What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

A Serious Threat to Homebuilding

I posted my opposition to the prohibition of building or maintenance of aircraft inside a hangar. I used Paul's post as a guide and added the note that for the past few years experimental homebuilt airplanes are being registered with the FAA in greater numbers than factory built equivalents. Prohibiting them from being built inside a hangar, the absolute best place to build one, would have devastating results on the overall GA industry further complicating real aviation related and existing airport problems.

Here is the link to post your comment

:cool:
 
This is what I think should be the intent of the legislation and submitted it.

Please allow, provide for, permit, and/or encourage the construction of aircraft at all federally funded air ports. Do not prohibit amateur aircraft building, it is a viable supply of aircraft for a large number of persons and provides jobs for the vendors supporting that effort.

Do get rid of boats, motorcycles and other forms of non aviation vehicles being stored on air port property.
 
As expected everyone's blasting the FAA.

However when I read about this earlier today the reasoning was "aviation activity" is something that requires a runway. Since airports and their runways are heavily subsidized by the Federal government, they don't want to subsidize any activity that could take place without a runway. Makes sense that way.

That said, I think there should be an exception for active amateur aircraft building.

What I really object to in hangar-scarce California are the yahoos that use hangars as storage for everything except actively flown aircraft, and the airport operator that couldn't care less. For those on years-long hangar lists it's infuriating.
DanH said:
Point is, such a policy is not entirely unreasonable. The proposed clarification merely supports local administrative efforts....IF your local sponsor chooses to write a no-homebuilding clause into a lease and enforce it in the local courts. The Feds themselves won't enforce. They merely withhold grant funds, and then only if somebody plays squeaky wheel.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dan.
 
Last edited:
Here at the Nashua, NH Airport (KASH), aviation is dead, except for corporate activity. We have many hangars sitting empty losing money for the owner. Many of these hangars have "for sale" signs on them, but with av gas over $6 a gallon, not many pilots left. Aircraft sit at tie downs sinking into the ground.

Currently there is a battle going on by the new airport manager trying to kick out the car guys that are paying rent to the owners of the hangars, and the owners are upset. The rent paid goes back, partially, to the city in the form of property taxes. As for Federal Subsidies, the aprons around the hangars are all in desperate need of paving, and the airport manager said they were not eligible for federal funding. I will go see him tomorrow to see if he can designate the hangar areas as "non-aviation" to meet the storage requirements. It won't cost the airport any money to do that as the land is owned by the City, and then tell the FAA to pound sand.

I don't have a problem with a boat or car (or any activity for that matter) being stored in a hangar that would otherwise sit empty. However, if the hangars are all full, and an airplane wants in, time to boot the non-aviation items/activity. That being said, putting a motorcycle or a boat in with the airplane... who the heck cares.

I did comment with an emphasis on the homebuilding being an aviation activity, and a large portion of it here at Nashua.
 
Last edited:
Just at Oshkosh last week, I noticed 2 doctors offices in hanger space and on the other side of the runway Oshkosh truck sharing space.

Last year already when I took occupancy of a hanger in Georgia the airport manager told me that the FAA had instructed him not to rent to builders, he said he would look the other way because I was so near to completion. I thought that his remark was a local thing, but appears not.

FAA comment sent.
 
So after reading the proposed policy, and this thread, here's what I see:

1. There doesn't appear to be any change to the FAA's policy on owner maintenance from what I can see in the proposed rule, and doing so would (contrary to their statement) be a change in policy. See FAA Order 5190.6B which repeatedly states that owners can "tie down, adjust, repair, clean and otherwise service" their aircraft in accordance with one or another of the Grant Assurances. So I doubt that there'd be any change that would prevent one from doing all the maintenance and annual condition inspection stuff that one does now.

