WA State: Bill to eliminate 100LL

[Christine]

Dear Maule Pilots,

there is a bill being pushed thru that is aimed at eliminating lead exposure in Washington - and that might have serious impact on our ability to fuel up our planes, and potentially how we operate as an airport community. I feel this should be handled on the federal level, not by individual states. We all know 100ll is on its way out, but it might really be on its way out in Washington, before there is a viable alternative, if this bill passes.
The following has already passed a house vote and is headed to the Senate

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium ... pdf#page=1

Washington residents, you can indicate you are against this bill at the following site (check "con", put in your information, indicate you are not a robot, and submit).
https://app.leg.wa.gov/csi/Testifier/Ad ... 2150&tId=3

Thank you,
Christine

[TomD]

Good news: This bill never made it to a vote. It was tabled as time ran out on the legislative session.

Bad news: It will probably show up again next session. The initial bill was a dog's breakfast and would possibly close a number of small airports or at least prevent them from providing fuel. The amendments softened it markedly and was a fairly reasonable bill, but when it raises its ugly head again it will probably include the initial draconian parts.

Tom Dent did a lot to soften the initial bill.

Tom

[netconn]

The last I read, the FAA said it will not fund any airport that stops selling 100LL for No lead. I don't think anyone wants to be the first to get sued for engine failure.

[Flyhound]

I have mixed feelings about this. I'd really like to see sufficient pressure applied to make an FAA approved lead-free alternative available in WA. I've had to return to my hangar several times because of lead deposits fouling my plugs badly enough that my initial mag check made me cancel my flight. It isn't a hard fix, but pulling the cowling off my plane and then trouble shooting to see which cylinder has the problem, identify the plug(s) involved, clean them and reassemble the cowl and my flying time is up for the day. I'd actually support legislation that incentivized making a lead-free alternative available rather than starting with penalties or outright bans on 100LL. That said, I want something other than mo-gas. I don't want the aromatics that car gas is blended with in my plane's engine. 80% of us could fly with Swift fuels UL94. It would work fine in my plane's O-360 engine and most of the other lower compression engines out there. I'd prefer to not need an STC to use the fuel. Since UL94 meets all of the ASTM requirements, I'd be in favor of the FAA paying Swift fuels for a universal, low compression engine STC. Right now, even if I bought the STC, I'm not aware of any airport in WA that carries Swift Fuel. At Centennial Airport in Colorado (KAPA), the airport board is paying for the STC for aircraft based there. Last summer, the airport was providing incentives to keep the cost of UL94 less than 100LL. That sounds like a win-win to me! Solutions are out there for most of us, we just need effective incentives to get those solutions implemented. For aircraft engines with higher compressions, there may be a longer wait for an ASTM qualified fuel to replace 100LL. GAMI 100 does not meet the ASTM requirements and one flight school has stopped using the GAMI fuel because of valve recession problems they were seeing. Still, we shouldn't have to wait for a perfect solution to make some progress.