A pilot's perspective

E: The Environmental Magazine, Jan-Feb, 2005 by Michael Ringold

I have read your recent coverage of aviation's contribution to global pollution ("Flying the Dirty Skies," Currents, September/October 2004). Being a private pilot myself, I can admit it's not the cleanest. I happen to know the fuel I put into an everyday, common Cessna 172 Skyhawk is called "100LL" the LL referring to "low lead." Low, but it is still there, and it is even more "there" in the other two primary varieties of aviation fuel (though 100LL and let are most common).

Lead was finally removed from automotive fuel years ago (thankfully, since it has contributed to something like 90 percent of environmental lead pollution), but lead is still in airplane gas.

I think, though, you might've missed the mark on suggesting higher taxes to attempt to get the industry to conserve fuel. For general aviation at least (the vast numbers of single-engine, four-seat aircraft out there, and even a massive number of heavy twin engines), the best choice would be modernization. You'd be amazed at the antique equipment used in aircraft. Yes, yes, we've got fancy global positioning and other devices that can help us put down on the ground within a mere yards margin of error, but what's under the cowling is an engine that's less sophisticated than a 1973 Corvette I had not too long ago, or for that matter, an old 1953 pickup.

If updated to use a cleaner fuel, such as even automotive fuel, or perhaps biodiesel, or, in the future, hydrogen--with a little kick from a turbocharger--the pollution could be vastly reduced. Anyway, a pilot's two cents. Oh, and with all that lead that's potentially floating around an airport, I wouldn't let kids get too friendly with the plane, especially around the fuel overflow valves or the caps.

Michael Ringold

via e-mail