What's new
Van's Air Force

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

NPRM only has 715 comments

brian

brian

Well Known Member
I am surprised that the FAA's proposal to severely restrict what can be stored in a hangar, even excluding all but "final" assembly of a homebuilt aircraft, does not have more comments. There are 715 right now. VAF represents just one (albeit very significant) portion of the homebuilt community, and VAF has thousands of members. I think there should be a lot more voices raised about this proposed rulemaking.

This is an fyi that the comment period for the FAA's new Hangar-Use policy is ending on Friday, 05 Sept. If you haven't commented on this yet, please do so. The proposed policy can be found at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463

Click on the Blue text "Non-aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars" to read the policy, and click "Comment Now!" to add your own comments.

My interpretation of this policy is that it severely restricts and disallows many of the common activities that currently take place in the airport environment, not only from an aircraft building perspective, but they also make implications as to the size of other items that you may commonly have in your hangar. They explicitly mention a "small" refrigerator as an example, but as worded this could easily be interpreted to include the size of your workbench or air compressor, for example.

Many of us have excellent airport managers that are supportive and reasonable to work with, but it is clear from the comments on this proposal that many airport environments are actively hostile towards GA, and EAA activities in particular. I found the comments from the Boulder City Airport Association to be particularly illuminating:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463-0452
 
First time commenter...

I posted my comments earlier this morning. It's the first time I've ever commented on a proposed rule.

If the thing passes and is enforced by our local airport authority as it is written, my involvement in general aviation will likely cease until I can afford to live in an air park community free from heavy-handed Government oversight.

I simply cannot justify having $50k tied up in a hangar that can ONLY be used to store my airplane. I've invested thousands of extra dollars to add an upper deck for storage in lieu of renting a $140/month storage shed. I have a smaller, less expensive house with a 2 car garage because I can store extra motorcycles in my hangar. I have a T hangar and once I park my Midget Mustang in it, it's simply not practical to park another airplane. The extra space might as well be put to good use.

I completely agree that there are folks out there who rent a big hangar and use it for nothing but storage. I think this is wrong. There's a guy on our field who has a construction business... He rents a T Hangar and keeps extra supplies and construction equipment in it--ONLY. No airplane. This is wrong when there are dozens of people on a hangar waiting list and he's just doing it because $300/mo for a hangar is cheaper than the equivalent off-airport storage.

The proposed rule would certainly take care of the prick with the construction company, but it'd also wipe out about 1/2 my hangar's value to me. Turning us all into criminals and then using selective enforcement is a cop out and is the result of sloppy and lazy rulemaking.
 
My comment:

"While the non-aeronautical use of aircraft hangars is an issue at some airports, many people use hangars for building experimental homebuilt aircraft or for the restoration and/or repair of "classic" or "vintage" aircraft. In many airports, the elimination of these users would mean that such airports would suddenly have a large oversupply of hangars. As long as a hangar isn't used exclusively for obviously non-aviaton uses (storing tractors, boats or running a cabinet shop) then the FAA should let the airport owner/sponsor determine what an appropriate use of the locally and possibly even privately funded hangars is. Storing a motorcycle or a small car under the wing of a Cessna, or behind the tail of a Pitts represents no threat or impediment to the aeronautical use of an aircraft hangar. If an airport or hangar owner wants to place limits on the use of their hangars, say to restrict home-building of aircraft at an airport with a 10 year waiting list for hangars that has millions of dollars in aircraft tied down on the ramp, that should have no effect on the ability of a hangar renter at a small airport with 50% occupancy to restore his father's Piper cub or build his dream Lancair in a T-hangar. Nor should it affect the ability of a hangar renter at that same sleepy airport to store a motorcycle or old dresser, as long as it doesn't restrict the legitimate aeronautical use of the hangar."
 
There's a very good write-up of how to write effective comments here:

http://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf

I see quite a few comments on this docket that read like "you guys are idiots" or the like. Unlikely to help our cause, wouldn't you think?

Stick to the facts, address the *actual* proposed policy/rule (not what people think it says...e.g., from what I can see, maintenance is certainly allowed, but there are a lot of comments that seem to think it is being prevented), provide rationale for your position, etc.

Anyway...it's a nice little writeup that explains what the reviewers will look for in comments.
 
I post comments on the gov't site regularly. It's quick and easy. There is no viable excuse not to post. You don't need to write a book, just say what you are supporting in 2 or 3 sentences and hit the submit button.
 
Comments received is now up to 1604...

But only about 1/2 of them have been posted.
I have pasted below, a response to the NPRM that was just posted, because it seems important for others to understand what is at stake here.
I am assuming Kent Ashton wont mind that I did so, since his post is part of public record anyway... this will just make it easier for others to find it.

Doug, if this is stepping over the boundary of political then feel free to delete (as I know you would anyway), but it seems to me to be important and of RV relevance since RV owners use public airport hangars.

BTW, I can hardly believe this thread only has 800+ views within the forum. This issue has the potential to have far reaching consequences for many years to come, depending on what the outcome is. The comment period has been extended. If you haven't commented yet, read the NPRM and post a comment. If you already have, ask all of your friends if they have and if not, encourage them to do so.....

