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

The Federal subsidy (our Federal taxes) that almost all airports get are to be used to support active flying, not non-flying projects, hence this ruling.

That's one *interpretation* of it...what 5190.6B actually *says* is

"Aeronautical activity is defined as any activity which involves, makes possible, or is required for the operation of an aircraft, or which contributes to or is required for the safety of such operations..."

and

"In accordance with the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of l982, 49
U.S.C. ? 47101, et seq., and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant assurances, the owner or operator of any airport that has been developed or improved with federal grant assistance is required to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make it available for all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity and without granting an exclusive right."

and

Appendix 1
"1.1.a Aeronautical Activity. Any activity that involves, makes possible, or is required for the operation of aircraft or that contributes to or is required for the safety of such operations. Activities within this definition, commonly conducted on airports, include, but are not limited to, the following: general and corporate aviation, air taxi and charter operations, scheduled and nonscheduled air carrier operations, pilot training, aircraft rental and sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial advertising and surveying, aircraft sales and services, aircraft storage, sale of aviation petroleum products, repair and maintenance of aircraft, sale of aircraft parts, parachute or ultralight activities, and any other activities that, because of their direct relationship to the operation of aircraft, can appropriately be regarded as aeronautical activities. Other activities, such as model aircraft or model rocket operations, are not aeronautical activities."

[Emphasis added]

It is only an *interpretation* from decades ago by the FAA that decided that aircraft construction was not an "aeronautical activity". NOTHING in the definition in 5190.6B precludes it from considered as such.

That definition is likely SO old that nobody even *thought* of aircraft construction...the best they could come up with something "aviation-like" that wasn't suitable for an airport was model rocketry and model airplanes.

I'm frankly surprised that EAA didn't work harder to get the definition modified, or at least the interpretation changed, to include the *actual* building of an "aeronautical vehicle". Well, maybe not so surprised...
 
Okay, so how do we define an aircraft as 'flying'? Once a year? Once a month? Once a week? Or maybe an airworthiness cert. What if it is out of annual? That part isn't clear.

True enough, and Congress only spells out very clear instructions in laws when they want to reward their corporate masters with targeted tax breaks:). For everything else the implementing agency gets to interpret the intent of Congress.

I hate to say it, but this is what happens when we take subsidies. We are beholden to the bureaucrats.

Yes, welcome to real life. I consider getting 95%+ of my local airport costs paid by someone else well worth the modest restriction.
 
Princeton

Did some more research-Princeton has recieved federal funding and probably state funding as well.
see:
princetonairport.com

Princeton Airport was established in 1911 as Bohmer Field. Richard Newhouse built his first airplane in 1911 in nearby Rocky Hill and flew it out of Bohmer Field.
Before WWI the majority of airplanes were homebuilts.
 
Hi guys, really hate to introduce myself on a fire topic like this ha. Anyway i'm an A&P on a small field in south eastern washington. We are at hangar capacity and then some. Most hangars here are privately owned but on leased land. Every hangar building has aircraft in it, but many spots are full of wasting away non aviation and hopeless "projects". This creates an environment that just shouldn't be, especially with two mini storage facilities within a stones throw. So I fully support getting things off the field that simply do not belong.

I'm in the process of slowly building myself an RV-8 and plan to do most of the work in the nooks and crannies I can find within the FBO I work for's hangars, but the idea of taking up a valuable t hangar spot for the next few years while I build seems a bit outrageous and unfair to aircraft owners who have an aircraft all together and cannot take home or put in a buddies or a rented garage. I know the idea of being on and building your airplane from spar to skin on an airport is neat, but in an environment where we simply cannot store the aircraft currently based on field it is just in bad taste.

Aircraft left on a ramp especially at a small airport are subject a large number of things. Weather being obvious, vandalism, theft, and more than 250 ga aircraft are currently involved in a large scale fraud/theft scam. Guys are literally getting their airplanes stolen in broad daylight and buyers are being scammed by purchasing an aircraft stolen through clever and fraudulent paperwork. This investigation alone is costing the FAA, local and state law enforcement, and the FBI a ton of money. The whole deal would never have grown this large if registered aircraft were safely parked away from prying eyes. This then brings up the topic of security and for those of you who have worked a flightline would instantly see the problem with allowing people access who other than an aircompresser, some tools, and a few sheets of aluminum have zero business on an airfield, which in this day and time is and should be a controlled space.