2. The restrictions on non-aeronautical "stuff" in hangars seem to have plenty of exceptions for personal items like refrigerators and desks and whatnot, and I doubt anyone would get their panties in a bunch over a big screen TV or the like. Sounds like it's designed to keep people from living in a hangar, etc., in addition to the primary goal of preventing hangars from turning into non-aviation storage sheds, businesses, studios, car repair shops, etc.

3. The case cited for aircraft construction not being an "aeronautical activity" looks like, to me, some crank at an airport got peeved because he couldn't paint his plane in his T-hangar, from what I could dig up. It didn't appear to me to be about *construction* of an airplane, but finding the original case files is tough. So the precedent may be somewhat flawed, but in any case

4. There's an actual definition of "aeronautical activity" in that order, and it reads:

"Any activity that involves, makes possible or is required for the operation of aircraft...Activities within this definition...include but are not limited to (a whole crapload of things) and any other activities that, because of their direct relationship to the operation of aircraft can appropriately be regarded as aeronautical activities."

What do they give as examples on non-aeronautical activities? Model aircraft and model rockets. Pshaw.

So the argument should stick to that one single item...that experimental amateur-building of aircraft is, by that very definition, an aeronautical activity.

I'd avoid going off on tangents about "can I store my car in my hangar while I'm on vacation" or "I have the right to put a TV in there", or misstating the proposed policy and assuming that we can't maintain our planes.

Just a single change in a couple of place would make the regulation work...remove the word "Final" from the statements about aircraft assembly.

ETA: It might also help to dig out the stats and demonstrate that EAB is a large, growing segment of aviation since the original order (5190.6A) and those earlier cases were developed...comparisons to certificated planes might help make the case.

Just my thoughs.
 
Last edited:
But why does the FAA even need more regulation on this? I am opposed to this on the homebuilding front AND on the regulation and inspection front. Why should I not be able to do anything I want in my hangar as long as aviation related stuff is ALSO taking place? Live in your hangar? Sure...as long as your plane lives there too. Park your hot rod project in your hangar? Why not as long as your ultralight is there too. Run a dentistry in your hangar? Absolutely as long as the dental chair is the front seat of your helicopter. This smells to me of just more control and government spending that will drive more people out of GA and entice fewer people into GA.
 
I will say this... If the FAA in anyway wants to stop experimental builds in hangars, you can kiss GA goodbye for good. We are the ONLY part of the GA market that has kept GA alive this long.
 
The EAA seems to be in favor of this policy clarification, asp cording to their web site. They helped draft the text:

FAA Releases New Hangar Use Policy
Homebuilding now a protected activity under proposal

July 24, 2014 - The FAA released a long-awaited hangar use policy this week that addresses non-aeronautical use of hangars at federally obligated airports. EAA worked with the FAA to create the policy, which is designed to alleviate confusion stemming from a 2012 letter to the city of Glendale, Arizona.

The letter was widely circulated in the airport community and was interpreted by some as general policy. It suggested that the only objects that were acceptable in hangars at federally-funded airports were aircraft and a very limited list of aircraft-related items such as tow bars and wash racks, and the bare minimum of furniture and personal convenience items necessary for flight planning.

Because it suggested that all non-aeronautical objects in hangars constituted a violation of airport sponsors? grant assurances, this letter led to many airports tailoring their own local hangar use policies to mimic the letter for fear of losing federal grant money.

The recently released policy, on the other hand, allows that ?the incidental storage of non-aviation items that does not interfere with the primary purpose of the hangar and occupies an insignificant amount of physical hangar space will not be considered to constitute a violation of the [airport sponsor?s] grant assurances.? The policy also reiterates that the FAA is willing to work with airports with insufficient aviation demand for its hangars to use airport structures for interim non-aeronautical use, albeit at higher, non-aviation rental rates.

The policy explicitly recognizes for the first time ?final, active assembly? of aircraft as a protected aeronautical activity. Homebuilders in the past often found themselves unable to rent a hangar because their aircraft were not yet airworthy and their local airport required airworthiness as a prerequisite for hangar rental, which left the homebuilder in the awkward position of being unable to finish the aircraft and transport it to the airport for inspection and flight testing. This new policy eliminates that situation and codifies the aeronautical nature of homebuilding.

