VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #111  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:47 PM
Buggsy2's Avatar
Buggsy2 Buggsy2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 565
Default

Avweb: 'Hangar Policy "Significant Win" For Homebuilders: EAA'

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-a...line%3A+140724

Paul Dye: I think you overreacted in your initial post. Experimental/Amateur Built aircraft are not the only aircraft in the world. My experience is that of owning a flying aircraft kept under a shade hangar for over a decade while people have 3 different airplanes and projects in different moldering states in their hangars indefinitely because they're too lazy and undisciplined to finish their projects.

Meanwhile for 6 years I've kept at my own build project in the garage. True, not everyone has a convenient garage to work in, but must those builders take up valuable hangar space for years, while flying aircraft that simply cannot be kept off-airport are denied the protection of a hangar? Obviously the FAA thinks not, and I applaud them. I'll be commenting in favor of this clarification...and when I've done everything I can in my garage, I'll move the big pieces to the hangar I finally got at another airport and do final assembly there.
__________________
Ralph Finch
RV-9A QB-SA
Davis, CA
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:52 PM
Buggsy2's Avatar
Buggsy2 Buggsy2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbirdsolutions View Post
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!
And thank god they do. That stranglehold prevented the University of California (Davis) from paving over KEDU 10 years ago. It continues to protect, for instance, Reid-Hillview in San Jose and the Santa Monica airport near Los Angeles, and no doubt hundreds of other airports. The issue is really quite simple: if you want complete control over your airport, get together with like-minded people and build your own. No, really.

I would guess 99% of public airports have accepted Federal funds (avgas taxes paying only a tiny fraction of airport cost) and thus come under Federal control, which is far more good than bad.
__________________
Ralph Finch
RV-9A QB-SA
Davis, CA
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 08-04-2014, 11:39 PM
erich weaver's Avatar
erich weaver erich weaver is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: santa barbara, CA
Posts: 1,682
Default

The current Avweb article indicates that the proposed rule would supersede an existing rule which specified zero tolerance for non-aviation hangar use. EAA therfore calls the proposed rule an improvement. Clearly the old rule was very rarely enforced and apparently little known since there hasn't been any uproar like this current one. Is there anything indicating the new rule is going to be enforced any more than the old one?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-05-2014, 04:51 AM
Warbirdsolutions Warbirdsolutions is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Prospect, KY
Posts: 67
Default EAA REPLY TO ME

Doug McNair of the EAA wrote me a response to my concerns to him about this new policy. A summary follows: Law as it is currently prohibits entirely homebuilding in hangars on federally funded airports. This regulation has not been heavily enforced due largely to an agreement between the EAA and the FAA pending a final policy. There were a couple of court cases challenging this current policy and ultimately decisions were not beneficial but the FAA has remained anti-aggressive still pending a new "clarifying policy".

Doug was miffed because the AvWeb article stated that this new policy was worse than the current one which outright prohibits homebuilding. I bet this comes as a surprise to most of you, it was to me. The EAA applauds this new policy because it at least authorizes homebuilt "final assembly". Well, while a small improvement, it's far from ok and Doud agrees with that. Doug said that the EAA was given the draft just before Airventure so there had not been time to digest and make any input to the FAA thus far. He assures me that the EAA is highly engaged in this policy and that they will continue to try to have the policy language changed to allow "Active Homebuilt Construction" in hangars on federally funded airports.

Doug advises that we make every effort to bombard the FAA with comments on this to the NPRM. The EAA monitors these comments and my impression is they react based on the amount of comments made to the FAA. I urge you and everyone you know to get on the Internet and comment on this policy. Personally I believe that this policy may accept some language modification to include "Active Construction" with enough public support. This would preclude those who just end up storing a project and never actually working on it. I believe there should be a clause whereby in special circumstances such as military deployment or illness, etc. that would allow a protracted build time.

