On Tuesday, as the company occasionally does when facing what it deems to be unfair treatment, SpaceX posted a lengthy update decrying the decision. According to the firm, the FAA had assured it that Starship would get the green light this month. It claims the rocket has been ready to fly since early August, an assertion CEO Elon Musk reiterated last week.

“Unfortunately, we continue to be stuck in a reality where it takes longer to do the government paperwork to license a rocket launch than it does to design and build the actual hardware,” the firm said. “This should never happen and directly threatens America’s position as the leader in space.”

With the ability to be used multiple times on the cheap, Starship is expected to be a game-changer for U.S. spaceflight. SpaceX wants to launch the rocket up to 120 times per year from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. Musk last week claimed the vehicle will reach Mars within two years.

SpaceX is also developing a Starship human landing system (HLS), a lunar lander variant of the spacecraft, for NASA’s Artemis III mission, which would return Americans to the moon for the first time in more than half a century. Starship will require a few more test flights before the mission, which is scheduled for late 2026.

That’s not much time, but SpaceX plans to get there using its philosophy of iterative design. Basically, the company puts flight hardware through real-world testing as often as possible to learn quickly and improve the chances of success on the next flight. The strategy helped it commercialize the now-ubiquitous Falcon rocket.

“The more we fly safely, the faster we learn; the faster we learn, the sooner we realize full and rapid rocket reuse,” SpaceX said.

Each Starship test flight has flown farther and accomplished more than the last. The fourth, in June, marked the first time both Starship and the Super Heavy booster made it back to Earth in one piece after the first two attempts ended in explosions.

Keeping with the trend, Flight 5 will feature the most ambitious goal yet. SpaceX will attempt to catch Super Heavy midair using two large “chopstick” arms, returning it safely to the Starbase launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas. 

The maneuver could pose risk to Starbase’s launch tower, but SpaceX says it has been preparing for years. The delay could create a ripple effect that hampers future Starship test flights. Safely returning the booster is a critical piece of the system’s reusability.

“It’s understandable that such a unique operation would require additional time to analyze from a licensing perspective,” the firm said. “Unfortunately, instead of focusing resources on critical safety analysis and collaborating on rational safeguards to protect both the public and the environment, the licensing process has been repeatedly derailed by issues ranging from the frivolous to the patently absurd.”

What’s the Holdup?

SpaceX said the FAA communicated that a launch license would be awarded this month, but the process has been delayed due to “four open environmental issues” it deems unnecessary.

Starship’s maiden voyage in April 2023 was a brief but bombastic one. The FAA grounded the rocket as it investigated the launch and explosion, which shook buildings, shattered windows, and sent ash and debris flying miles away.

The impact was more severe than SpaceX anticipated due to the lack of a flame deflector—a common fixture at launch sites that uses water to absorb energy and heat—beneath Starbase. According to Musk, the system was absent because it “wasn’t ready in time” and the company thought the pad could withstand the launch.

The FAA’s handling of Starship’s initial launch license prompted a lawsuit from five environmental groups, which the agency reportedly has sought to dismiss. With the flame deflector installed, subsequent Starship flights have not destroyed the launch pad.

However, the FAA has approved two 60-day consultations that could extend the timeline for a fifth mission.

According to SpaceX, the only proposed change to the mission’s hot-stage jettison—during which the top of the Super Heavy booster is expelled—is a new splashdown location, which it says would not raise the risk of harm to marine life. Still, the FAA signed off on a consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service to evaluate the new site.

“SpaceX’s current license authorizing the Starship Flight 4 launch also allows for multiple flights of the same vehicle configuration and mission profile,” the agency told FLYING. “SpaceX chose to modify both for its proposed Starship Flight 5 launch which triggered a more in-depth review.”

SpaceX, though, fears the review could be longer.

“The mechanics of these types of consultations outline that any new questions raised during that time can reset the 60-day counter, over and over again,” it said.

A separate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), requested by the FAA due to Flight 5’s larger sonic boom radius, could add to the delays. A sonic boom occurs as Starship slows from supersonic speeds on its way back to Earth.