It is an inconvenience and some concession should be made. Hangars and facilities should be able to be built and or designated for the purpose of home building. Outright denial of allowing builders something is detrimental to the industry, but the FAA is not here to promote aviation as a business as that is a conflict of interest when finances play against safety.

I truly respect everyone's input here and am eager to see how it pans out over the next month. I'm sick of seeing valuable space being used for old appliances while hundreds of thousands of dollars rot away outside waiting on someone to move to another field.
 
The FARs define the purpose of someone building an aircraft as being for ?education and recreation?. That begs the question, what type of education and recreation? Clearly it is aeronautical/aviation related education and recreation. So for anyone to suggest that someone building an aircraft in their hangar is anything but aeronautical in nature is assinine. So what we are now being told is this new language, which is very unclear on the acceptable use of hangars for amateur aircraft construction, still limits the use of an individual's personal property, runs counter to the whole concept of amateur aircraft construction for "education and recreation" is an improvement. I have my doubts.
 
With all due respect.I have read the entire document and find that the background statement below seems to say the bureaucrats at the FAA first believe the actual building of the aircraft is not an aeronautical use or activity. Second, they believe everyone has a garage to do the initial construction work in. These are both ridiculous positions. The notion that every American lives in a conventional home with a garage or has access to a workshop flies in the face of reality. Many folks live in apartments, townhomes, condos and homes with no such facilities. The fact that "a large part of the construction process can be and often is conducted off-airport" is beside the point, which is building an aircraft is an educational and recreational form of an aeronautical activity. I am not sure where the golden lining exist in this proposal.

Use of Hangars for Fabrication and Assembly of Aircraft
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.
 
With all due respect.I have read the entire document and find that the background statement below seems to say the bureaucrats at the FAA first believe the actual building of the aircraft is not an aeronautical use or activity.

Correct, they do not.....and never have. That's the point. This NPRM does not change established policy regarding the initial fabrication of an aircraft; aircraft fabrication is not now an approved aeronautical activity, and never has been. A lot of readers are treating this NPRM as an attempt to take something away, which is not the case.

This NPRM does grant a point very important to homebuilders:

The FAA is not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use.

Second, it further states that items in a hangar incidental to the hangar's primary purpose (the housing of a airplane) are allowed, if they do not compromise that primary purpose. In lay terms, it codifies that you can indeed have a couch, a beer fridge, your bass boat, and the boxes of Christmas lights in your hangar, as long as they don't compromise the storage of your airplane.

These two points are huge gains. That's why writing a negative comment about the whole NPRM is not beneficial to homebuilders. I respectfully suggest that comments should more along the lines of "Thank you, this is a good proposal, and would be even better if initial fabrication of an airplane was defined as an aeronautical activity"

BTW, that's the EAA approach, as it should be.
 
With all due respect to Paul, to say this rule is a threat is I think misstating the issue. The threat has been there for years. It is an improvement, but not enough of an improvement IMHO.

If you simply oppose this rule, you oppose improvement in our situation. Currently even final assembly is not allowed. All of these prohibitions were in my hangar rent agreement 11 years ago.

Being an improvement has been reiterated numerous times in this thread. I don't think I saw anyone really address that this "one size fits all rule" would be/ is ridiculous for many airports. There are numerous EMPTY hangars in my neck of the woods. There are acres of available land on the airport for more hangars. I suspect the same for many other rural areas.

I think this entire rule should be rescinded and the issue should be handled locally. If no waiting list, who cares what is in the hangars. If there is a waiting list, the local authority should man up and kick out the truly nonaviation stuff of there own authority with there own local rules.

Bureaucrats in the FAA or otherwise do not, can not know what is best at individual airports therefore some or all of us will suffer under their rule making.
 
Let's see...

