VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #91  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:01 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by precession View Post
I’ve read the proposed rulemaking on the FAA website and think those objecting to it are making a mistake and misapprehending the purpose and effect of the rule, probably because the initial post on this thread was titled “A serious threat to homebuilding.” In my opinion this proposed rulemaking is not a serious threat to homebuilding, but rather would be an improvement in the existing regulatory landscape for homebuilders, experimental aircraft owners and GA in general. I think it is ironic and a shame that some homebuilders are apparently not appreciating that and writing in to object to it.
<snip>
Thank you for a well-reasoned post that I think accurately describes the proposed rule. I too think the title of this thread got things off on a mis-directed track.

But it certainly did get our attention.....
__________________
Sam Buchanan
RV-6
Fokker D.VII replica

Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 08-04-2014 at 02:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:13 PM
jcbarnes1 jcbarnes1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kenosha WI
Posts: 50
Default EAA strikes accord

Read more of the story...


http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-a...line%3A+140724
__________________
Jeff Barnes, Race 411 RV-Gold
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:17 PM
RVbySDI's Avatar
RVbySDI RVbySDI is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by precession View Post
I?ve read the proposed rulemaking on the FAA website and think those objecting to it are making a mistake and misapprehending the purpose and effect of the rule. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH View Post
Reasoned and well written.
Well, except for the misuse of the word "misapprehending", I would agree!
__________________
RVBYSDI
Steve
RV9A
https://rvwings.com

Live Long And Prosper! 🖖🏻
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:19 PM
rockwoodrv9 rockwoodrv9 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Meridian ID, Aspen CO, Okemos MI
Posts: 2,645
Default

Dan,
Your comment may be the one that is the best legal argument to fight the over reach by the FAA on hangar uses. If the airport receives federal money to maintain and other costs for the runway and taxi ways, why do they assume they can control the county, city, or privately owned land that the hangars are on?

If the feds controlled the hangars, you would be making your lease payment to them. Trying to convince the county or city to support their clients - those of us leasing the hangars will be a difficult thing in most locations.

Maybe this is an opening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH View Post
That's a good point, because the policy seems to apply to all hangars on grand-funded airports, including privately-owned hangars on leased airport land. In fact, hangar construction wasn't an approved use for AIP funds until recent times.

__________________
rockwoodrv9a
Williamston MI
O-320 D2A
Awaiting DAR Inspection
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:23 PM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
Default

Well folks, I am the one who wrote the title of this thread - I'll take responsibility for that. If you are happy with this interpretation as written, then great - let the FAA know that. But remember that this will be used in the future in courts of law, where every word counts. As I said before, I am happy with the overall idea of this interpretation, but I am very concerned with this single paragraph:
While building an aircraft results in an aeronautical product, the FAA has not found all stages of the building process to be aeronautical for purposes of hangar use. A large part of the construction process can be and often is conducted off-airport. Only when the various components are assembled into a final functioning aircraft is access to the airfield necessary.
Put that in the Federal Record, and forevermore, homebuilding can be cited as not an aeronautical purpose for the use of a hangar. I can play devil's advocate to our cause and say that in order to be a functioning aircraft, it must have gas and oil in the tanks - until that point, it's not permitted on the airport. To someone trying to keep us off a field, that would be a good argument. Silly, of course....

Let's help them get ALL the words right so that we can make this truly helpful, and not leave pitfalls and traps that can catch us later.
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:38 PM
AX-O's Avatar
AX-O AX-O is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,452
Default

Edit: Sorry Paul we posted at the same time.

This thread is all over the place. I am sure this is not what Paul originally intended. There are things being said on this thread that are 100% inaccurate and not helpful at all.

This is important to all of us! Can we collectively pump the brakes and get back to the original intent? If you submitted your comment, maybe post it here so others can potentially use it as a template. Thanks for your consideration.
__________________
Axel
RV-4 fastback thread and Pics
VAF 2020 paid VAF 704
The information that I post is just that; information and my own personal experiences. You need to weight out the pros and cons and make up your own mind/decisions. The pictures posted may not show the final stage or configuration. Build at your own risk.

Last edited by AX-O : 08-04-2014 at 02:39 PM. Reason: posted at the same time as Paul.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-04-2014, 03:13 PM
RV7A Flyer's Avatar
RV7A Flyer RV7A Flyer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarnes1 View Post
See, this seems eminently reasonable, with the sole exception of restricting aircraft assembly to "final" assembly.

I can even see the "final assembly" argument...Joe Schmoe rents a hangar to build a plane, and then (like a large percentage of such projects) it sits around *forever* and never gets done. The *perception* is that he's wasting a hangar which could be used by someone who a) owns a flying airplane, or b) is or intends to actively build at a steady pace towards completion. It's not a very good argument, but how many hangars do we see with an "airplane" in the same stage of partial construction for *years*?