“SpaceX submitted new information in mid-August detailing how the environmental impact of Flight 5 will cover a larger area than previously reviewed,” the FAA said. “This requires the FAA to consult with other agencies.”

According to SpaceX, both agencies have studied Starship booster landings and concluded there is no significant environmental impact from sonic booms. The firm also claims studies back the idea that sonic booms have no detrimental effect on wildlife—but the jury is still out on that one.

According to an evaluation by the California Coastal Commission of SpaceX’s request to increase Falcon 9 launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, experts don’t fully understand the effects of noise on animals. The commission rejected the request in part because sonic booms generated by Falcon 9—a less powerful rocket than Starship—force too many closures and evacuations of local parks.

“At Starbase, we implement an extensive list of mitigations developed with federal and state agencies, many of which require year-round monitoring and frequent updates to regulators and consultation with independent biological experts,” SpaceX said.

Among other things, the company says it works with a local nonprofit to transport injured sea turtles for treatment and monitors bird local populations, using drones to search for nests before and after launch and. It also “adopted” Boca Chica Beach through a Texas state program and sponsors quarterly cleanups it says have removed hundreds of pounds of trash.

A CNBC report last month, which SpaceX swiftly rebuked, alleged that the company violated the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency, though, told FLYING it did indeed violate that law.

Days before Starship’s third test flight in March, the EPA issued an order directing the company to eliminate “unpermitted discharges,” citing a liquid oxygen spill from the flame deflector’s water deluge system that seeped into the surrounding wetlands. SpaceX was forced to apply for a new permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which it did in July, but still ate a fine of nearly $150,000 to resolve the violation.

In response, the company denied it ever discharged pollutants or operated the deluge system without TCEQ permission. According to SpaceX, the device uses “literal drinking water” and has been deemed safe by the FAA, TCEQ, and USFWS.

SpaceX further claimed that the EPA issued its order without knowledge of its TCEQ license or “a basic understanding of the facts” of the system’s operation. It added that the fines are “entirely tied to disagreements over paperwork” and stem from a simple misunderstanding.

“We chose to settle so that we can focus our energy on completing the missions and commitments that we have made to the U.S. government, commercial customers, and ourselves,” SpaceX said. “Paying fines is extremely disappointing when we fundamentally disagree with the allegations, and we are supported by the fact that EPA has agreed that nothing about the operation of our flame deflector will need to change. Only the name of the permit has changed.”

The proposed settlement is open for public comment until October 21.

Singled Out?

The implication by SpaceX is that it is being unfairly targeted for its successes.

The company is prolific within the commercial spaceflight industry—experts estimate it accounted for 87 percent of all spacecraft mass space operators sent into orbit in 2023. At the same time, it handles more NASA missions than any of the agency’s private contractors.

That dominance occasionally draws ire from competitors such as Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, or, as SpaceX puts it, “bad-faith hysterics from online detractors or special interest groups.”

“Despite a small, but vocal, minority of detractors trying to game the regulatory system to obstruct and delay the development of Starship, SpaceX remains committed to the mission at hand,” the company said.

NASA has made it known that it intends to become one of many customers within a commercial space ecosystem, rather than a service provider, by the end of the decade. As SpaceX continues to snap up NASA contracts—including an agreement to deorbit the International Space Station, ushering in that new era—rivals and critics may fear that its supremacy will only grow.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX Takes Aim at FAA After Latest Starship Launch Delay appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Not according to the company, which took to social media platform X, owned by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, to rebut a report published Monday.

Sources within the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shared with CNBC previously unreported notices and investigative records, which allege that SpaceX violated several clean water regulations. The company employs a water deluge system, common at launchpads such as Florida’s Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, to absorb heat and vibrations from firing rocket engines.

But according to CNBC, the firm’s use of that system this year—including during the third orbital test flight of Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, and the Super Heavy booster—may be discharging industrial wastewater without TCEQ or EPA permission.

SpaceX swiftly refuted the CNBC report in a lengthy post on X, characterizing the story as “factually inaccurate.”

