Challenges persist in developing lead-free aviation fuel alternatives

Swift Fuels is also pursuing both STC and ASTM pathways but has provided limited updates on its progress. The company maintains that ASTM certification is crucial for market acceptance by distributors.

Allegations of bias and corruption have plagued efforts by PAFI and End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE), leading some stakeholders to call for a complete overhaul of the process. However, such drastic measures could disrupt any new consensus-building efforts.

The FAA's role in this matter is critical. There are calls for the agency to standardize evaluation processes across all candidate fuels to ensure fair assessment criteria. This move could provoke further controversy but may be necessary to expedite finding a viable lead-free alternative.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding mandates eliminating lead from aviation fuel by 2030. Given the slow progress over recent years, achieving this goal within six years appears increasingly challenging.

The situation underscores a broader issue: whether aviation stakeholders or external forces will ultimately dictate future avgas standards. The current fragmented approach risks further delays unless decisive action is taken soon.

An earlier version of this blog incorrectly attributed a quote concerning G100UL testing methods to the FAA; it was written by GAMI and included in an FAA-approved specification.