Peter Hunt of EAA 282 built his RV6 in his condo living room on Clearwater Beach back in the 90's, I built Miss Sandy in my garage in the mid 2000's,
We both completed our projects. I know of several builders who started around the same time I did who had to drive considerable distances to even get to the airport & had to sell their projects. Folks, what I'm trying to say it's a matter of choice. We should have the freedom of choice, good or bad.
The Clearwater Airpark, owned by the city of Clearwater, forbids touch & go's, banner towing, glider towing, primarily due to it's location in a densely populated area. They do NOT accept Federal funds so they are exempt from FAA guidelines on airport use. Last time I checked every hangar had an airworthy A/C stored due to the high cost of a hangar. ($350/ mo. & up)
the policy here in KWDR (Winder, GA) which does accept federal funds is very fair. they only allow hangars to folks who keep A/C in them. They enforced this policy last year so I was able to move the RV1 in after I flew it back from Oregon. I don't see where the NPRM is changing this status. An airport can offer to rent to a builder if the airport so chooses. However it's difficult to operate compressors, and other tools on a 15 Amp circuit which we have in our hangar:D
 
AOPA article

AOPA has posted an article on this subject here: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/July/24/faa-drafts-new-hangar-policy. (If someone else already posted it, sorry, I missed it.)

Here's the full article:

"FAA releases new draft policy for what?s allowed in hangars
July 24, 2014 By Alyssa J. Miller

Pilots who spruced up their hangars with a couch, chairs, refrigerator, and a radio, or who set up shop with tool chests to work on their aircraft at times found themselves running afoul of an FAA policy prohibiting nonaeronautical uses of hangars at federally funded airports.

The FAA?s intent was to prevent nonaeronautical uses of hangars from displacing legitimate aeronautical uses, not to punish those who make their hangars a comfortable place to hang out. The agency has drafted a new policy to more clearly define what is and is not an acceptable use of a hangar.

?AOPA has been working to encourage the FAA to revise its policy to allow reasonable nonaeronautical uses,? said Greg Pecoraro, AOPA vice president of airports and state advocacy. ?This revised policy is a very significant step in the right direction, and we appreciate the FAA?s responsiveness on this issue.?

AOPA is currently reviewing the policy and will provide comments. Pecoraro said that AOPA will continue to advocate for less restrictive guidance, and will encourage the FAA to loosen its stance in key areas, including allowing the assembly of homebuilt aircraft.

After reviewing the draft policy, pilots are encouraged to submit comments through the rulemaking website or by mail to Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Comments must be received by Sept. 5."
 
?AOPA has been working to encourage the FAA to revise its policy to allow reasonable nonaeronautical uses,? said Greg Pecoraro, AOPA vice president of airports and state advocacy.

Interesting comment. It sounds like the AOPA wanted a change, but didn't have any real input on the new text...:rolleyes:
 
With all due respect to Paul, to say this rule is a threat is I think misstating the issue. The threat has been there for years. It is an improvement, but not enough of an improvement IMHO.

If you simply oppose this rule, you oppose improvement in our situation. Currently even final assembly is not allowed. All of these prohibitions were in my hangar rent agreement 11 years ago.

Being an improvement has been reiterated numerous times in this thread. I don't think I saw anyone really address that this "one size fits all rule" would be/ is ridiculous for many airports. There are numerous EMPTY hangars in my neck of the woods. There are acres of available land on the airport for more hangars. I suspect the same for many other rural areas.

I think this entire rule should be rescinded and the issue should be handled locally. If no waiting list, who cares what is in the hangars. If there is a waiting list, the local authority should man up and kick out the truly nonaviation stuff of there own authority with there own local rules.

Bureaucrats in the FAA or otherwise do not, can not know what is best at individual airports therefore some or all of us will suffer under their rule making.

... I fully agree with this! Seems this would be the logical way of dealing with the issue. That being said, I guess it will never happen. Too bad!:rolleyes: The good hangars at my home airport cost $450 K to buy, but they still can dictate what you can have in them. No BBQs, refrigerators, couch, boxed storage or non flyable in repair aircraft, even if the hangar has a couple of other planes in it. Thanks, Allan
 
Last edited:
450k? ouch.

This makes my point exactly.

At my home airport, last year, an approximately 5 year old hangar that would hold at least 10 or 12 RVs sold at auction for less than 100k. It had a 3 room climate controlled pilot's lounge. Painted floor. All insulated.