According to the company, the water deluge system uses potable, or drinking, water and has been authorized for operation by both the TCEQ and EPA, which filed their notices one week and five months ago, respectively.

“Throughout our ongoing coordination with both TCEQ and the EPA, we have explicitly asked if operation of the deluge system needed to stop and we were informed that operations could continue,” SpaceX said.

Neither agency immediately responded to FLYING’s request for comment.

Typically, a launch provider must be compliant with state and federal laws to obtain launch permissions from the FAA. On Monday, the aviation regulator postponed several meetings intended for stakeholders to provide feedback on SpaceX’s proposal to launch Starship from Starbase as many as 25 times per year. The agency did not provide a reason for the postponements.

“The FAA apologizes for any inconvenience,” it said. “Public meetings will be rescheduled; however, the docket remains open to receive public comments.”

Conflicting Accounts

Interestingly, CNBC and SpaceX cite the same sources to make their respective claims, raising questions about whether one party received bad information.

Starbase’s deluge system was installed after Starship’s maiden flight in April 2023, the impact of which sent debris flying miles away, led to an FAA investigation, and brought a lawsuit against the agency and SpaceX from five environmental groups. It was first tested in July with TCEQ personnel onsite, SpaceX said.

But regulators told CNBC the firm skipped a crucial step in the permitting process related to wastewater management. In its notice to SpaceX, TCEQ said it received 14 complaints claiming that the deluge system was harming the surrounding environment, including one last August alleging that Starbase was discharging industrial wastewater without a permit. 

Last month, a TCEQ investigation found that SpaceX did so four times between March and July. According to a SpaceX permit filing viewed by CNBC, some of that water contained concentrations of mercury that exceed water quality limits.

SpaceX on Monday, however, painted a very different picture. According to the company, no water samples tested were found to have mercury levels above EPA limits. It elaborated on Tuesday with another post claiming that the figures the outlet viewed were simply incorrect.

“While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria,” the company said.

The firm flatly denied that any industrial wastewater is spewing from Starbase, claiming that the deluge system’s potable water is never used in or exposed to industrial processes.

It also said the landing pad is power washed prior to activating the system and that soil, air, and water samples are analyzed by an independent laboratory after each use. According to the company, most of the water is either vaporized by the heat of the engines or captured in special ponds, with only a tiny amount escaping the pad.

SpaceX further claimed it is well within its right to operate the system.

The EPA sent the company a formal notice of violation of the Clean Water Act the day before Starship’s third test flight in March. But according to the firm, the agency made a mistake.

“When the EPA issued their administrative order in March 2024, it was done without an understanding of basic facts of the deluge system’s operation or acknowledgement that we were operating under the Texas Multi-Sector General Permit,” SpaceX said.

Per the company’s version of events, the EPA agreed to allow it to continue using the system as it worked toward obtaining an individual permit from TCEQ, “because the deluge system has always complied with common conditions set by an individual permit, and causes no harm to the environment.”

It submitted a permit application on July 1 and said the agency is expected to issue a draft individual permit and agreed compliance order this week.

If SpaceX is ultimately found to be in violation of TCEQ and EPA rules, it could have a ripple effect on the Starship program, which is under pressure to meet obligations for NASA’s Artemis moon mission program as well as commercial customers.

According to the company, the rocket is ready to launch on its fifth test flight pending regulatory approval, but that may be difficult to obtain if it isn’t compliant with regulations. The firm will need to complete several more Starship test flights before the spacecraft is authorized for service missions.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX Pushes Back on Rocket Launch Pollution Report appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Because of the way the U.S. government operates, particularly under the Clean Air Act of 1970, certain processes within the associated agencies, including the FAA, could not begin without the finding.

Now leadership from within the industry’s manufacturers, distributors, associations, and users (that’s us, the pilot community) can act on the commitment to getting the lead out of our avgas—specifically the high octane fuel required by high-performance piston engines currently served by 100LL.

