Gee if only the FAA could have certified unleaded gas some time in the last 3 decades. It’s not like us GA enthusiasts enjoy depending on an expensive leaded gas.
[1] https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/september/...
Clearly it isn't okay to harm someone without their knowledge or consent.
(yes in some other countries)
IMHO, it'd be much better to have an explicitly adversarial and separately-funded dual-track system at such agencies, similar to how the justice system works.
E.g. FAA-Innovation (responsible only for their goal) makes their strongest case and presents research on why unleaded gas should be adopted ASAP. FAA-Safety (responsible only for their goal) makes their strongest case on why no change should be made.
All arguments and facts are published in public. Then higher-level decision makers arbitrate and make a call.
The root of all evil is that from a career perspective, "defer and take no action" is always safer for individuals in positions of regulatory authority. Worst case, something that's always been wrong explodes, and you blame it on the last person.
In the current blended safety+innovation system, it's too easy to obfuscate intentional inaction in endless "more study is needed" bullshit.
Having written this, it almost seems like too obvious of an idea to even post about...
For example, before they figured out how to sell and onboard SMBs, there was at least three teams working on solving that problem while I was there, including mine.
Once there was a “winner”, that team would get more funding (aka budget) and the people on the other teams tended to be absorbed into the winning team or would be repurposed onto other projects.
This wasn’t a codified, explicit operating system, but basically is how they worked for awhile (but I’m unsure how it works now.) The gist was to hire smart people and let them figure it out.
The exemption for leaded fuel in GA should have expired a long time ago. It's ridiculous that the FAA was allowed to keep punting this issue essentially forever, and the only reason a transition is happening now is because they finally decided to take responsibility for it, rather than because there was any legal requirement for it.
GA flying is important for a lot of industry, and a lot of remote communities. it might have taken some work, but they could have found a way to use unleaded fuel in airplanes in fewer than 50 years.
Hospitals. Nuclear power plants. Airports. Laboratories.
Those regulations don't apply to 1. existing installations in trucks or 2. generators.
With engine failures in aircraft however, the consequences can be way more dire - particularly in GA where it's (at least in the US) even being allowed to fly without a license at all (Part 103 ultralights), and forget about regular legit simulator training on what to do in that case.
Take your total load (10MW) divide by 5 (2MW) and you need 5 2MW generators, buy 7 and run 6/7 and your "down for yearly maintenance" generator can be offline while your "oh shit we installed the wrong fuel filter and the injectors clogged" generator also fails.
Much harder in a plane.
If there is a conspiracy I suspect it's the government exerts a light hand on things rich people do.
What surprises me is the refineries didn't tell the light aviation industry they weren't going to make leaded gas anymore. If they'd done that the Feds would have kicked them some cash to develop an unleaded version.
You can just add lead to unleaded gas (which was legal until 1996 in the US), so even if you could convince them to be altruistic in this way others could just work around it.
Aero engines run at a substantial fraction of their rated power output basically full time[0].
The fact that auto engines can be run on unleaded, lower octane gas at 10,000' or more doesn't really tell us that the same low octane unleaded gas is suitable for an aero application.
[0] And in some cases are rated for more power for limited lengths of time such as takeoff. See here, for example https://medium.com/s/story/the-long-way-round-the-plane-that...
About 11 thousand barrels of 100ll are produced every day in the US. Compare that to 4.9 million barrels of diesel daily, and you can see why it is a bigger priority. In this case 100ll is a literal drop in the bucket.
But also its a rich guy hobby that generally isn't very visible.
> the FAA has a statutory mandate to prescribe standards for the composition or chemical or physical properties of an aircraft fuel or fuel additive to control or eliminate aircraft emissions which the EPA has found endanger public health or welfare under section 231(a) of the Clean Air Act. In issuing these final findings, the EPA is making such a finding for emissions of lead from engines in covered aircraft.
Power tools run much better on it because it contains no ethanol.
My portable generator starts much more easily after sitting for a few months if I use AVGAS instead of what I buy at the pump. It's because the ethanol gums up the carbonator.