Those additives have been for sale for the old / antique car market for many decades. So I am sure we could do it. Just not “legally” 
I’ve been reading and Googling about Tetraethyllead topic.
I’m not an expert on the topic.
Please fill in if I miss understood it.
Tetraethyllead (TEL)
EC: 201-075-4
Will not be “banned” after after 1 May 2025, it requires authorization for usage.
Application for authorization
The latest application date is the latest date by which applications for authorization must be received if the applicant wishes to continue to use the substance or place it on the market for certain uses after the sunset date.
Sunset:
Date from which the placing on the market and the use of that substance shall be prohibited unless an exemption applies or an authorisation is granted, or an authorisation application has been submitted before the latest application date also specified in Annex XIV, but the Commission decision on the application for authorisation has not yet been taken.
If you read in the REACH directives, some contenct that is listed on candidate list is already exempted for certain usage.
If it’s used in FUEL it’s on the exemption from REACH directives if I understood correctly.
I also read it could take up to 18 months before you got an answer on your application.
Anyone that read the REACH, ECHA directives and have more knowledge to share?
All I know about REACH (having signed a million declarations at work) is that it affects only businesses which sell the substances. Not ones which use them.
And of course there are exemptions – politics is the art of the possible and Brussels is very clever on how to get those who they need “on board”.
There is probably no substance which is actually “banned”. It all depends on the context, and the political clout of those who use the stuff. Even Ebola is not banned…
Sometimes it is not the worst thing if a development gets “forced” onto people, as it is simply too convenient to continue as before. IMHO, it is totally nuts that we don’t have a 100 octane UL fuel by now which works, decades into the UL technology. Also, finally getting rid of TEL is going to eliminate one factor the opponents of GA keep holding against us, as by now we are pretty much the only ones using it.
There are ample advantages of not having lead in your fuel, primarily it eliminates spark plug fouling. We are trying to use UL91 whenever we can get it for that purpose. The obvious advantage over Mogas is that it does not need any STCs but simply the engine has to be approved for this grade fuel and the question of ethanol and other damaging substances does not arise.
Now that the GAMI formula is available, it would be high time to see to it that it replaces 100LL as soon as all the engines are approved for it.
If you look in detail at the GAMI saga, the regulators and large fuel corporations have been behaving like complete idiots. GAMI has been able to do what these multi-billion companies were unable to achieve, and despite of the obstacles thrown up by the regulator
So at this point it is all about “not invented here” syndrome and of course money, there are no technical obstacles to replacing 100LL with an unleaded variant, possibly with an additive for engines that need it to preserve the valve seats.
While I appreciate that those who use UL91, Mogas or other lesser fuels as an alternative don’t see this as much as a problem, it is one of the many instances where saying “I’m alright, Jack” is another step in the disappearance of GA infrastructure (fuel, airport access etc) which pushes personal aircraft below turboprops and jets into the “hobby” niche.
It would be far better if all pushed for 100UL across the board, but that level of solidarity is not in the character of tribal GA, unfortunately.
Totally agree.
And perhaps GAMI might be playing too hard with a card they don’t really hold, because a very small change to the formula can invalidate their patents.
Cobalt wrote:
It would be far better if all pushed for 100UL across the board, but that level of solidarity is not in the character of tribal GA, unfortunately.
Absolutely.
Every 6 month check when I take the spark plugs out and pick out yet more lead contamination, I remember why I want to see the end of leaded avgas. Unfortunately we can’t get 91UL at all here.
Cobalt wrote:
It would be far better if all pushed for 100UL across the board
Some weeks before Christmas, BP (the fuel supplier for our airport) sent their yearly satisfaction survey, where I wrote basically this. Stop screwing around with PAFI and EAGLE and whatnot reinventing the wheel for the the n+1-th time.
If they ever turn around doing it, I will take full credit for my foresightedness.
I can run 100LL, mogas, or UL91, but I would like nothing more than to have a single unleaded fuel everywhere. Not sure anyone is being tribal, but if they are, they might want to be reminded that they breath air with lead in it like the rest of us.