But what happens now? I spoke with Walter Desrosier, vice president of engineering and maintenance for the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, this week about the finding and what it triggers. “We have significant progress,” said Desrosier. “There is a broad, collective community commitment from the entire GA industry in cooperation with the government and the FAA to move to no lead. So the EPA action that came out is part of that transition process. It actually puts into the Clean Air Act process how they will mandate a transition. So this is not something that we continue to talk about, that we hope to find solutions—this is a commitment  from the industry that continues to work towards the best solutions.”

The timeline has officially begun, but it will take a couple of years for the mandate and the associated guidance to come into play. In the meantime, the industry is already working hard toward fielding the solutions.

Fuels in Process

Those solutions include four candidate fuels in the works from different providers in varying states of development, testing, and acceptance. “Part of our transition will also be what’s the best available fuel,” said Desrosier.

By most measures, the furthest along comes from GAMI Inc., whose G100UL has attained supplemental type certification from the FAA. GAMI works with at least one producer, VTOL, to manufacture the fuel in enough quantity to reach those who need to test it and develop its distribution in the field. The STC means the FAA considers the fuel safe for the applications covered in that approval.

While the STC includes broad fixed-wing piston aircraft acceptance, testing continues for rotorcraft with Robinson deep into its program with the fuel. Cirrus Aircraft is also testing the fuel within its fleet.

But any fuel that makes it to market must also demonstrate commercial viability. It must make it from the manufacturer through the distribution channels—pipeline or trucking—to the airport where it goes into a tank, and then into our fuel tanks on aircraft. That means the fuel must be acceptable in each of those steps by the businesses involved, as well as the end user burning it in flight.

“With the GAMI fuel, the path that they chose to take is to do their proprietary STC approval, which is perfectly fine on the safety side with the FAA, but they also chose not to enter into an ASTM consensus specification process,” said Desrosier. “Typically that’s how all the other stakeholders in the community become familiar with a fuel…the content of the fuel, the understanding of the evaluation and the assessments of the fuel, and the understanding of the components, and the understanding of the business risks related to being a stakeholder who might purchase, who might produce, who might distribute, who might dispense, and who might put it into people’s tanks.

“There’s a lot of business decisions in this, and a lot of risk.”

Swift Fuels has already entered the market with a lower octane unleaded fuel, 94UL, with limited distribution now but a growing foothold, especially in states and at airports where there is more pressure to get away from leaded avgas.

Swift is pursuing both an STC and ASTM path with its high octane fuel, 100UL, and it has chosen a clever way to gain market acceptance—and perhaps reach commercial viability—with the new fuel. For its current 94UL, Swift offers a “Forever STC,” through which an operator purchasing the STC for the lower octane fuel is promised that the STC for the 100UL fuel will be  included in that purchase when it’s available.

Swift will be able to deliver the fuel through the existing infrastructure to the existing tanks it has put in place for 94UL. According to Desrosier, Swift has already started the consensus standard and is going through the STC process. Critically, the manufacturer will share the results through the consensus process, and when it obtains FAA approval, it will share that data with all the stakeholders.

Two other fuels are pursuing approval through the PAFI (Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative) program. One already has the ASTM test specification, produced by Afton Chemical/Phillips 66, and it is continuing to share information, according to Desrosier. It has to go through the full ASTM testing process, but it has “the roadmap” to do it.

The other candidate fuel (Lyondell/VP Racing) is close behind. The consortium has entered into the specification process and expects to also share its progress.

More than One?

One big question in my mind: Will we end up with more than one fuel, and will they be intermixable? I asked Desroiser, along with the follow-up question: Is this testing pathway defined or is it wait and see?

No, said Desrosier, the fuels are not allowed to intermix and co-mingle. All of the candidate producers are testing to comingle with 100LL—because that is part of the transition process and very likely to occur in the field.

“In terms of ‘could be,’ it depends on the final composition of the fuels,” he said. “We do know some of the key components,” and some fuels will not be able to mix because they are too different.

In the end, having two fuels make it through the process means that the market will decide—and we will have a backup in case of an unforeseen issue with a producer or fuel. “We think it’s going to have to be a market decision,” said Desrosier. “I’m not expecting a significant market penetration, dividing the market in half” with different fuels regionally available.

