zlacker

[return to "Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair"]
1. ck2+vD1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 14:44:05
>>geox+(OP)
unless you live next to an airport or even remotely close to it

then lead is being sprayed all over you, your car and home, daily

for THREE DECADES NOW

no rush, not like it's poison or does permanent damage to your health/IQ

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

◧◩
2. moffka+Ly2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 18:33:29
>>ck2+vD1
Yeah it's absurd how aviation is somehow exempt from these rules, especially since piston engine aircraft carry virtually no vital role in anything except people flying them for fun. There have been viable alternatives for a long long time now.

I guess people who have money for personal airplanes also have the money to lobby when it matters for their interests. Pricks, I hope they die of dementia.

◧◩◪
3. tjohns+bW2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 20:10:42
>>moffka+Ly2
Piston aircraft are vital to training new pilots. Without the piston fleet, you wouldn't have anybody flying anything larger.

Not to mention they're frequently used for air ambulance flights, survey work, and law enforcement. The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft.

Also, the current proposed plan is to migrate off of leaded gasoline for most of the country by 2030, which is actually quite ambitious given that acceptable alternative fuels didn't exist until literally a few years ago.

◧◩◪◨
4. moffka+VX2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 20:18:46
>>tjohns+bW2
They can run in regular gas reliably enough for training, they can run on jet-a, they can run on batteries. Anything vital can run on jet-a without any barriers.

Excuses are made because it requires retiring or refitting old aircraft, and people need to be forced to do it. Simple as. I will die on this hill.

> The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft.

It is not. You're thinking of lidar.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. filled+2Z2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 20:23:10
>>moffka+VX2
Wait, you think workhorse aircraft today can run on batteries?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. moffka+C13[view] [source] 2026-02-03 20:36:08
>>filled+2Z2
I know a Velis Electro can fly for an hour, that's plenty of time for flight school. I'm sure there's better options now too. If something needs to take longer than that and is worth doing, then do it with a turboprop.

That's besides the fact that there are genuine certified unleaded alternative fuels for piston aircraft now. Fucking "we oh can't do it" lead apologists smh.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. filled+9m3[view] [source] 2026-02-03 22:22:03
>>moffka+C13
"One hour is plenty of time for flight school" is not doing you any favours in coming across as knowing what you're talking about lol. Good freaking luck completing cross-country flights for an instrument rating with that endurance, never mind your certainty that there are "better options" as if the laws of physics have changed dramatically between 2020 and today.

And I mentioned workhorse aircraft for a reason, considering that the Velis Electro has a payload of...172 kilograms. Turboprops (gas turbines in general) are far more expensive and far less fuel efficient at low altitudes than their piston engine counterparts, which is precisely why piston engines still exist.

The fact that alternative fuels now exist for piston engines does not make the blatantly wrong nonsense you've been throwing out any more correct, such as your suggestion that you can "just run" piston engines on Jet-A. That is something that anyone who actually knows anything about internal combustion engines can tell you for free causes regular piston engines to detonate/knock. Your assertion that piston-engine aircraft have virtually no vital role was similarly ignorant.

And that's besides the fact that black-and-white "if you don't agree with whatever half-assed or plainly incorrect crap I say in support of The Cause™ you're an apologist" nonsense lost its efficacy years ago; you might want to find a better soapboxing tactic for 2026.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. moffka+nR4[view] [source] 2026-02-04 10:17:25
>>filled+9m3
It really doesn't matter if I don't know the paragraph eight of rule one hundred and thirty four, I know that if you can't do something without poisoning people you should not get to do it. That's as much as there is to it, and it's an argument you can't ever win without proving lead is harmless or something.

You can't just run piston engines on jet-a but you can run them on regular high octane from any regular gas station or any of the actual alternatives, my point was you can swap them for small turboprop powerplants and run the plane on jet-a. Afaik reducing knocking is not really the point of avgas either, which I'm sure you know, but vapor lock at high altitudes, which you can easily avoid by... not flying high, which by your own point is the main use case for piston aircraft. I guess we'll just spray lead over everyone instead, cause it's "safer".

[go to top]