Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Rep. Waxman Urges FAA Action on Leaded Avgas

By Stephen Pope / Published: Oct 25, 2012
Rate it! 0% or 100%

California Democrat Rep. Henry A. Waxman sent a letter this week to Michael Huerta, Acting FAA Administrator, urging him to “expand the use of unleaded fuels to reduce toxic lead emissions from general aviation aircraft,” particularly around airports located near residential areas.

With input from the EPA, the FAA has committed to developing a replacement for leaded fuel by 2018, although it could take another decade or longer to fully phase in a new fuel.

“General aviation fuel now accounts for half of the lead emissions in the United States,” Waxman wrote in the Oct. 23 letter. “It is a major concern for residents living near the Santa Monica Airport. The FAA says it has a plan for a new fuel to be available in a decade or so, but there are unleaded alternatives available now for the vast majority of small aircraft. The FAA needs to do more to promote their use. We need to get the lead out today.”

A California environmental group, Friends of the Earth, is pushing for the elimination of leaded avgas through petitions and legal action.

Comments (7) Post a comment

All Comments

David-J-Moritz@att.net's picture

Henery Waxman does not care about the health of the people in California or anywhere in the U.S. Henery Waxman only cares about getting Re-Elected to the House of Representatives.

RichardRJ's picture

Personally I think that the extremely high price of aviation fuel is doing a better job of reducing "harmful" emissions from private aircraft than hot air and ravings from some publicity seeking politician trying to get re-elected. Compared to the millions of cars and diesel trucks clogging the highways of California a few private aircraft has a miniscule effect on pollution

chong's picture

If Waxman's IQ was a big as his nostrils he could singlehandedly reformulate 100LL into 140UL. About the only thing this guy knows how to produce is CO2 and Methane along with nose hair. Californina can't you'all do any better than this?

twisberg's picture

Rep. Waxman is a corrupt politician of the worst kind. Sadly, the voters in his district are given things by him and re-elect him over and over again.

Lead from aircraft is so miniscule! Lead free gasoline is more about money, taxes, and so-called green energy rather than any fictional health concern.

Vote conservative and hope that we can trash can some of this junk science.

Biplane Pilot's picture

Frighteningly, uninformed and/or uninterested voters listen to people like Waxman, and the next thing you know petitions are signed and votes cast, and rules changed. So my question is, how do you get out in front of such misinformation? How do we build rapport and consensus with the non-flying residents that surround our airports?
I think calling politicians self-serving, while true, is ineffective and perhaps even redundant. Are PACs the only answer?

cujet's picture

My aircraft cannot use lower octane fuel. Unless we come up with a viable, high octane unleaded, this kind of political pressure will ground me. The last thing I need to worry about is an untested, unproven and risky new fuel, mandated by the political left. If the so called "green energy" track record (ethanol, for example) is any indication, I want no part of it in my aircraft.

Swift's 102UL looks very promising in the octane department, Gami's G100UL unleaded seems similar. However, if Embry-Riddle's, Daytona Beach, Florida winters are too cold for some "experimental" unleaded fuels... Clearly, more work needs to be done. And, we may have to face the reality that a direct 100LL replacement may not be easily possible.

Many on the political left seems to believe in alternative energy programs that have no basis in reality. Fanciful things such as "warp drive" and "powerful green energy batteries" are such a part of our culture, it's impossible for many of them to separate fact from fiction. The cold, hard reality, is that hydrocarbon fuel energy is unbeatable in practical applications. And any energy source has real, physical limitations that cannot be overcome. Mr. Waxman would do well to try to understand this.

kmisegades's picture

Flying left off the most important aspects of Congressman Waxman's letter. They did not even link to it! I was called by his transportation staffer and advised her on the role that mogas could play in lowering the cost of aviation and reducing lead emissions. Whether we pilots agree or not that lead is an issue, the public decided a long time ago that it is a health risk. As the last users of leaded fuel on the planet, we all have a big bull's eye on our backs and on our airplanes. I am a lifelong Conservative and would probably not agree with much from Mr. Waxman, but I give him credit for being the first member of Congress to actually do his research. I can not say the same for the leadership of the Congressional GA Caucus, who do nothing from what I can tell. Waxman's interest in mogas was a result of his efforts to help the FBOs at Santa Monica fend off lawsuits against leaded fuel, and to keep the airport open where my father once worked as a young engineer designing Douglas aircraft. Cut him some slack please, and read his letter:
http://waxman.house.gov/sites/waxman.house.gov/files/documents/UploadedF...

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use