It is still empty.
 
project in jeopardy

There are a lot of people trying to get into federally-subsidized housing. Waiting list or not, the FHA wouldn't dare treat their tenants this way.

My kit is not nearly finished. It is in a huge hangar with two flying aircraft. I might have to move it out.

I might have to move my project to the projects.
 
My kit is not nearly finished. It is in a huge hangar with two flying aircraft. I might have to move it out.

Not unless it displaces or compromises the approved aeronautical use.

If it doesn't compromise the storage of flying airplanes (or, if folks support the NPRM, homebuilts in final assembly), a kit would be the same as a couch, or a big sheet metal brake...just another incidental.
 
Hangar Usage

Submitting comments is a good idea. At Merrill Field we have an inspection by the airport management annually. I currently have 3 aircraft (7 if you count models), a car, motorcycle, work benches and tools in my hangar. No one has ever said I am hindering aviation uses.
6ec811b1-b8f9-4f39-95e3-74632c69ddf2_zps37017ef5.jpg
[/URL][/IMG] I am in complete agreement that construction of an airplane should count as aviation related.
 
Looks like they might be cutting you some slack on account of your obvious wildlife control abilities. :D

Submitting comments is a good idea. At Merrill Field we have an inspection by the airport management annually. I currently have 3 aircraft (7 if you count models), a car, motorcycle, work benches and tools in my hangar. No one has ever said I am hindering aviation uses.
6ec811b1-b8f9-4f39-95e3-74632c69ddf2_zps37017ef5.jpg
[/URL][/IMG] I am in complete agreement that construction of an airplane should count as aviation related.
 
EAA UPDATE!

Before commenting on this thread, be sure to read Paul Dye's 8/7/2014 update which is in another thread. You can read it HERE.
 
Taken from the proposed rule:

"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)."

This suggests that the FAA is asserting an interest in the size of your hangar. I'm sure that if you are going to buy or build a hangar, planning to own and use it for a considerable time, you'd get one that's large enough to accommodate your expected needs.

Do you really want the FAA telling the airport that you should be restricted to a hangar sized for your current requirement today? You're a better judge of what you want than they are.

To me, this is one of the big defects of the rule.

Dave
 
Good catch

Good catch Paul. I'll be commenting immediately. This seems like a good lesson on why it's dangerous to let the feds control too much of the airport. We should be able to decide what we darn well want to do in our hangars but since they own or provide the land it makes some sense that they have say over what the land is used for. We just disagree with them. If we owned the land and the hangar we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
Gee...

For some reason :rolleyes: my comment doesn't appear in the comments section. (I posted the day after Paul submitted.) Perhaps I'll post again, our efficient government at work...:eek:

From Rosie: Looks like the last update was 12 August...my 19 Aug post isn't there either...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's my post I just put up on the FAA Website:

I also agree completely agree that using limited hangar space at airports to store cars or boats or motorcycles (or anything else non-aviation-related) is not an appropriate aeronautical use of a hangar, and I also disagree strongly with the characterization of amateur aircraft building as a "non-aeronautical" use.

"Characterizing amateur aircraft building as a non-aeronautical use makes about as much sense as characterizing Automotive Repair/Restoration as non-automotive use."

I urge the FAA to characterize amateur aircraft building as bona fide, aeronautical use."


We have a couple more weeks to reply (till 5 Sep) so please comment if you have not done so already! :D Rosie
 
I posted this, and hope it helps with the "plan."

Bob Kelly

"I have for four years been involved with aviation education as founder of Eagle's Nest Projects, an organization teaching aircraft construction in schools. At some point in almost all projects, the project must move to an airport. This varies with the facilities at the schools, and with time of year. The first project decided to build through the summer, and built the wings in a hangar at the local airport. Most projects move prior to installing the engines, and painting and fiberglass work usually isn't an option at a school, due to environmental reasons.
This program, and many others like it, would be hurt immeasurably if these measures could not be done in hangars at local airports! Hundreds of high school students are being exposed to aviation as well as the STEM learning that is goes with such programs. Many have or are completing their flight training in planes that they have built. While this is not a normal building activity, it is a growing program. As Program Director of the newly-formed Youth Aviation Programs Association, I feel we need to encourage the learning experiences available, both to adults and our youth, that come from aircraft construction. Allow aircraft construction to occur on airports!"
 
