The Long, Twisted and Slightly Ridiculous Story of Avgas Part 2

For decades, the general aviation industry has struggled with finding a replacement for leaded avgas without success. The biggest driver of this failure is that there's no reason to do so because the industry has been given an exemption to continue using lead.
In this second of a two-part series, AVweb's Paul Bertorelli explains how industry inertia and bureaucratic foot dragging killed efforts to eliminate lead from aviation fuel. See the first part of the series here:
• The Long, Twisted And ...
For an excellent overview on leaded fuel in the wider world, see Veritasium's excellent video on the topic.
• The Man Who Accidental...

[@racries8708]

Incredible two-part report! Once again Paul kills it in education and entertainment!

[@biffaplayz]

9:55

[@noelwade]

Thanks so much, Paul! Would it be greedy to ask for a "Part 3" highlighting which congress-critters and FAA addresses we should bombard / put pressure on? I'm as cheap and as momentum-driven as any other pilot out there, but let's get a solution to this so we can move on to other challenges! 😕

[@chrisruf7590]

GAMI seems to have this issue solved, so WHY is EAGLE asking us to delay 8 MORE YEARS? Is it just the established suppliers want to protect their market for another decade?

[@Luvurenemy]

This is like a documentary on the Amazon rainforest. All the little critters feeding off of one another. Using camouflage and dominance displays while secretly colluding under the forest floor in relative harmony. Now GAMI, a new organism, gets deposited onto the forest floor from a freak hurricane. All the organisms scramble to protect their interests while adapting to a possible new reality.

[@billsmith5166]

Paul is one of the best presenters on KZbin. He is a special talent.

[@tennesseered586]

"A slow motion noise machine." As a long-time observer of the FAA, it's business as usual. Thank goodness we don't get all the government we pay for. Informative and entertaining, Paul.

[@archilot9354]

Always very well researched reporting by Paul. What a pro!

[@gacmyver]

$6,99 a gallon of AVGAS? Lucky you… In Germany we pay about $11 per gallon at the moment… :D

[@jheathanderson]

Together with Part 1, an excellent primer on a fairly complex and long-lived case example on the political economy of general aviation. Nice work, Mr. Bertorelli.

[@HappyDuude]

Great reporting, with a depressing outcome. Fundamentally it feels like there are no significant penalties to the FAA for not making a decision. It's extremely frustrating - in the corporate world it's so common internally instead of saying 'no/yes' to something, it's 'we need more data'. The difference being in the corporate world, if something is a big enough priority someone eventually either gets bitten for feet dragging or promoted for pushing. The FAA in this case seems to only see downsides of making a change, with limited upsides that would bring the agency itself any benefits.

[@emileeloimillius]

What a great pedagogical humor Paul’s gifted with! Fantastic teacher.

[@peterandersson3812]

Clear and concise: well worth watching. It could be mentioned that in Europe, where the majority of GA doesn’t use high-power engines, unleaded AVGAS is available. Most 160/180 hp Lycoming engines run just fine on 91UL AVGAS. Better, in fact: the engines are cleaner ans the spark plugs are less clogged up.

[@daszieher]

Having been on a national fuels standard committee for over a decade and a half and having driven an at least partial reduction of sulphur content against the industry (of which I still form part) I can imagine how this is going to play out.

[@user60521123]

The oil companies are so powerful that the government doesn’t even behave like a government. You hit the nail on the head: Continuing to produce Avgas is profitable and developing new technologies is so costly that for-profit companies that they aren’t going to make a serious investment. Government has to do it; they used to do it, but won’t now. I think energy is all forms needs to be expropriated and state run. It won’t solve all the problems, but will solve the major ones.

[@kentd4762]

Thanks again, Paul, for keeping up on this slowly-evolving situation and making it available to us. All the best and smooth sailing to you.

[@truckerallikatuk]

Would be amusing to see what would happen if the EPA turned around and banned lead in avgas, then said "You guys have had 30 years to figure out a fix, now deal with it."

[@aldenconsolver3428]

That was excellent, I'm not even GA involved these days but that kind of clear profiling of how things get done is a great help to everybody.

[@K0S0s]

I was secretly hoping this was about GAMI the whole time. I love their work and agree that its absurd that it is taking so long.

[@bobteter4300]

Paul, great presentation. I wrote a short article on the History of AVgas for Air Facts Journal. My article pales in comparison to your presentation. You put a lot of effort into it and it shows.