“Once you have the acceptance by FAA, ultimately the consumer is the very last in the supply chain,” he concluded. 

With the pilot or owner-operator, it often boils down to price—and that won’t likely change with 100UL.

The post Time to Get Serious About Unleaded Fuel appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to the EPA statement: “EPA and FAA have already begun work to consider regulatory options to address lead emissions from aircraft engines and will announce timelines as soon as possible. EPA and FAA will work in partnership and engage all interested stakeholders and the general public as the two agencies develop their separate regulatory actions.” 

Representatives of the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) working group held a media briefing directly following the release of the EPA finding. During the online webinar, Liu joined several industry stakeholder participants in stressing – multiple times – that EAGLE and the FAA are firmly committed to ensuring the continued availability of 100LL until a safe and practical replacement can be made universally available. In essence, the message was that ensuring flight safety for aircraft that require higher-octane fuel takes precedence over the risk of prematurely eliminating the availability of 100LL.

• READ MORE: EAGLE Initiative Shows Measured Progress, Fuel Contenders Say at Oshkosh

Curt Castagna, president and CEO of the National Air Transportation Association, which represents the interests of “a broad array” of aviation service providers, including fuel providers, airports and FBOs, laid out three priorities going forward: developing a suitable fuel; keeping 100LL available in the meantime; and helping airports and airport operators effect a smooth transition.

Stakeholders represented at the webinar included:

• Mark Baker, president and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
• Todd Hauptli, president and CEO, American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)
• Prentiss Searles, director of fuels, marketing and vehicle policy, American Petroleum Institute (API)
• Jack Pelton CEO and chairman, Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)
• Pete Bunce, president and CEO, General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
• James Viola, president and CEO, Helicopter Association International (HAI)
• Curt Castagna, president and CEO, National Air Transportation Association (NATA)
• Greg Pecoraro, president, National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO)

The next steps involve establishing aircraft emissions standards under the Clean Air Act. Liu said, “The EPA can find that a component causes harm [which is what the endangerment finding is]. The FAA will define the standards.” She reiterated that the FAA approach is focused on safe operation, while the EPA focuses on eliminating harmful emissions. Liu described the timeline going forward as a cooperative effort between the FAA and EPA. “We really have to work in harmony here,” she said.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post EPA Releases Endangerment Finding on 100LL appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Representatives from GAMA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) participated in the discussion.

The panelists cited progress toward fielding a replacement for 100 Low Lead (100LL) high octane gasoline that would be suitable for fleetwide use. While an estimated 70 percent of the current piston-aircraft fleet can safely use available lower-octane lead-free fuels, the remaining 30 percent that require higher-octane fuel to operate safely fly an estimated 70 percent of the hours flown by the entire GA fleet.

• READ MORE: EPA Releases Proposed Finding on Leaded AvGas

The panelists noted that the expected EPA endangerment finding, in itself, does not constitute a ban on continued use of 100LL fuel. In fact, the group stressed the priority of retaining the right to distribute and use 100LL until and acceptable replacement is in place.

However, the panelists did acknowledge that the EPA endangerment ruling does set a “pathway” to future rulemaking related to lead emissions in aviation fuels.

There was extended discussion on the difference between the supplemental type certificate (STC) route to acceptance of a replacement unleaded fuel, and the so-called ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) route, involving a “collaborative government FAA program to test candidate fuels, generate report and data, and distribute to fuel providers” enabling the FAA to gain “industry consensus” and issue a fleetwide approval.

• READ MORE: G100UL Avgas Replacement Set to Soon Hit Pumps

The panelists were careful to assure that the FAA, as the arbiter of safe aviation operations, is the final authority on approving a replacement for 100LL; not the EPA. That said, the discussion revealed that – for the first time – regulatory standards for lead emissions in aviation fuel will be established as a result of the expected EPA endangerment finding. GAMA assured the participating journalists that there would be further briefings once the EPA endangerment finding is finalized.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post GAMA Hosts Pre-Brief on Life After EPA’s Ruling on Leaded Aviation Fuel appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The coalition is made up of seven aviation stakeholder organizations, and includes the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the Helicopter Association International (HAI), the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API).