I am the "Ashton" of Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, the FAA Part 16 complaint that the FAA cites here as justification that its proposed rule regarding hangars merely expresses an existing policy. For the record, I did not build, or seek to build an airplane in my leased hangar. I merely sought to perform ordinary maintenance tasks on my flying Experimental aircraft, i.e., the sort of small jobs that aircraft owners perform in their hangars all over the country, but which were not allowed at the Concord Regional Airport.

In response to my Part 16 complaint about Concord's prohibition on "lifting a screwdriver in a hanger", the City of Concord's dog-*** lawyers, knowing that my aircraft was Amateur-Built, concocted the lie that "Ashton wants to build airplanes in his hangar." It was a lie. I never sought to build airplanes in my hangar. I build them at home.

Readers of this comment may also be interested in the fact that shortly after I filed the above complaint, the Concord airport manager had me arrested for trespassing on the airport when I began to speak with other tenants about my concerns. Others at Concord Regional did not like the airport's stupid rules either and they wished me luck with my complaint. Nevertheless, the FAA held that speaking to others on the airport was "non-aeronautical behavior" that is not protected by grant Assurances and, in fact, justified further actions by the airport sponsor. (By the way, I won my trespass case and it was dismissed).

And their were further actions by this sponsor: as I waited for the FAA to issue a decision on my complaint, and I was awaiting the eventual dismissal of my trespass charge, the City of Concord evicted me from my leased hangar and booted me off the airport. As you might expect, I complained again in FAA cases Ashton v. City of Concord II, and III.

In my follow-on cases, the FAA held that the federally-assisted Concord airport may reasonably evict persons who complain because such persons "constitute a financial burden on the airport sponsor". See Ashton III, docket 16-02-01 here: http://part16.airports.faa.gov/index.cfm?page=CaseFileSearch

Readers may mistakenly understand a Constitutionally-protected right to complain to the FAA without government retaliation, i.e., without being evicted from a federally-assisted airport by its sponsor. The reader's understanding comes, of course, from the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment "Petition" clause which says in part "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . .the right of the people to petition the government [including the FAA] for a redress of grievances". However, this right does not exist in the FAA's world.

In Ashton III, the FAA held that I could reasonably be denied space on the federally-assisted Concord airport because I complained three times, and by complaining, I became a financial burden on the airport sponsor.

Believe me, I did not just let this pass. In Ashton III, I appealed to the Associate Aministrator for Airport, raising the objection that evicting complainers from their hangars is government retaliation in violation of the "Petition" clause and thus, unreasonable discrimination, even if the FAA's Airport Grant Assurances do not explicitly incorporate the Bill of Rights. I pleaded that those rights exist and the FAA and sponsors are bound by them.

To this, the Associate Administrator held that "the agency cannot consider constitutional questions."

So, dear readers, as you consider this new policy regarding the use of hangars, be aware that the FAA is fully capable of issuing other new policies based on Ashton II, and Ashton III, abusing my name and my cases to say that the agency is simply restating settled policy. Those policies might well be:

- speaking with others in open areas of the airport as I did, is "non-aeronautical conduct" for which a person may reasonably be denied the use of a federally-assisted airport.

- persons who complain under Part 16 or other laws may reasonably be evicted from their federally-assisted airport hangars, or denied any storage at all by and airport sponsor, because by complaining, they burden the airport sponsor,

- The Bill of Rights does not apply in FAA matters because the FAA cannot consider Constitutional questions.

This is why the FAA is so screwed up.

Kent J. Ashton
Major, USAF, Retired
Concord, NC
 
Last edited:
This may well stray over the line, and the moderators may delete it, but just for the sake of presenting the information...

Mr. Ashton filed at least 3 separate actions against the airport which were heard by the FAA, lost all 3, appealed all 3, lost all 3 appeals, filed several suits against the airport/city, lost those suits, appealed them, lost the appeals, *appealed to the Supreme Court*, writ of certiorari denied, was ordered to pay over $28,000 in attorneys' fees and was called out in court proceedings as a vexatious party.

Whatever you think of the proposed rule, I don't think I'd hitch my wagon to this star when making my point to the FAA.
 
RV7A Flyer said:
This may well stray over the line, and the moderators may delete it, but just for the sake of presenting the information...

Mr. Ashton filed at least 3 separate actions against the airport which were heard by the FAA, lost all 3, appealed all 3, lost all 3 appeals, filed several suits against the airport/city, lost those suits, appealed them, lost the appeals, *appealed to the Supreme Court*, writ of certiorari denied, was ordered to pay over $28,000 in attorneys' fees and was called out in court proceedings as a vexatious party.

Whatever you think of the proposed rule, I don't think I'd hitch my wagon to this star when making my point to the FAA.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
I posted his post (just one sided I admit), as one indicator of the possible attitudes that can be taken if the "rule that already exists" gains more teeth.
I don't believe his case started it all either... there was also a case at Glendale airport near Phoenix, that had a major influence I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top