A Serious Threat to Homebuilding

[Ironflight]

This has flown a little quietly under the radar, what with the Third Class Medical stuff and all, but the FAA is looking for comments on a policy statement that says that the ONLY proper use for a hangar is aircraft storage, and that you are also allowed to have a desk...and keep some log books. No building, no maintenance (apparently). This is in response to all of those hangars sitting chock full of boats, old cars, household goods, etc, etc around the country.

Avweb posted a good piece on this today here, and it has the links to go make a comment to the FAA on this topic. I advise EVERYONE to go comment - it took me about five minutes.

Here is what I posted:

Having been personally involved in aircraft construction, maintenance, and flight for over 40 years, I am stunned to read that aircraft construction is not an aeronautical activity. The FAA personnel involved in developing this document need to actually visit a small airport some time and see just what is going on outside the beltways of major cities. Aircraft construction and maintenance has been performed in airport hangars since the dawn of aviation - the earliest airports were no more than convenient fields NEXT TO the building in which the airplane was constructed. This policy statement shows a complete lack of touch with the real world - most small maintenance facilities are, indeed, located in "hangars" with a taxiway leading to the runway. This statement would make virtually ALL maintenance facilities fall outside of the definition, and potentially put them out of business.

In the past month alone, as an aviation journalist (Editor in Chief of Kitplanes Magazine), I have visited three different manufacturers of aircraft and aircraft kits, all of whom are constructing aircraft components and aircraft in buildings which they use as hangars located directly on airport taxiways. This policy will devastate them - they will be out of business, and the entire general aviation industry with them.

Defining hangar usage in this way will provide a legal basis for the total destruction of aviation activities, since major airplanes also do maintenance in hangars. The recourse, of course, is for an individual to hang a sign on their building clearly labeling it as something other than a hangar.

While I support the idea of limiting the use of hangars to aeronautical activities, which would provide a great many more hangars that are currently being used to store boats, household goods, farm equipment, and the like, I can not see how any reasonably educated person could refuse to acknowledge that aircraft construction and maintenance are not "aeronautical activities". This portion of the policy is clearly wrong and needs to be re-written.

This is a huge threat if your local airport decides to use the FAA's definitions in a legal action. As of this morning, there were only 46 comments - there need to be 4600!

[flyboykelly]

I'll be posting a comment on this today. What about airparks? Or is this proposal limited to only airports that receive federal funds. This would shut down a large portion of our community at Spruce Creek!

[SmilingJack]

Done!

But...Jay Leno should write a letter too so he doesn't lose his garage-mahal

Last I knew his hangar didn't have any airplanes in it.....

[BillL]

I can certainly understand the basic idea of protecting aviation, but this is so misguided.

One thing that might be mentioned, the home build industry generates huge revenue directly for US made goods and services and they are ALL directly related to growth and advancement of aviation.

I wish we had the numbers compared to certified (certificated?) aircraft. Data anyone?

Comment posting underway.

[panhandler1956]

Wow! Where did this come from?! I'll respectfully comment to the FAA.

Two steps forward, one step back...ugh!

Thanks for alerting the troops Paul!

Brent

my comment:

"As a professional pilot who has been flying for over 27 years, I also have restored and built a number of airplanes as part of my passion for aviation. This allows me to enjoy recreational flying on top of my professional pursuits and helps to promote and share the freedom we enjoy in this country as aviators.

While I understand that using hangars for storage of non-aviation related items is misuse of airport facilities, it is incomprehensible to prohibit aircraft restoration or construction in these structures. One of the most prolific aspects of recreational aviation that would be doomed to extinction if this proposal is not properly amended.

Please reconsider the unintended consequences this proposal would have on an already ailing industry; one in which costs have escalated out of control, student pilot starts are at an all time low, the number of registered pilots is lower than it has been in the last four decades, and a real pilot shortage is on the horizon."

[mannanj]

Just posted my comment. Was civil and hopefully made sense.

Being Retired Military, and former Civil Service, I tried to put it into a statement they would read, not just toss in the "in" basket.

[joe1968]

I just posted my comment, just another way to control the things we enjoy, I think it's important because fellow builders and pilots can lend alot of experience

[DaleB]

I read the proposed FAA policy statement to mean it would be OK to do the "final assembly", whatever that means, but not all the construction. The "FAA determination that aircraft construction is not per se an aeronautical activity" is simply ridiculous. If building an airplane is not an aeronautical activity -- then what the heck is it? And banning maintenance in hangars when E/AB and A/LSA owners are able to do their own maintenance is just plain stupid. If I can't maintain my own plane in the hangar I'm paying for (twice), then where else exactly would I do it? I think they're after the guys who park a stripped, derelict airframe in their "on-airport storage locker" and claim to be restoring it. I also know of a couple with airplanes in them that are being restored, albeit slowly over a period of several years. It seems obvious to me that one use should clearly be OK, the other probably not -- but I don't know how you could enforce that with a policy.

I can't see how they could make this or any similar policy clear enough not to confuse people and screw over at least some builders.

Polite comment filed.

[tcone1]

The wrong-headedness of this proposed rule has moved me to comment.

Paul, thank you for pointing this out.

Here is the link to the page

http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchR...p=true;ns=true

[Sam Staton]

This needs to be brought to the attention of our Congress critters. Given that this is an election year, that may work into our favor. I presume that the alphabet agencies will also weigh in on this.