United States | News & Politics

7578 readers

408 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

The FAA reauthorization bill would preserve a future for leaded gas (wapo.st)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] CADmonkey 5 points 2 years ago

So the Karen was in the cockpit the whole time...

[–] aelwero 4 points 2 years 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...