Doug urges us to be commenting in force to the FAA. Since final assembly is already in the new policy, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the FAA might expand this homebuilt policy if there is enough input. Please make heavy reference that homebuilding Experimental aircraft is one our most essential "Aeronautical" uses of a hangar in this country! Hope this clears some things up.
Please start writing ASAP!
Thanks,
Brad

Last edited by Warbirdsolutions : 08-05-2014 at 04:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-05-2014, 04:56 AM
Bruce's Avatar
Bruce Bruce is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Anywhere, USA
Posts: 1,132
Default

Comments sent to FAA.

Remember that it is funded airports only.
__________________
Bruce (BOOMER) Pauley
Kathy (KAT) Pauley

RV 7A--"MISS MARIE"--- N177WD (SOLD FLYING)72742
VAF #582-----------------EAA LIFETIME MEMBER
EX -KC-135A -------------BOOM OPERATOR #3633
VAN'S FLIGHT------------#6930

See you in OSHKOSH


http://www.mykitlog.com/users/index....ley&project=84


=VAF= 2006-2020 DUES PAID
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 08-05-2014, 05:06 AM
Warbirdsolutions Warbirdsolutions is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Prospect, KY
Posts: 67
Default ENFORCEMENT

Yes, it is assumed by the EAA as I understand it, that this policy will be viewed by the FAA as clarifying and thus enforceable. It's impossible to say for sure that enforcement will be more aggressive but since this new policy will be viewed as a final ruling it is reasonable to assume that enforcement at the local and federal level will accelerate unless we can get the language changed before this policy becomes law.....
Brad
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 08-05-2014, 05:54 AM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,029
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erich weaver View Post
The current Avweb article indicates that the proposed rule would supersede an existing rule which specified zero tolerance for non-aviation hangar use. EAA therfore calls the proposed rule an improvement. Clearly the old rule was very rarely enforced and apparently little known since there hasn't been any uproar like this current one. Is there anything indicating the new rule is going to be enforced any more than the old one?
That's part of my concern. The proposed rule might be better than the previous one, but now we're drawing a lot of attention to it, and it might make things worse for a lot of people.

My other concern is that, like Paul said, whatever gets put into the rules is what we're stuck with. And my reading of the rule says there's still too much room for interpretation, too much leeway for the FAA or an anti-experimental airport administrator to impose draconian policies, and not enough protection for homebuilders and aircraft owners.

"Final assembly" might mean that you have your airworthiness and only need to put all the fairings back on. Or it might mean you have 30 days from moving in to getting the airworthiness certificate. Yes, the latter has been the plan for my -7 all along due to a lack of conveniently-located airports (I grew up spoiled in that regard), but I don't believe that should have to be everyone's plan. It also rankles me that building an airplane isn't considered by the FAA to be an aviation-related activity--though I wonder if that could be turned around on them to force them out of some of the microscope-level oversight of every step of certified aircraft production?

The note about "temporary storage" for maintenance/restoration isn't clear enough, either. For example, a 30-day limit (which I could see someone trying to impose) would impact condition inspections, panel upgrades, engine overhauls, annuals (for owners of certified airplanes), major repairs, etc. There's also not enough protection for doing maintenance in the hangar. In my mind, there's an absolute right for aircraft owners to perform maintenance on their aircraft within the limits of the law (which I believe should be broader) and the bounds of safety/fire prevention. This ought to be codified.

Finally, I'm concerned about the "incidental items" protections, especially the "insignificant amount of hangar space" line. Once again, there's a lot of room in there for someone in power to clamp down on anything past a desk, chair, and towbar. This one hits home, since I was fortunate enough to spend my teens and early 20s around a certain large group of RV builders/owners. At the time, they had a large hangar with several aircraft (including ours) parked in it, some being built and some having flown for years. They also had a snack/rest area, community workbenches and part storage, a couple of old bikes, and a bunch of tables and chairs that were used to host various cookouts and other events. A lot of this extra "stuff" would probably be considered "non-aviation related", and took up more than "an insigificant amount of hangar space", though it never crowded out an airplane. But I'd say that the atmosphere fostered by this hangar and all its contents ("aviation-related" or not), where someone was usually around if you needed another set of hands, where young bucks like me could fly with and learn from guys who probably had more time in the air than I had on my own two feet, where everybody was welcomed instead of getting a cold shoulder, probably brought more business and more flying to that airport than any amount of bureaucratic rule-following or draconian, antiseptic, 5S-style hangar contents restrictions.

