|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

08-04-2014, 07:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Orem, UT
Posts: 213
|
|
Just wondering ...
I have not yet visited Vans Aircraft, but as far as I know, it's based at an airport. How is a factory based at an airport different from a hangar based an an airport? Or another building like a maintainence shop. The factory, the shop, and the hangar all spend time holding airplanes in various stages of readiness to fly.
Will Vans and other kit manufacturers need to move off airports because they have access to a federally funded runway and they are clearly not involved in the final stages of assembly?
Or how about the site where they buid the ready to fly RV-12?
And while I'm on the subject, are all certified aircraft completely manufactured except for final assembly at sites the do not have access to a federally funded runway? It would be a shame if this policy had to shut down a "real" aircraft manufacturer.
__________________
Finishing -12 tail cone
-9A Empennage done, in storage
|

08-04-2014, 07:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Prospect, KY
Posts: 67
|
|
PAUL IS EXACTLY RIGHT
Guys,
I wrote Jack Pelton about this yesterday and he forwarded Doug McNair's response to Jack's inquisition. Doug was noticeably aggravated that AvWeb had called attention to this NPRM! This is our EAA! The EAA worked with the FAA on this rule and they flat dropped the ball. I urge all of you to actually read the entire NPRM! This can wipe out home building as we know it. It expressly prohibits construction of homebuilt aircraft! It describes Final Assembly as active Final Assembly To Fly. This does Not include any prior stage of construction. It means bolt the wings on, final adjustment, put fluids in and fly! At my airport our airport manager and airport board will interpret this literally and all the RV aircraft under construction will be dead. While a bit of this rule may be positive, the home built clause IS NOT! We must be contacting the EAA and the FAA in force or we will all suffer a devastating blow that literally could wipe out the homebuilding community. What possible difference could one of the "certificated" aircraft stored in hangars and virtually never flown be to a homebuilt that may take a few years to build and then typically will be flown regularly and often. There is just no reasonable basis for this construction clause. As it is written, just because you are constructing in your hangar with another of your aircraft it does NOT mean you are exempt - period. It reads that Construction of Homebuilt Aircraft with the exception of Final Assembly is Prohibited! This is a wake-up call folks and we need to get this corrected right now or the consequences will be catastrophic!
Brad
|

08-04-2014, 07:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Prospect, KY
Posts: 67
|
|
ONE MORE THING
I have been dealing with federal airport funding for some time and have headed our group of hangar owners to get hangars built at my airport. I can assure you that the FAA has a stranglehold on your airport if they have ever taken one dime from the government for any reason! Airports with grants in effect or that have accepted grants in the past are particularly affected. Typically whether it is a city, county, township, or whatever if they have directly or indirectly received funds for ANY reason they are subject to enforcement of this rule. The airport sponsor (manager or airport board) will be aggressively enforcing this rule especially if they have grants pending. While this ruling may open up some hangar space full of "non-aeronautical" items it will also open up hangar space due to homebuilts being removed. This is a bad ruling for homebuilders, make no mistake about it!
Brad
|

08-04-2014, 07:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 804
|
|
A few quick points ...
First, I think if everyone could take five and re-read posts 59 and 87, that would be good for the dialogue.
Second, there is much dialog offline about this issue.
Third, (for those questioning EAA), the EAA efforts actually moved the ball FORWARD. Not as far as we ALL want but forward. AND we realize that there is more moving to be done. And more energy is/will be applied.
It is the expressed opinion of those working directly with the FAA that this is not a hidden agenda to demise Amateur Built activities.
There is a real problem that people are attempting to sort out. The **draft** document is something that is shared in a manner that in fact gives us all the opportunity to further "enlighten" as to what we see are shortcomings.
Paul's posting helps make everyone aware and provides a means by which each of you can help "enlighten".
Glad to see the passion. But as someone has said here earlier, let's not go off on tangents and get "off point" here.
In my **personal** opinion, a small change in the wording of one sentence as a result of further "educating" or "enlightening", is what is needed to fix this AND solve the problem to which it is actually addressing.
And yes, again, EAA people are in fact continuing to work with FAA people to sort this out.
James
__________________
James E. Clark
Columbia, SC
RV6 Flying, RV6A Cowling
APRS
|

08-04-2014, 07:40 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 212
|
|
hangars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill_H
Any intelligent airport operator with a waiting list would build more hangars. You could secure long term legal commitments from that waiting list to cover or partially address the risk of building (sometimes local airport boards are wary of expansion.) And/or require the non-aircraft "storage" users to sign a LONG lease, might move them out to a mini-storage.
|
If you have airport management like Bismarck,ND you have to sign a lease that says the building belongs to the city after a very short time. Last I saw, it was something like 10 years. It is very difficult to recoup a hangar investment in 10 years.
__________________
Larry Buller
RV7A slow build, Tip up, IO360 200hp, Catto 3 blade, Dynon Skyview, arinc 429, ems, SV transponder, Garmin GNS430w, Aera 560, Dynon D6.
FLYING!
|