The FAA is accepting comments on the proposed policy, and EAA members are encouraged to read the policy and offer comments to the agency. EAA is reviewing the policy and will submit formal comments, which will be made available to our membership.
Click to expand...
 
This legislation goes a long way in promoting life, liberty, and the pursuit of aviation happiness at private air parks. :)

It is cool to have all your tools and projects just a short walk from the master bedroom and no government interference.
 
Last edited:
meloosifah said:
But why does the FAA even need more regulation on this? I am opposed to this on the homebuilding front AND on the regulation and inspection front. Why should I not be able to do anything I want in my hangar as long as aviation related stuff is ALSO taking place? Live in your hangar? Sure...as long as your plane lives there too. Park your hot rod project in your hangar? Why not as long as your ultralight is there too. Run a dentistry in your hangar? Absolutely as long as the dental chair is the front seat of your helicopter. This smells to me of just more control and government spending that will drive more people out of GA and entice fewer people into GA.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. As long as the hangar is used for an aviation activity other "incidental use" should be authorized. The key here would be to define "incidental use".

LifeofReiley said:
I will say this... If the FAA in anyway wants to stop experimental builds in hangars, you can kiss GA goodbye for good. We are the ONLY part of the GA market that has kept GA alive this long.
Click to expand...

An devastating consequence if this passes as written.

:cool:
 
I am the "Ashton" in Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, that the FAA cites in the proposed rule. Concord Regional does not permit "turning a screwdriver" in their hangars (although if you own a NASCAR jet, we can work something out for you ;) ). When I complained about this, Concord booted me off the airport. The FAA said this was OK because by complaining, I was a "financial burden on the airport sponsor".

What will happen if this rule is passed is that the Cessna owner on the waiting list for a hangar will complain about homebuilders taking up hangars and the airport will be obliged to kick them out or lose federal funds.

Moreover, some airports like Concord Regional do not like homebuilders, (or skydivers, or ultralights) and for them, the rule will become "no Airworthiness Certificate, no annual, no hangar"

And if you store a motorcycle in your hangar for the winter, forget that.

Complain about it. Become a "financial burden on the FAA" like me.
Here is the rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463
 
Comment made

I posted my comment disagreeing with this proposed rule.

Hopefully enough people will get involved and encourage the FAA to reconsider.
 
I made my comment on the FAA page.

If I have a T hangar and have an airplane in it, what difference what else I have stored in it? It isn't like I can stuff another airplane inside so I am not keeping someone else from having hangar space.

If I have a large hangar that could fit 3 planes but I only have 1, why can't I store what I want in the empty space? I paid to have the hangar built and I do pay a lease payment to the county each year. Why is it their business what I have in my hangar as long as there is at least one plane? Will I be restricted from building a second plane in the empty space? How stupid would that be.

Another case of people that haven't got a clue trying to regulate those of us that really do have a clue!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kent Ashton said:
I am the "Ashton" in Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, that the FAA cites in the proposed rule. Concord Regional does not permit "turning a screwdriver" in their hangars (although if you own a NASCAR jet, we can work something out for you ;) ). When I complained about this, Concord booted me off the airport. The FAA said this was OK because by complaining, I was a "financial burden on the airport sponsor".

What will happen if this rule is passed is that the Cessna owner on the waiting list for a hangar will complain about homebuilders taking up hangars and the airport will be obliged to kick them out or lose federal funds.

Moreover, some airports like Concord Regional do not like homebuilders, (or skydivers, or ultralights) and for them, the rule will become "no Airworthiness Certificate, no annual, no hangar"

And if you store a motorcycle in your hangar for the winter, forget that.

Complain about it. Become a "financial burden on the FAA" like me.
Here is the rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463
Click to expand...

