>

Okay, so if we can wave our magic wand to get a compromise, force the switch on new small planes and let hobbyists take their own risks with old ones?
I realize that we're arguing about micromanagement of small risks but I hope someone is thinking about small issues like this.
For starters it's not exactly a new leak, and it's not the first time something like this has happened either. Leaded gasoline was known to be dangerous before it was even released and they pushed for it anyways. We still use it in aviation to this day as well.  
If we don't even prosecute people in charge for things like the GM ignition switch deaths, there's little hope we'd prosecute ExxonMobil for hiding climate change studies. We need greater penalties for corporations who harm society like this but that will never happen with the modern Republican party unless Democrats gain a supermajority. >

It makes some degree of sense to use leaded gasoline in small engine aircraft - if something goes wrong with the engine (leaded gasoline reduces knocking) it's a whole lot worse than in a car.
Jets and large planes use jet fuel, not leaded gas. The twin engine Cessnas aren't really contributing much to the issue. >


It makes some degree of sense to use leaded gasoline in small engine aircraft - if something goes wrong with the engine (leaded gasoline reduces knocking) it's a whole lot worse than in a car.

It's just industry lobbying because it would be expensive to develop and test a new aircraft engine for small planes. Small engine planes are just way behind auto engines and are essentially obsolete, but the market for small engine planes is small enough that there isn't much incentive for new development. >

Yeah, it's the small market and the proliferation of older engines that won't get replaced any time soon. It's also such a small amount of overall fuel use that it's really not worth stressing about. >


It's also such a small amount of overall fuel use that it's really not worth stressing about.

I have no way of knowing how accurate this statement is. It's reasonable for me to guess that it doesn't pose a great risk to the general public but I'm not sure that it's not a risk to people who are passengers or operate small engine aircraft. I would guess there's still utility in forcing small aircraft to upgrade to modern engines. >

There would definitely be utility in forcing the switch, but the actual result would just be that hobbyist flying mostly ceases in the states. There's a ton of 30+ year old engines that are still operational, and it's an extremely expensive hobby. When faced with the choice between a $30k (or more) engine and scrapping the plane, there's gonna be a lot of people choosing the later.
Not that hobbyist flying is some sort of inherent moral good or something worth preserving, either.