flying is already an inherently expensive, niche hobby. it's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would be some enormous injustice to price a few more people out.
a reasonable solution might be to grandfather in all existing engines that are only certified for leaded fuel. as long as the use is non-commercial and/or doesn't exceed some number of hours per year, you can keep using that engine until it dies. once it does (or you want a new plane) you have to use unleaded fuel.
> flying is already an inherently expensive, niche hobby. it's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would be some enormous injustice to price a few more people out.
Yes.
> a reasonable solution might be to grandfather in all existing engines that are only certified for leaded fuel. as long as the use is non-commercial and/or doesn't exceed some number of hours per year, you can keep using that engine until it dies. once it does (or you want a new plane) you have to use unleaded fuel.
I'm not sure that's workable. Apparently a large fraction of the piston engine aircraft fleet is decades old, and the replacement rate is very low. So you'd have a very long transition period. Further, GA is such a small niche market anyway that smaller airports are very reluctant to provide more than one gasoline variant.
I think it'd be more realistic to set some date after which sale of leaded AVGAS is prohibited. That's what was done when leaded automotive gas was banned. Those with cars unable to use unleaded gas just had to suck up whatever expenses were needed, or stop driving.
> it's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would be some enormous injustice to price a few more people out.
Except for all the flight schools that are part of the pipeline for training pilots. A lot of smaller shops use airplanes from many decades ago, and mandating that they swap in a new engine (at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars) for each plane (in their fleet), could be ruinous.
ultimately some businesses are going to need to feel the consequences of environmentally unsustainable practices. as another example, there might not be a future for cheap cruise ships that burn bunker fuel.
if it would be truly ruinous to the pilot training pipeline, you could grandfather in the smaller flight schools. my main thought here is that we should not continue to manufacture engines that burn leaded fuel. there's plenty of room to compromise over who gets to continue using engines that already exist.
> my main thought here is that we should not continue to manufacture engines that burn leaded fuel.
I don't disagree with you, but there are many thousands of perfectly good planes from previous decades that are in good shape (they have to be inspected annually) that will be a long legacy.
Right now I can find 63 pre-1960 single-piston aircraft for sale, with the cheapest being US$ 42K from 1945 as I type this:
There are already electric training aircraft certified in Europe [1]. In the coming years and decades, these will very likely greatly reduce costs (fuel, maintenance) for flight schools while eliminating lead, and other emissions.
a reasonable solution might be to grandfather in all existing engines that are only certified for leaded fuel. as long as the use is non-commercial and/or doesn't exceed some number of hours per year, you can keep using that engine until it dies. once it does (or you want a new plane) you have to use unleaded fuel.