What I have heard from the local FSDO

I speak to my FSDO guys on an almost daily basis because of my day job with a large MRO. They are the same guys that oversee my AP/IA tickets at the local airport where I live and play. I asked them directly about this "proposal", and none had been briefed on it,heard of it, nor had any belief they would intend to enforce such. From what I see of the FAA link, this is nothing but the Fed talking about airports with funding and some desire to control where their (our) tax money goes at an airport that qualifies for such. Most of those airports I know of, have tighter management and restrictions already. The private airports and airparks have no regulatory enforcement by them. Has anyone else been given any input from the local FSDO of their area?
 
Today is THE LAST day to comment on the NPRM regarding Hangars

Yes, the comment deadline was extended until 11:59 pm October 6, 2014, and that means midnight tonight.

As of last midnight the number of comments was only 2,282.

It's really easy. First, you can copy something simple (if you agree with it). I plagiarized heavily from Rosie's post...here's mine:

"I completely agree that using limited hangar space at airports to store cars or boats or motorcycles (or anything else non-aviation-related) is not an appropriate aeronautical use of a hangar, and I also disagree strongly with the characterization of amateur aircraft building as a "non-aeronautical" use.

"Characterizing amateur aircraft building as a non-aeronautical use makes about as much sense as characterizing Automotive Repair/Restoration as non-automotive use."

I urge the FAA to characterize amateur aircraft building as bona fide, aeronautical use."

Then go to this GOVERNMENT LINK and comment on the NPRM by pasting (with any editing that suits you) in the appropriate field. Then complete the personal information, so the FAA can be assured you are a real person.

That's it. Took me about 3 minutes.

Do it. We need more than only 2,282 comments.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the comment deadline was extended until 11:59 pm October 6, 2014, and that means midnight tonight.

As of last midnight the number of comments was only 2,282.

Do it. We need more than only 2,282 comments.

Thanks for the reminder and the link. There are at least 2,283 now as I just posted my comment.
 
May I humbly suggest the addition of a few words? Most of use store things in our hangers in addition to our airplanes.

It's really easy. First, you can copy something simple (if you agree with it). I plagiarized heavily from Rosie's post...here's mine:

"I completely agree that using limited hangar space at airports to store cars or boats or motorcycles (or anything else non-aviation-related) in the absence of an airplane is not an appropriate aeronautical use of a hangar, and I also disagree strongly with the characterization of amateur aircraft building as a "non-aeronautical" use.
 
Man, Dan, if you had noted that in Rosie's 8-19 posting, I would have included it in my comment. It's already in now.

My main grief was with the "amateur building as a non-aeronautical use" terminology. And I wanted to be brief and to the point, a verbal and writing ability I seem to be lacking. :(
 
Don,
There is no reason you only have to make only ONE comment. If you have a different comment or want to add explanation, just make a second, third, or 10 comment.
 
Hanger Use Comment

I added a bit to Don Hull's comment:

?I completely agree that using limited hangar space at airports to store cars or boats or motorcycles (or anything else non-aviation-related) is not an appropriate aeronautical use of a hangar, and I also disagree strongly with the characterization of amateur aircraft building as a "non-aeronautical" use.

"Characterizing amateur aircraft building as a non-aeronautical use makes about as much sense as characterizing Automotive Repair/Restoration as non-automotive use.

"I urge the FAA to characterize amateur aircraft building as bona fide, aeronautical use and to allow in aeronautical use hangers any tools, workbenches, machine tools, welders, metal brakes, and any other equipment that may required for the fabrication and assembly of aircraft, without limitation.

"Also, while the resident aircraft is out of the hanger for a trip, provision should be made to allow the aircraft owner/renter to leave his personal vehicle(s) in the hanger. This will prevent cluttering up the taxiway with vehicles.?

It astounds me that the FAA wants to impose such draconian rulemaking on General Aviation. How about encouraging GA instead?
 