It is local nazi-like official mind sets at Concord that are destroying general aviation.

If such attitudes prevailed 100 years ago, there would be no aviation in this country for individuals. Nor would our country be a world leader in aeronautical development.

Everything today needs to be manicured, pretty, undisturbed and worst of all controlled and literally dead. Pretty hangars, all lined up in a row, but no life, no pilots, no tinkerer's, nothing going on, nothing but locked up hangars.

How totally boring. It is incomprehensible what life is becoming where it once was so vibrant and alive. The FAA is charged with promoting aviation, what's happened?

Bureaucrats, all ensconced in their cubicle caves with no day light, no contact with life outside except through a computer, telephone of mail, grinding out legislation to torment those still alive and doing things in the real world.

They are driven and motivated by fear, fear of real people doing real things. It takes an official appointment to see any of them. No more personal informal contact, it is forbidden. They fear everything outside their very small life circles and are driven to protect what they have. Power to government, thats what it's all about.

A classic definition of Dante's Inferno if ever there was one.
 
David-aviator said:
They are driven and motivated by fear, fear of real people doing real things. It takes an official appointment to see any of them. No more personal informal contact, it is forbidden. They fear everything outside their very small life circles and are driven to protect what they have. Power to government, thats what it's all about.

A classic definition of Dante's Inferno if ever there was one.
Click to expand...

Or Hobbes's Leviathan ................................
 
Tow-bar and desk?

Besides two good-size aircraft, my friend?s hangar contains a 400sf air-conditioned workshop, comfortable crew quarters with overnight accommodations, and a two-car garage (my project is being built in this garage). The hangar was designed with future corporate or medevac jets and their crews in mind. Pilots and mechanics from all over the airport stop by to borrow tools or to do their flight planning or just to sit and chat with other pilots while taking in a panoramic view of the field.

If the FAA policy were strictly enforced, this type of use might end. Unfortunate, because the social use of my friend?s hangar does a lot for the airport; it allows tenants to get to know each other and look out for each other and our airport. Our security is enhanced because we are a community.
 
aeronautical use

This is what I sent. This may or may not be effective, but it may provide a nucleus for you to comment. Even if you're simply opposing the verbiage regarding the "Use of Hangars for Fabrication and Assembly of Aircraft ", make your voice known. I just spent the last 4 hours going over this and it takes time, but if we do not make our voices heard, we will have plenty of time available when we can't fly or build.

I submitted the following:

I am supportive of the general intent of FAA-2014-0463 limiting the primary use of a hangar for aeronautical purposes, However, the idea of manufacturing an experimental aircraft is not an aeronautical activity is simply ludicrous.

I support the Idea that non-Aeronautical uses should not displace Aeronautical uses; however the building of an aircraft is clearly an aeronautical activity even if some aircraft are built off of the airport. At some point in the building the aircraft will need to be transported to the airport so at what point does an aircraft become eligible to be aeronautical activity. When the wings are attached? The wings may be attached years before actual flight.

Where are you going to draw the line? If a certified aircraft is damaged, it is not airworthy and cannot use the taxiways and runways. Does it need to be disassembled and removed from the hangar because it can?t fly?
Aeronautical activity should be defined as aircraft or parts thereof and the tools, parts and equipment to build, maintain, service, clean, store, and prepare for flight.

This should be construed to include aircraft tugs, power supplies, hand and power tools not only for the aircraft, but in many cases to maintain the hangar itself, restrooms, an office should not be excluded as it may be required to provide a quiet area to converse with flight service personnel, to provide space for printers used in flight planning, charts, manuals etc.

While permanent living quarters should probably be excluded, allowance for standby personnel such as firefighting and emergency flights should be considered. As long as the primary activity supports aviation in any way, it should be viewed as an aeronautical activity.