But that *is* a problem that perhaps should be dealt with locally...FAA should recognize that homebuilding is a large, growing, viable, dynamic and vital part of general aviation now, and modify its rules accordingly. There's no reason to not acknowledge that aircraft construction is an "aeronautical activity".
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-04-2014, 06:00 PM
stevemcgirr stevemcgirr is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 159
Default Tried to stay on message

I submitted my comment today.

I made every effort to keep my objection to the point that for me, and I suspect for numerous others, that the advantages to being able to build my airplane, to test my airplane in early phases of construction (check my comm, Nav, engine, brake, etc systems at my airfield), resulted in my actually being able to safely complete my project. I did not and do not have alternative sites where I could have conducted early construction, or numerous of the tasks and checks during later construction.
__________________
Steve McGirr
RV7 N1991M
First Flight: May 18, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-04-2014, 06:17 PM
DanBaier's Avatar
DanBaier DanBaier is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 669
Default

It's interesting - the rule seems to be ripe for abuse; yet, I know a couple of airplane drivers who can't get T-hangar space because what's available is jammed with just about everything except airplanes. They would welcome this rule and think it a good idea (one being an experimental aircraft owner). So, there is another side to the issue.

Dan
__________________
RV7A (N7101) - Flying 10/2008
CFI- SE/ME/Inst
A&P
KC2ZEL
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-04-2014, 06:37 PM
DragonflyAero DragonflyAero is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 173
Default

I don't see that maintenance is prohibited at all. See 3rd bullet point below. We should be asking that the allowance for the construction phase be expanded. All in all we should view the initiative as a positive. I know of one large hanger at my airport that mostly houses cars, boats and RVs.

I am building in the corner of my hanger that houses my Decathlon. This space could not be used to store another airplane, so my interpretation would be that it would not be prohibited by this rule.

The airport could have more stringent rules if they wanted too, I suppose.

Here is the actual text, for those that have not seen it:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2014-0463-0001

I. General

The intent of this policy is to ensure that the Federal investment in federally obligated airports is protected by making aeronautical facilities available to aeronautical users, and to ensure that airport sponsors receive fair market value for rental of approved non-aviation use of airport property. Sponsors who fail to comply with grant assurances and this policy may be subject to administrative sanctions such as the denial of funding from current and future AIP grants.
II. Standards for Aeronautical Use of Hangars

Hangars located on airport property must be used for an aeronautical purpose, or be available for use for one, unless otherwise approved by the FAA.
Aeronautical uses for hangars include:

○ Storage of operational aircraft

○ Final assembly of aircraft

○ Short-term storage of non-operational aircraft for purposes of maintenance, repair, or refurbishment.

Provided the hangar is used primarily for aeronautical purposes, an airport sponsor may permit limited, non-aeronautical items to be stored in hangars provided the items are incidental to aeronautical use of the hangar and occupy an insignificant amount of hangar space (e.g., a small refrigerator). The incidental storage of non-aeronautical items will be considered to be of de minimis value for the purpose of assessing rent.
Generally, items are considered incidental if they:

○ Do not interfere with the aeronautical use of the hangar;

○ Do not displace the aeronautical contents of the hangar;

○ Do not impede access to aircraft or other aeronautical contents of the hangar;

○ Do not require a larger hangar than would otherwise be necessary if such items were not present;

○ Occupy an insignificant amount of hangar space;

○ Are owned by the hangar owner or tenant;

○ Are not used for non-aeronautical commercial purposes (i.e., the tenant is not conducting a non-aeronautical business from the hangar including storing inventory);

○ Are not stored in violation of airport rules and regulations.

Hangars should be leased with consideration of the size and quantity of aircraft to be stored therein. To maximize the availability of hangars for all aeronautical users, sponsors should avoid leasing a hangar that is disproportionately large for the aircraft to be stored in the hangar (i.e., hangars built to store multiple aircraft should be used for multiple aircraft storage).
Hangars must not be used as a residence. The FAA differentiates between a typical pilot resting facility or aircrew quarters versus a hangar residence or hangar home. The former are designed to be used for overnight and/or resting periods for aircrew, and not as a permanent or even temporary residence. See FAA Order 5190.6B, Paragraph 20.5.b.
This policy on hangar use applies regardless of whether the hangar occupant leases the hangar from the airport sponsor or developer, or the hangar occupant constructed the hangar at their own expense and holds a ground lease only. When designated aeronautical land is made available for construction of hangars, the hangars built on the land will be fully subject to the sponsor's obligations to use aeronautical facilities for aeronautical use.
__________________
Bill Vinson
RV-7 Standard Build
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/index....r&project=2226
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:55 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.