the IO360A series used in J models is not approved for Swift 94UL. Nor are the Continental’s in the K, R or S. Certainly not the Acclaim. I think they believe G100UL will be widely available soon. I think GAMI and Swift already said to expect it to cost at least $1 more than 100LL. I’d wager that piston Aviation fuel will be averaging around $7 a gallon nationwide by 2023–24.

Edited January 31, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[chriscalandro]

They can eye whatever they want. The FAA won’t have it though. 

[0TreeLemur]

Lycoming Service Instruction 1070AB is the document I'm referring to @ReconMax.   It covers more fuel types.

SI1070AB Specified Fuels.pdf

[Hank]

6 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

They can eye whatever they want. The FAA won’t have it though. 

Yes, it will be a territory fight between Federal agencies. FAA claims anything having to do with flight.

[ReconMax]

14 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

But the IO360A series used in J models is not approved for Swift 94UL. Nor are the Continental’s in the K, R or S. Certainly not the Acclaim. I think they believe G100UL will be widely available soon. I think GAMI and Swift already said to expect it to cost at least $1 more than 100LL. I’d wager that piston Aviation fuel will be averaging around $7 a gallon nationwide by 2023–24.

So, will the IO-360-A3B6 run on G100UL? If so, is it expected to be problematic? 

Hmmm, just read the Gami G100UL Avgas slide deck. 

https://gami.com/g100ul/G100UL EAA Mike Busch seminar.pdf

 

This is interesting...

[RobertGary1]

On 1/31/2022 at 7:36 AM, ReconMax said:

So, will the IO-360-A3B6 run on G100UL? If so, is it expected to be problematic? 

Hmmm, just read the Gami G100UL Avgas slide deck. 

https://gami.com/g100ul/G100UL EAA Mike Busch seminar.pdf

 

This is interesting...

The difference in weight won’t mean much to the Mooney but in smaller aircraft it may be a big deal. In the r-22 the curve for being able to hover by weight is steep. 5 pounds in the summer makes the difference 

[cujet]

It is not just the "big bore turbos" that require high octane. Any flavor of angle valve lycoming will require 100 octane. In fact, angle valve Lyc's can detonate on 100LL in some conditions. 

An IO360 angle valve flying during a Connecticut winter, at full rated power, can in fact detonate itself to death on 100LL. 

[carusoam]

Connecticut winter can also have a DA of minus 2k’ or so…

That might add a couple of inches of MP as well… if not actively controlled… 

Winter flying has some advantages…

Best regards,

-a-