One reason there may be empty hangars is that the hassle factor has driven out everyone except the most affluent. Many of these hassles are a direct result of airport managers trying to comply with Federal directives or at least using them as an excuse to promulgate onerous leases.

The result of the implementation of FAA 2014-0463 as written is contrary to the statement on the http://www.faa.gov/about/safety_efficiency/ web page that states one of the FAA major roles is ?Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology.? Where are you going to see more new aviation technology than the experimental community?

Encouragement includes activities that promote camaraderie and aviation interest. While building my aircraft, I had many visitors that as a result of seeing the building in progress became enthused and pursued their flight training. The aviation industry needs to have more people interested and enthused, not suppressed by the heavy hand of local and federal government.
 
Will comment on the on-line form today, but just to note why I actually support the *intent* of the policy (to keep airport facilities and such available for *airplanes*), here's my example:

There's a waiting list for hangars at my field; I rent from a private owner/company, but there's a waiting list for those hangars, too. Meanwhile, here's what's in the hangars in my alleyway and behind me:

My plane
3 other hangars with aircraft
3 hangars crammed full of cars (including a group which works on theirs and insists on running them *in the hangar* while they tune them up, etc.)
1 hangar with a large boat, a motorcyle, and a bunch of "stuff"
1 hangar with some sort of furniture storage/business

So of the ones I know what's in them, >50% have nothing to do with aviation. Of course, the owner is happy...he's getting full rent on all of his property. Meanwhile, people with, you know, airplanes can't get hangar space at the airport.
 
REALLY

As a private property owner and the owner of several hangars. What role does the Federal Government have telling me how to use my property as long as I pay my taxes and airport use fees. REALLY?

I filed my comment on the government site..........
 
mikeflys8 said:
As a private property owner and the owner of several hangars. What role does the Federal Government have telling me how to use my property as long as I pay my taxes and airport use fees. REALLY?

I filed my comment on the government site..........
Click to expand...

Is your airport under federal Grant Assurances?
 
I also own a hangar at T65. Problem is, I must lease the ground it sits on, yearly renewal of lease! I guess they can tell me what I can do with my hangar if they don't like what I do.
On a flip side of all this, my hangar value in dollars is probably MORE since many are used for old cars and junk storage purposes and there is a shortage of airplane garages because of this.

mikeflys8 said:
As a private property owner and the owner of several hangars. What role does the Federal Government have telling me how to use my property as long as I pay my taxes and airport use fees. REALLY?

I filed my comment on the government site..........
Click to expand...
 
Federal Grant Asistance

It is my understanding that the airport does receive Federal Grants. I also OWN the land the hangars are on.
 
My comments...

This is a difficult subject largely because of the vagueness of the guidelines and restrictions on hangar owners property freedoms.

The general guidelines reached at Boulder City Airport (KBVU) between the Airport Manager and the Boulder City Airport Association requires an aircraft to be in a hangar. Other items in the hangar are allowed within safety limits (no welding gear, etc). This enforces the aviation use of the particular hangar while allowing the owner or tenant to have the freedom to use their property as they desire. It is easily determined if an aircraft is in the hangar or not, and an owner's/tenant's property rights are otherwise not impeded.

I am completely in agreement that hangars should not be used exclusively for non-aviation purposes. However, the property rights of an owner/tenant must be maximized within the constraints of maintaining aviation uses at FAA-funded airports. A rule stating an aircraft must be kept in an otherwise sterile hangar with nothing else in it (like the Glendale letter) would meet the FAA's preservation of aviation use, but would trample on property ownership rights, making for a poor balance between otherwise competing interests. Strong consideration must be given to the value paid by the owner of a hangar and it's likely reduction by an otherwise overly restrictive rule.