My two (or three) cents

My comment as posted:

[Beginning of comment #2311]
1. While I both applaud and appreciate the effort that went into this proposed rule, I feel the quoted text excerpts below are at odds with the intent behind the balance of the rule:

“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...”

“...5. Final, active assembly of an aircraft in the manufacturing or homebuilt construction process, resulting in a completed, operational aircraft requiring access to the airfield, is considered an aeronautical activity for the purposes of this policy. “

“II. STANDARDS FOR AERONAUTICAL USE OF HANGARS
...Final assembly of aircraft”

I propose striking these statements, because each is at odds with the balance of the proposed rule, and will be difficult to enforce, causing much subjective argument between inspectors, builders, pilots, owners, and repairers.

From my personal experience, access to an airfield is necessary well before “components are assembled into a final functioning aircraft” for the following reasons:
A. Inspection.
Components are much more easily inspected than complete assemblies, much less a complete aircraft. Those easily inspected components contribute to the proper, safe, and efficient assembly of a complete aircraft.
I personally benefited from on-airport access to qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable inspections of components. This would have been much less possible had I been restricted to off-airport building.

B. Proximity to aircraft manufacturing, testing, and flying experts and expertise.
There are more aircraft experts available at airports than off-site. Those experts contribute to flight safety through developing, critiquing, and perfecting test flight plans as recommended in AC 90-89A (Amateur-built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook); guiding, teaching, and correcting aircraft builders and repairers; and conducting, critiquing, and teaching safe flying techniques.

If I did not have access to manufacturing, testing, and flying experts - and their expertise - both my flight testing, and subsequent flying (both in experimental and general aviation aircraft) would have been much less safe. I, my family, those at my local and distant airports, and all who fly with and around me have all benefited from this proximity.

C. Access to tools, technology, and teaching.
Associated with #2 above is the availability of aircraft-specific tools at airports. There are a large number of esoteric, low-use, tools that ease fabrication and repair of aircraft, but are expensive to obtain or maintain. An aircraft owner or operator can be tempted to “make do” with less expensive, less adequate tools when cost is a significant issue. Many, if not most, aircraft repairers are welcoming to those with questions, however; a person can obtain temporary use of a tool, even it does not leave the tool owner’s shop, often simply for the asking, and very often tool use will be accompanied by informed coaching on proper tool use. Use of the right tool, in the right way, for the right job, is the hallmark of safe aircraft building, repair, and modification.

2. I agree that using hangar space primarily to store cars, boats, furniture and similar non-aviation-related items is an inappropriate use of a hangar.

3. I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed, and I look forward to a continuing dialogue on the issues identified.

[End of posted comment]

Thank you all for bringing this to my attention, providing examples, highlighting issues, and reminding me of the ticking clock.
 
Last edited:
I just commented but happened to notice that they may disallow or not count comments that look to be a cut and paste or "canned"...

If you want your post to count, use your own words.
 
Commented, BUT...

Most hangars are leased. At least in Georgia, ANY lease of real property is governed by the Landloard/Tenant laws. Our laws cover everything from landlord access of the property to rent increases. The last three hangars I rented included a clause concerning use that required a registered aircraft be housed in said hangar. It was specified so the respective counties could collect yearly taxes on every possible aircraft.

This should be an interesting showdown, if the FAA decides to battle states/local municipalities.

I commented last month, but the more I think about this, the more I see it ending up in a federal court, if the FAA decides to attempt to rule on a state/local issue.
 
Most hangars are leased. At least in Georgia, ANY lease of real property is governed by the Landloard/Tenant laws. Our laws cover everything from landlord access of the property to rent increases. The last three hangars I rented included a clause concerning use that required a registered aircraft be housed in said hangar. It was specified so the respective counties could collect yearly taxes on every possible aircraft.

This should be an interesting showdown, if the FAA decides to battle states/local municipalities.

I commented last month, but the more I think about this, the more I see it ending up in a federal court, if the FAA decides to attempt to rule on a state/local issue.

If the airport took federal funds, then they're bound by the Grant Assurances. My money would be on the FAA in such a dispute.
 
Outdoor Tie Downs

I went to the small town of TEA, South Dakota this past weekend. Stopped at the airport there to inquire about hangar space. They laughed.