Yes, if someone is storing imported widgets in the hangar or running office space there instead of housing airplanes, by all means, kick them out if airplanes or airplane projects are waiting. And I generally understand if someone with an actively flying airplane is waiting on a hangar occupied by a homebuilt project that hasn't been touched in a year or two. But if there's enough demand for hangars from legitimate aviation-related activities (to include building!) then the solution should be to build more hangars, if there is any room to do so.
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 08-05-2014, 07:48 AM
Moondog's Avatar
Moondog Moondog is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 118
Default If it's not an airplane...

Most of the comments here object to possible prohibition of active kit projects on FAA-regulated airport property. I understand that.

But there's more.

In the hangar I am about to build, the plans include an 8?x17? efficiency-type office. If I am delayed by weather for 3-4 hours and want to take a quick nap before a 5-hour flight, a fold-down bed would be more conducive to rest than sitting at my desk with my head on a lousy printer. Rested pilots are safer pilots.

My refrigerator will hold enough beer (I don?t drink it) for a small cookout, and eventually I?ll know most every tenant on the field. That helps create an airport community and makes our field more secure. A community makes a safer airport.

And one would think that a fully-stocked toolroom would allow me to use the right tool to make the proper repair instead of fly now and fix it later. Proper and timely repairs make a safer aircraft.

Apparently, the FAA?s opinion is We haven't considered aviation safety, or airport safety, or aircraft safety, it it?s not an airplane, you can?t have it.
__________________
David Morrow
7A QB ~50% complete . . .
N3237A Reserved
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 08-05-2014, 07:54 AM
YellowJacket RV9 YellowJacket RV9 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Clearwater, FL KCLW
Posts: 1,281
Default

The EAA may see this as a step forward politically, but it seems pretty obvious that more homebuilders will be hurt by increased enforcement than will be helped by being 'allowed' to do final assembly at their hangar. So why would we consider it a win?

My question is why language about homebuilding is included in any of these rules to begin with. The problem supposedly being addressed is non-aviation uses such as as storage for cars, motorhomes, boats, etc. This problem can be completely take care of with proper enforcement of the rules. I don't think that there are enough EAB projects sitting unloved in hangars to require government action. And to suggest that EAB projects are non-aeronautical in nature is absurd, even by FAA standards.

Write a rule with teeth to specifically address cars, boats, motorhomes, trailers, and furniture storage, and 90% of the problem is solved. THAT would be a step forward.

A more cynical person might suggest that maybe completely solving problems isn't in the best interest of lobbying organizations. Nobody wants to lobby themselves out of a job, after all. Me, I just think that maybe if you spend too much time dealing with bureaucrats, you start thinking like one.

Chris
__________________
Chris Johnson
RV-9A - Done(ish) 4/5/16! Flying 4/7/16
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 08-05-2014, 08:20 AM
Kent Ashton Kent Ashton is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbirdsolutions View Post
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!
True dat! What will happen is (1) homebuilders will be forced out, or (2) if the airport is more laid-back and would not ordinarily care, a wait-listed owner will complain that a homebuilder or restorer is using hangar space and that homebuilder will be forced out.

All the federally-assisted airports in my area have waiting lists because the danged airports have so many requirements levied by the FAA that it's impossible to build your own hangar.

An FAA rule says that a person must be allowed to lease space to build his own hangar "if the sponsor and the person agree on terms". Funny how the two can never come together on an agreement.

I used to be an expert on these rules until dealing with the FAA gave me a heart attack and I had to push back. Gotta go, BP spiking.
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 08:06 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.