I would agree a single aircraft in a multi-acre hangar filled with debris would not meet the intent of an aviation use, but the majority of hangars that would be covered by this rule can fit one or two aircraft maximum. The rule should consider primarily the situation of a single aircraft in a single hangar owned or leased by an individual.
This person has tools to maintain his aircraft as allowed by FAA regs, and may have a couch to relax on before or after his flying or maintenance or washing activity, and keeps a refrigerator for beverages while spending time at the hangar. Since his tools are at the hangar, he may perform maintenance on his private vehicle between flights as well. This is how many hangars are used by their individual owners and this should be allowed. We don't have the funds to fly daily, but we like to be at the airport and around our planes, and doing other things like this at the airport is healthy to the continued vitality of an airport. If I feel like I'm being micromanaged by the Airport Manager because they feel like they need to create a police state and check everything I'm doing at the airport, my desire to spend time there will diminish and the next step will be to sell the airplane. We went through this at my home airport over the last couple years, and that's exactly where I was heading with my aviation participation.

Please keep the small airports alive and don't drive hangar owners and aircraft owners away. I agree with regulating completely non-aviation uses at the airport, but please keep the minimum restrictions on hangar owners and tenants. Direct an aircraft to be in a hangar and leave the rest alone.
 
mikeflys8 said:
It is my understanding that the airport does receive Federal Grants.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go...the airport has to abide by the Grant Assurances.

I also OWN the land the hangars are on.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how that might change things, I'm not a lawyer...but I suspect that it's all bound up in the Grant Assurances for the airport, I dunno.

I agree...if your property is not on the airport, then you can and should be able to do whatever you want. I imagine the conflict comes when your property is part of the airport grounds.

I would expect, however, that such a situation is fairly unique...that most cases are either public (county or city, e.g.) owned hangars on airport property, or private hangars on property which is leased from the airport. In those cases, again IANAL, I believe the Grant Assurances are the controlling documents.

Take money from the feds, the feds get to set the rules you have to obey to get the cash.
 
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.

All these ideas and more have NO NEED for FAA involvement! Solve local problems locally. A federal solution is always worse for everyone.

It is a fallacy to think that just because an airport gets federal funding, that every single tiny aspect of that airport needs federal regulation.

Airport operators should not be "happy" with people using the hangars for mini-storage. They buy no fuel or maintenance svcs. They generate no traffic count. The do not contribute to the airport being a viable, pleasant, inviting place for aviation. Usually the lessor has control of lease terms at lease renewal time. Sounds like many airports need smarter airport managers. Federal regulation isn't the answer to that either.
 
Bill_H said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unless they're out of room, like an airport in the midst of a big city...

All these ideas and more have NO NEED for FAA involvement! Solve local problems locally. A federal solution is always worse for everyone.
Click to expand...

Maybe...maybe not. That's sounds more like a philosophical political position that's probably best not debated here...

It is a fallacy to think that just because an airport gets federal funding, that every single tiny aspect of that airport needs federal regulation.
Click to expand...

I agree. It appears, however, that this came about not because of a single tiny violation of a grant assurance, but a widespread misuse of airport facilities for non-aviation purposes, at numerous airports, and at some on a pretty large scale. If it was just private owners with personal items in their hangar along with their airplane, this would never have come up.

Airport operators should not be "happy" with people using the hangars for mini-storage. They buy no fuel or maintenance svcs. They generate no traffic count. The do not contribute to the airport being a viable, pleasant, inviting place for aviation. Usually the lessor has control of lease terms at lease renewal time. Sounds like many airports need smarter airport managers. Federal regulation isn't the answer to that either.
Click to expand...

Airport operators may or may not care, but private owners of hangars are a different kettle of fish. If they don't sell gas or provide maintenance, but just own hangars, then there are plenty of reasons why non-airplane storage might be attractive to them (or at least, equally profitable and hence attractive).
 
Kent Ashton said:
I am the "Ashton" in Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, that the FAA cites in the proposed rule. Concord Regional does not permit "turning a screwdriver" in their hangars (although if you own a NASCAR jet, we can work something out for you ;) ). When I complained about this, Concord booted me off the airport. The FAA said this was OK because by complaining, I was a "financial burden on the airport sponsor".