In their comments, the coalition emphasized that the elimination of lead from avgas is in the public interest, as it will reduce lead air pollution and applauded the industry’s continued work on an unleaded replacement that will meet both safety performance needs of the U.S. fleet of piston aircraft, as well as FAA regulatory requirements.

Developing Alternatives to 100LL

At the present time there are four high-octane unleaded fuels currently in development and approval by the FAA.

“Each of these fuels attempts to address the critical safety need for high-octane aviation fuel using differing chemical approaches,” the coalition said. “Aircraft and aircraft engines are type certificated by FAA as meeting all the applicable safety requirements for design, airworthiness, and operation. Each type certificated aircraft and engine, by make/model, must be FAA approved to operate on any new or replacement fuel to ensure their continued operational safety.”

• READ MORE: GAMI Gains Avgas STC for Pistons on Unleaded Fuel

The two paths available to obtain FAA approval for new fuel are the traditional FAA aircraft type certification process, such as supplemental type certificates (STC), and the FAA aviation fuel fleet authorization process established by Congress in sec. 565 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 201813.

The coalition noted that approval of the replacement fuel is the first step, the second is creating a commercial pathway for the production and distribution of the unleaded fuel to the airports.

Two fuel developers, General Aviation Modifications Inc. and Swift Fuels Inc. are pursuing STCs. On September 1, 2022, the FAA issued an approved model list supplemental type certificate (AML-STC) to GAMI for G100UL unleaded avgas. According to its website, GAMI anticipates that the production and delivery of G100UL will ramp up this year, with the unleaded avgas becoming more readily available by 2024.

In the meantime, Swift Fuels Inc. delivers a 94-octane unleaded aviation fuel to a limited but growing number of airports for those aircraft that can safely use a lower octane fuel. Swift holds an AML-STC FAA approval for UL94 fuel, which each owner-operator can purchase and install on their individual eligible aircraft and engines allowing them to use UL94.

• READ MORE: Avgas Coalition on Aviation Fuel Pushes for 100LL Bridge

Swift is also developing a high-octane unleaded fuel and is working with the FAA toward certification by the end of 2024.

The emphasis, as outlined in the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative, is the successful transition to lead-free avgas for piston aircraft by the end of 2030 without compromising the safe and efficient operation of the general aviation fleet.

Over the past two years there have been high profile studies down around airports, particularly those in California that attribute lead pollution to local airports. In particular, one in Santa Clara County focused on Reid-Hillview (KRHV) in San Jose.

• READ MORE: Santa Clara County Responds to FAA Informal Investigation

Critics of the study have noted that many of the buildings in the neighborhoods surrounding the airport were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s when lead pipes and lead-based paint were used extensively, and over the decades have been oxidizing. Therefore, it is impossible to conclusively determine the source of lead exposure.

The post We’re Getting the Lead Out, Aviation Groups Say appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its proposed finding on leaded aviation fuel, triggering a response from the consortium of general aviation associations that have been working on the removal of lead from avgas with the FAA and industry partners. Under the EAGLE (Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions) initiative, the collective has demonstrated in recent months its commitment to sunsetting 100LL in a safe, deliberate manner.

The Proposed Endangerment Finding for Lead Emissions from Aircraft Engines that Operate on Leaded Fuel does not call for any immediate ban on avgas containing lead. It’s simply the initial step required for the agency to exercise its authority to “address this source of lead pollution,” which is well known to the GA industry.

The EPA wraps its proposal around protecting children’s health in particular, though it notes that the sources of airborne lead pollution in the U.S. are many—including leaded paint, contaminated soil, industrial emissions from battery recycling or metals processing, and the combustion of fuel or waste containing lead. The agency also notes that levels of airborne lead in the U.S. have dropped 99 percent since 1980, leaving aircraft using 100LL one of the only remaining sources.

“When it comes to our children the science is clear, exposure to lead can cause irreversible and life-long health effects,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “Aircraft that use leaded fuel are the dominant source of lead emissions to air in the country. Today’s proposal is an important step forward as we work to reduce lead exposure and protect children’s health.”