Such seems to be the norm for anything within 60 miles or so of a major airport. No space, waiting list, good luck.

So do home builders then just get a tie down spot, put up a temporary canopy for shade, and work on their planes outdoors in the weather of the day? Throw all your tools in your vehicle and be a mobile mechanic?

I would like to build a plane, but I may wind up driving two hours out to some ghost of an airfield to find a hangar. And if I can't find one, then that leaves outdoor tie downs, or folding wings and store it at home IF your HOA allows it.

I am taking a wild guess, but figure most busier airports are not going to want guys each weekend, out on the field with their trucks and trailers full of tools and parts, wrenching on their planes out in their tie down spots.

I suppose you could finish your airplane completely at home. Then hire a helicopter to hoist it over to an airport tie down. That seems really practical...not!

It seems the first tasks before even deciding to build an airplane, are:
1. Finding hangar space that you are willing to drive to.
2. Make sure you can pass the physical now and when you anticipate finishing the plane.

Because building a plane and THEN not being able to do one of the above would really suck.

And then being able to do both and THEN being told you can't do ANY work on the airplane once it is in the hangar. Hmmm
 
Hangar space

If you dream of building, go for it. Go to the airports you might like to call home and put your name on the waiting list. Mine came to the top twice. I passed the first time.
 
Many rural airports have land that is available to build your own hangar. You have to really dig to find it because some airport managers do not want more hangars. I don't understand their reasoning, but they tend to be very protective of any land they manage.

You need to ask the local realtor that handles the renting and sales of hangars. That is what I did. Another thing to do is get onto the airport however you need to and look for signs. I think you will find there are more hangars available that the airport manager doesn't know about. I wouldn't be opposed to stopping by every open hangar and offer to rent them a storage unit for all the crapola they are not supposed to have in their hangars - but do, so a space can be made for you!
 
I went to the small town of TEA, South Dakota this past weekend. Stopped at the airport there to inquire about hangar space. They laughed.

Such seems to be the norm for anything within 60 miles or so of a major airport. No space, waiting list, good luck.
...
And then being able to do both and THEN being told you can't do ANY work on the airplane once it is in the hangar. Hmmm

First, again I believe that there is no rule against working on a plane in a hangar (in fact, the wording of the Grant Assurances seems to me to include specifically doing maintenance, repairs, etc.) Absent a safety rationale, I'm not sure how an airport could legally prohibit such activity. I can find the wording in the Grant Assurance again if someone wants to see it.

Second, and more importantly...I looked at our airport's Master Plan, which included all sorts of analysis on expected numbers of operations and based aircraft over the next 10-20 years, etc., and from that and the current occupancy rate and such, derived a figure for *additional* hangars that would "need" to be constructed. I find that figure dubious, because based just on my driving around the field observations, I estimate 30-50% of the hangars have NO aircraft in them at all. In the several rows of hangars near me alone, fully half of the hangars are used for: storing up to 8 or so cars, boats and trucks and assorted nautical stuff, furniture, some sort of business (it seems) with inventory, boxes, etc., and a few with just general gobs of ****. I half expect to find a hangar with horse stalls and horses in it someday.

If the airport authority would simply enforce the rule that airport facilities are for *airplanes* and not the overflow of junk from your house or your junky old cars that you never seem to get fully running enough to drive anywhere, your sort of problem might never occur. And, they might have to reduce the hangar rates to entice more people to opt for them instead of tie-downs. Or not, but it should at the very least eliminate the multi-year waiting lists for hangars that we keep hearing about. As a side benefit, it would eliminate the people tuning up (or trying to tune up) their cars *in the hangar* and spewing exhaust into mine...
 
Forget the helicopter

snipped

I suppose you could finish your airplane completely at home. Then hire a helicopter to hoist it over to an airport tie down. That seems really practical...not!

snipped

Building at home or a warehouse bay and then moving the completed plane [or nearly completed] to the airport is fairly common. See the thread below.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=8687&highlight=Moving+project+airport

I have a friend who owns a one man/truck towing company. He has moved several RVs to the airport [wings removed] on his flat bed tow truck.

Charlie ;)
 
Back
Top