[toomuchtodo]

I would complain to anyone who will listen. The health effects of lead exposure are well known, and a suitable replacement is available. Any continued combustion of leaded avgas is out of apathy and laziness. The FAA is dragging their feet because there is no cost to them to do so.

[hutzlibu]

I know nothing of the technical details, so you are saying, no one would need to change anything with their engines etc and just switch to leadfree gasoline?

[toomuchtodo]

That is my understanding.

https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-do-your-damn-job/

> To scrub the playhead forward, last summer at Oshkosh, to great fanfare, the STC approving G100UL was announced. It applied to a limited number of engines and GAMI was tasked with additional testing and data work to expand the engine list. This it did. The Wichita Aircraft Certification Office duly sent a letter to FAA HQ reporting that GAMI met all the test requirements—best-run program they had ever seen, or words to that effect—and was entitled to an STC-AML with every single spark ignition engine in the FAA database approved to use G100UL.

...

> At a press conference, Lawrence said he thought PAFI had been “a great success.” I simply cannot agree. I don’t know how anyone in the industry could think this. PAFI was supposed to yield an unleaded drop-in replacement for 100LL. It did not. It was an abject failure and now, even though the FAA has an STC in hand awaiting approval for a fuel that has been proven, ad nauseum, to work in all engines, it wants more money for more testing. While the PAFI program—that was Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative—supposedly produced data, accessing it is all but impossible.

[sokoloff]

Yes, but it's "switch to a lead-free gasoline, but one that is different from the currently sold lead-free gasoline used in cars."

https://gami.com/g100ul/GAMI_Q_and_A.pdf