Associations Respond

The GA community was prepared for the release of the finding, and in previous reports had noted that it was certain to be announced by the end of 2022. 

From a joint statement delivered by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the consortium said, “It’s important to note that today’s EPA announcement in no way bans or mitigates the use or sale of 100-low lead (100LL) fuel at any of the nation’s more than 5,000 public-use airports. 

“The general aviation industry and the FAA remain committed to a safe and smart unleaded transition. Any ban of 100LL for piston-powered aircraft before an unleaded alternative is widely available poses a serious safety risk to pilots, carries economic consequences to thousands of local communities, and is a violation of current federal rules and regulations.”

Swift and GAMI Fuels Coming into Market

The EAGLE initiative and the GA community have already seen significant progress in addressing the removal of lead from avgas. General Aviation Modifications, Inc., based in Oklahoma, received FAA approval in September for use of its 100-octane unleaded G100UL fuel in nearly all GA piston-engine-and-airframe combinations. Now GAMI must move the fuel through the commercialization process, which is underway with distribution partners such as Avfuel.

Already in the market? Swift Fuels’ UL94 unleaded 94-octane fuel. With distribution in California and expanding, the lower octane avgas can be used in piston engines with lower compression—roughly 66 percent of the fleet—and utilizing the Swift supplemental type certificate (STC) for the range of engines and airframes.

Also from the joint statement, the collective noted, “Moreover, progress is being made on unleaded fuels currently being evaluated by the FAA in its Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative program. Partnerships between Afton Chemical/Phillips 66 and Lyondell/VP Racing have each developed high-octane fuels as potential replacements for 100LL. Congress has provided more than $40 million for this testing and evaluation effort.”

The post EPA Releases Proposed Finding on Leaded AvGas appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

While it appeared that the FAA had gained a reprieve that would allow for the proper timeline for testing a range of fuels, we reported in December and January that a ban on 100LL has now gone into effect at a pair of airports in California—and more appeared ready to follow suit.

Most recently, we looked into the progress made on unleaded avgas options in the market and what pilots might do to prepare for the probable day when 100LL will no longer be available.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s president and CEO Mark Baker reached out to FLYING following our latest piece with an update on AOPA’s efforts to support GA pilots during this rapidly advancing new era.

“I read your recent article (‘When the Sun Sets on 100LL, Will You Be Ready?’, January 27) with interest, since removing lead from avgas is a top priority for all of us,” said Baker in a letter to the editor. “The issue has also garnered a sense of urgency since the Environmental Protection Agency has suggested it plans to initiate efforts to accelerate the removal of lead from avgas.”

We Don’t Have a Solution for All Pistons—Yet

Baker admitted that there is still work to be done on a solution.

“As the article indicated, the testing of possible candidate fuels under the Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI) has not produced a solution over the past decade, despite the world’s best chemists and engineers working on this. Nonetheless, there are currently some promising candidate fuels that may provide the solution, including for higher-compression engines. It’s estimated these engines requiring 100 octane consume about 60-70 percent of today’s avgas.

• DON’T MISS OUT: Subscribe to FLYING Magazine

“The industry shares a unified goal of bringing urgency, efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness to the process, so that any and all candidate fuels can be evaluated in a transparent manner and deployed as a fleetwide drop-in replacement as soon as possible.

“In the meantime, 94UL is available in some locations and works for many lower compression single-piston engines.”

Baker said the transition needs to happen smoothly.

“In order to avoid a harmful impact on GA, we need to ensure that 100LL remains available during a transition period. We also need to educate airport boards and local policy makers about the importance of a safe and smart transition away from leaded fuel.

“This issue is a top priority for AOPA and our partners in the GA community, including fuel producers, distributors, FBOs, and pilots. I encourage your readers to go to www.aopa.org/100UL and learn what the industry and government are doing to address this issue and there will be more to come.

“I remain optimistic that we can and will get the lead out of avgas but, as a pilot, I cannot stress enough the importance of doing this smartly and safely.”

The post What’s Being Done About the Growing Movement Toward Unleaded Avgas? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.