What will happen if this rule is passed is that the Cessna owner on the waiting list for a hangar will complain about homebuilders taking up hangars and the airport will be obliged to kick them out or lose federal funds.

Moreover, some airports like Concord Regional do not like homebuilders, (or skydivers, or ultralights) and for them, the rule will become "no Airworthiness Certificate, no annual, no hangar"

And if you store a motorcycle in your hangar for the winter, forget that.

Complain about it. Become a "financial burden on the FAA" like me.
Here is the rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463
Click to expand...

An, uh, interesting case history there...have you appealed to SCOTUS yet?
 
RV7A Flyer said:
Will comment on the on-line form today, but just to note why I actually support the *intent* of the policy (to keep airport facilities and such available for *airplanes*), here's my example:

There's a waiting list for hangars at my field; I rent from a private owner/company, but there's a waiting list for those hangars, too. Meanwhile, here's what's in the hangars in my alleyway and behind me:

My plane
3 other hangars with aircraft
3 hangars crammed full of cars (including a group which works on theirs and insists on running them *in the hangar* while they tune them up, etc.)
1 hangar with a large boat, a motorcyle, and a bunch of "stuff"
1 hangar with some sort of furniture storage/business

So of the ones I know what's in them, >50% have nothing to do with aviation. Of course, the owner is happy...he's getting full rent on all of his property. Meanwhile, people with, you know, airplanes can't get hangar space at the airport.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot to mention...for a while, a reality TV show production company had their studio and offices in one of the hangars nearby.

It's easy to see how things like this can generate the policy in question...

But I think we should stay focused...get them to allow aircraft assembly in a hangar (why this isn't already accepted is mystifying) with some restrictions like hazardous operations (paint, etc.) as an "aeronautical activity".

(Again, it seem that Grant Assurance 22 ensures that you can do maintenance, unless there are some extenuating circumstances like a hangar not being sufficiently fire protected or something).
 
I think some of you have got it all wrong!

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.

I hope everyone whose immediate reaction is to object will read emuyshondt’s post #62 above (or go right to the EAA website and read the article there,http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-...aign=!Membership&utm_content=eHotline:+140724), because that really explains it in short and concise form. Also, go to the actual rulemaking page, here http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463-0001, and you will see that the purpose is to make sure airport owners are not accepting federal grant monies then turning around and renting out hangars to non-aviation users, causing aviation users to be forced out, sit around on hangar waiting lists, and driving up the prices of hangars for aviation users seeking to use federally-subsidized airports.

It’s apparent from reading the documents and the EAA article that the FAA, working with the EAA, is actually attempting to improve conditions for homebuilders by making it clear that “final assembly” of aircraft is an acceptable use at federally supported airports. Why would that be an improvement of existing policy? Because right now it is NOT clear under FAA policy that any aircraft assembly is an acceptable use at federally supported airports, and in fact there are certain owners of federally supported airports who have asserted that FAA policy allows them to bar homebuilders from using hangars to complete assembly of their aircraft. Those airport owners assert that your airplane must be in flying condition to occupy a hangar, and they base their position on their interpretation of a July 12, 2012 letter issued by the FAA to the City of Glendale, AZ (the letter is here, not that it’s necessary to read it: http://www.flybouldercity.com/sites/default/files/FAA.KWillis.July12,2012.ltr_..pdf)

What is happening now is that the FAA is stepping in, by way of this proposed rulemaking, and telling those owners of federally-subsidized airports that they are wrong, that they misinterpreted the FAA’s July 12, 2012 letter, and that they cannot bar admission to aircraft builders who wish to complete final assembly of their aircraft in a hangar on a federally supported airport. So this rulemaking is an improvement of the existing regulatory landscape for homebuilders and it is a good thing, which should be supported.

