Analysis | The FAA reauthorization bill would preserve a future for leaded gas
wapo.st
Also in today’s edition: The Interior Department’s fourth approval of a large offshore wind project, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to launch a new review of ozone standards.

In particular, whatever politicians say, the Republican-controlled House has a rider in the FAA authorization bill which requires airports to continue selling leaded fuel for propeller aircraft forever:

The House version of the bill would require airports that receive federal grants to continue selling the same fuels they sold in 2018 in perpetuity.

While the Democratically-controlled Senate requires a phase-out:

The Senate version would require these airports to continue selling the same fuels they sold in 2022, with a sunset date of 2030 or whenever unleaded fuels are “widely available.”

For context, the FAA approved sale of unleaded fuel for all propeller planes last year, and there are local efforts to ban the sale of leaded fuel in locations where the unleaded fuel is now available

  • aelwero@lemmy.world
    534·
    1 year ago

    For context, the house version requires the fuel currently available to stay available in perpetuity, because if it’s banned seven years from now, somebody somewhere will crash and fucking die trying to use an incompatible fuel…

    Would you support a 7 year phase out of unleaded in favor of some new geewiz crap that will destroy the car you bought last week? The house version is an attempt to maintain support for some small aircraft owners.

    The Senate version completely disregards that small minority in favor of Karen. There’s some merit in the fact that the aircraft industry has had like half a fucking century to do the right thing and didn’t, and if we want to talk about some sanctions on the people who’ve built and sold the aircraft that can’t operate safely without lead for the past fifty years because reasons, I’m pretty on board with that actually, but chopping the lifespan of a brand new small aircraft down to seven years is kinda fucked up. I’d be pissed if a law did that with my car.

    A ban on manufacturing of lead requiring engines would be infinitely more reasonable… 30 years ago… that’s the god damned takeaway here, this is knee jerk bullshit trying to fix something that needed attention decades ago. Somebody file a lawsuit against everyone who was building lead required engines from like 1990 to now.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      34·
      1 year ago

      The FAA approved an unleaded fuel last year which serves all small aircraft designed to run on leaded fuel. It’s in use locally, and it doesn’t destroy those older aircraft, and lets them stop damaging the brains of kids who are exposed to the lead that drifts down from the planes.

      So no, there isn’t some magic end-of-life for some aircraft due to this. Instead, refiners will start delivering the new fuel so that they don’t lose their market.

      • aelwero@lemmy.world
        4·
        1 year ago

        Oh… I like you :)

        So the Senate is looking to implement a ban that already exists in California and has viable options included already, and the house is doing… what? Trying to help that small group save money maybe?

        I’ll switch sides based on that article you linked. Original one didn’t say jack about a viable alternative already existing, and it seems like that little bit of data changes the whole thing just a tad…