08-04-2014, 08:18 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battle Ground
Posts: 480
|
|
When I wanted to start building an RV I found myself in the same situation that we all face, where do I build it. I happen to live in an area with very specific HOA CC&Rs that are pretty restrictive. In short, building in my garage was not going to happen. I placed my name on the waiting list for a hangar and eventually leased my hangar.
During my build I have spent three years either deployed, preparing to deploy or returning from deployment. During that period my kit, in various stages of completion, sat in my hangar (part of that time my now sold Cherokee shared the space.)
Under this new language I would not have been allowed to lease the hangar and I would not have become a builder. I just would not have had a location in which to build. That is probably true for anyone that lives in an apartment or condo or in a house with restrictive CC&Rs. Today, under strict interpretation of "final assembly", I would have to move with no where to move. Leasing commerical space is just too expensive. I am not looking for sympathy, just stating how things are.
If the FAA, and my airport, want to stop people from storing TVs, cars, furniture or whatever in a hangar; fine. But to eliminate many builders by poorly written rules in not the solution.
Just my too cents, I am sure others will disagree.
EDIT - My airport has made no mention of a requirement to move. In fact, I think I am at a pretty nice airport that is run by a great group of folks, But the airport has received FAA funding, so the FAA could cause a change by poorly written rules. It will affect me, and many others like me that would like to build an airplane. If the rule was in affect when I wanted to start my project, the airport would have been required to deny my lease.
__________________
Scott
RV-7 N818BG (flying)
Bearhawk Patrol (building)
Last edited by sahrens : 08-04-2014 at 08:29 PM.
Reason: Clarity
|

08-04-2014, 08:23 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Estes Park, CO
Posts: 3,947
|
|
Service
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahrens
When I wanted to start building an RV I found myself in the same situation that we all face, where do I build it. I happen to live in an area with very specific HOA CC&Rs that are pretty restrictive. In short, building in my garage was not going to happen. I placed my name on the waiting list for a hangar and eventually leased my hangar.
During my build I have spent three years either deployed, preparing to deploy or returning from deployment. During that period my kit, in various stages of completion, sat in my hangar (part of that time my now sold Cherokee shared the space.)
Under this new language I would not have been allowed to lease the hangar and I would not have become a builder. I just would not have had a location in which to build. That is probably true for anyone that lives in an apartment or condo or in a house with restrictive CC&Rs. Today, under strict interpretation of "final assembly", I would have to move with no where to move. Leasing commerical space is just too expensive. I am not looking for sympathy, just stating how things are.
If the FAA, and my airport, want to stop people from storing TVs, cars, furniture or whatever in a hangar; fine. But to eliminate many builders by poorly written rules in not the solution.
Just my too cents, I am sure others will disagree.
|
Now that would have been a disgrace. To boot a military service person out of a hangar while overseas serving. Pretty sad.
Thank you for your service.
__________________
Larry Larson
Estes Park, CO
http://wirejockrv7a.blogspot.com
wirejock at yahoo dot com
Donated 12/03/2019, plus a little extra.
RV-7A #73391, N511RV reserved (2,000+ hours)
HS SB, empennage, tanks, wings, fuse, working finishing kit
Disclaimer
I cannot be, nor will I be, held responsible if you try to do the same things I do and it does not work and/or causes you loss, injury, or even death in the process.
Last edited by wirejock : 08-04-2014 at 08:24 PM.
Reason: typo
|

08-04-2014, 08:31 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 212
|
|
hangar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironflight
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.
|
EXACTLY!
While the proposed rule may be better than what was being interpreted before, you put that little phrase, "not found all stages of the building process to be aeronautical for purposes of hangar use." and I guarantee that there will be FAA and Airport manager folks that will interpret that to mean it can't be at the airport till it's airworthy! If it looks like an airplane or it's a part of an airplane or used to support an airplane in whatever level of assembly it is, it belongs in a hangar and should be considered an aeronautical activity. I do not consider this a win till ALL aeronautical activity is acceptable. We should not settle for anything less! These is our country, our taxes, our airplanes. It is our right to use a hangar on a federally funded airport to build our planes from the ground up as much as it is the right of a 172 owner to store their airplane.
PLEASE COMMENT!
__________________
Larry Buller
RV7A slow build, Tip up, IO360 200hp, Catto 3 blade, Dynon Skyview, arinc 429, ems, SV transponder, Garmin GNS430w, Aera 560, Dynon D6.
FLYING!
|

08-04-2014, 08:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Prospect, KY
Posts: 67
|
|
SAHRENS IS RIGHT
You are exactly right. While we appreciate those working with the FAA on our behalf, we must make it known in no uncertain terms that prohibiting construction of homebuilts is NOT acceptable. How did this verbiage make it into this draft? I may seem to be an alarmist but failure to get this corrected could be too catastrophic for us to truly comprehend. We need to be commenting on this NPRM and to the EAA. It's our only hope. Where is this going to end? The FAA chips away at GA little by little until finally one day we'll wake up and it's gone.
|

08-04-2014, 10:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WA State
Posts: 192
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbirdsolutions
How did this verbiage make it into this draft?
|
See Post # 40...connect the dots!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclark
It is the expressed opinion of those working directly with the FAA that this is not a hidden agenda to demise Amateur Built activities.
|
With all due respect to the parties to whom you refer, the ACTIONS of individuals (and organizations) are much more reliable and revealing indicators of their true intentions (and character) than any words or statements. The FAA has demonstrated BY THEIR ACTIONS a consistent pattern of proposing and promulgating policies and rules that adversely impact EAB. A reasonable person would have to suspend disbelief to accept that there is no pernicious intent here!
I fully support the efforts by EAA and individual stakeholders to work with the FAA through the comment process in an effort to ?correct? the language in the current proposed rule regarding hangar usage. My concern is that in the absence of additional legislative action to cement into law certain rights and freedoms for EAB we will continue to fight subsequent battles with a regulatory authority that seeks our undoing, despite any benign public statements it makes to the contrary.
__________________
Will McClain
N954WM (Reserved)
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:06 AM.
|