In addition, the FAA is clarifying that as long as a hangar is being used for aeronautical purposes (i.e., you are keeping your plane there, or your project in the final stages of assembly), then you can keep other, non-aeronautical items in your hangar, as long as they don’t interfere with aeronautical activities. The FAA says: “A sponsor's grant assurance obligations require that its aeronautical facilities be used or be available for use for aeronautical activities. If the presence of non-aeronautical items in a hangar does not interfere with these obligations, then the FAA will generally not consider their presence to constitute a violation of the sponsor's obligation to provide reasonable access to aeronautical users and tenants.” I think this language should also be welcomed as an improvement, because earlier expressions of FAA policy did not appear to permit any non-aeronautical-related items to be in hangars.

Now, if you feel that “final assembly” is unduly restrictive, and that the FAA should compel owners of federally supported airports to allow hangar access to homebuilders in earlier stages of construction, then by all means enter your comment and make your position heard. Give the reasons why allowing access to builders at earlier stages of assembly is beneficial to GA. But I’d like to respectfully suggest that the appropriate way to do that would not be to object to the proposed rule, but rather to say something to the effect that: “I’m sure glad the FAA is stepping in to tell owners of federally-subsidized airports that they can no longer bar homebuilders in the final stages of assembly from renting hangars, but I think the policy should go even further and make sure they allow access to homebuilders at earlier stages of construction too.”

By the way, as some have noted, “final stages of assembly” is ambiguous, which could work against you, but it could also work for you, so maybe the rule is not all that bad. (And don’t you think it makes some sense to expect that homebuilders at federally funded hangars will at least start construction away from the airport and not occupy a federally funded hangar for, say, a full 5 years while someone with a flying aircraft is stuck outside on a waiting list?)

I see other ways I’d like to see the rule be improved and clarified, but in the interest of not making this post any longer than it already is, I’ll stop now. I’m concerned Doug might feel this thread is going beyond his “no politics, including aviation politics” policy (“do that on the EAA or AOPA websites”). But I hope the fact that I’m trying to point out that this FAA rulemaking is not the threat to homebuilding it’s been presented as on this thread will help quell some of the visceral reactions and make the post acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Excellent post. I'd just like to add one thing:

And don?t you think it makes some sense to expect that homebuilders at federally funded hangars will least start construction away from the airport and not occupy a federally funded hangar for, say, a full 5 years
Click to expand...

They're not necessarily *federally funded* hangars. Airport grants come in all shapes and sizes, and may have nothing to with building hangars (indeed, some may be privately owned and leased, or built using local funding, while federal grants may go towards runway improvements, signage, lighting, etc.).

Just wanted to make sure we don't split non-existent hairs about whether the rules apply to this hangar or that hangar on the same field.
 
I WAS looking into buying a large hangar at my home field with the express intent of opening it up (renting space) to home builders in our area. There have been several serious concerns about doing this, but this FAA NPR sure puts a damper on my desire to follow through. I think I will just put the idea on the back burner for awhile and see where all this settles out...if it ever does.
 
precession said:
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....
Click to expand...

Reasoned and well written.

RV7A Flyer said:
They're not necessarily *federally funded* hangars.
Click to expand...

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.

noelf said:
I WAS looking into buying a large hangar at my home field with the express intent of opening it up (renting space) to home builders in our area. There have been several serious concerns about doing this, but this FAA NPR sure puts a damper on my desire to follow through.
Click to expand...

Re-read Presession's post, and look up the current EAA position statements. Right now, not even final assembly is an approved use, but it would be under the new rule. The NPRM is an improvement, not a killjoy for your plans.

The new rule would even bless my my beer fridge ;)
 
Last edited:
precession said:
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>
Click to expand...

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..... :)
 
Last edited:
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.

DanH said:
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.

;)
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
jcbarnes1 said:
Read more of the story...


http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-...aign=!Membership&utm_content=eHotline:+140724
Click to expand...

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".
 
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.
 
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
 
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/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-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. :D

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top