Technofreak:

 

At the present time there is no alternative. Banning leaded avgas will wipe out operations that use piston engined aircraft. I would suggest that while the effects of TEL aren't good you have to take into consideration how small the aviation contribution to the pollution caused by TEL is and the benefits provided by that aviation activity. 

 

 

 

Unfortunately there are some groups of people who will nevet accept compromise. Everything we do has an impact sometimes negative even though there is an overall benefit but because there is a negative impact some people will want it banned.

 

There are alternatives:

• Electric training aircraft are available.
• Aircraft certified
• Aircraft (generally at the smaller / slower end of the GA spectrum) are available that certified to run MOGAS (automotive petrol). This includes stuff like the Tecnam P2006T, which can provide a complex training environment for their students (twin engine, retractable gear).
• Swift Fuels (USA based), currently produces UL94 (basically 100LL without lead), which satisfies the minimum octane requirements of 66% of the US piston fleet as a drop in replacement.
• Turbine aircraft (i.e. Cessna caravan for commercial sightseeing & very thin commercial routes like Great Barrier Island)
• Jet A / Diesel piston aircraft (i.e. Tecnam P2010 TDI) - Rare, but another option that is on the market.

So in a short period (assuming a similar fleet makeup to the USA), we could transition 2/3rd's of our piston fleet to unleaded fuels. 

In the USA, you have some flight schools already making the change away from leaded fuel: https://blogs.und.edu/und-today/2022/07/und-aerospace-getting-the-lead-out/

Even in the absence of higher octane fuels, I question if (other then the flying of classic / antique aircraft), if there are significant general aviation purpose that could not be filled by UL94, mogas or turbines. (obviously, there would be quite a number of aircraft that are not economic / viable to modify to be compatible with 94UL /Mogas / JetAq

Then of course you have the recent FAA approval of G100UL. A functional drop in replacement for 100LL. Production volumes are still at low level (for testing), but now there is a path to unleaded fuel for aviation engines requiring 100 octane.

Given the above, I feel that planning a phase out of TEL use in Aviation (and motorsport) is reasonable. On compromise, GA has been given plenty. For road vehicles, the leaded fuel phase-out started in 1986. I don't feel discussing phase out options in 2023 is out of line.

This is an extremely nasty chemical with no safe exposure limit. Exposure from aviation is sufficient that children living near airfields in the US have detectable quantities in their blood.

Even ignoring the health impact on the general population, I think it is in the GA industries best interest to move away from TEL. We are down to a production plant globally. If anything happened to that plant that stopped production, GA would need to make the shift very fast, with any phase-out limited to stock on hand (Doubt anybody else would want to invest in a TEL production facility given much of the USA GA industry is committed to stopping using it in 7 years). In an NZ context, there is also a risk that the import terminal might not want to deal with leaded fuel anymore.... Low volumes, but high risks to workers when it comes to stuff like internal tank inspections.