|
-
POSTING RULES

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

08-04-2014, 10:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Henderson, NV (KBVU)
Posts: 129
|
|
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.
__________________
Seb Trost
RV-7A
Boulder City, NV
|

08-04-2014, 11:17 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeflys8
It is my understanding that the airport does receive Federal Grants.
|
Well, there you go...the airport has to abide by the Grant Assurances.
Quote:
|
I also OWN the land the hangars are on.
|
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.
|

08-04-2014, 11:21 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Marshall TX (KASL)
Posts: 1,783
|
|
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, RV12, N412BR "Sweetie", Skyview-equipped, KASL Marshall TX
|

08-04-2014, 11:30 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill_H
Any intelligent airport operator with a waiting list would build more hangars. You could secure long term legal commitments from that waiting list to cover or partially address the risk of building (sometimes local airport boards are wary of expansion.) And/or require the non-aircraft "storage" users to sign a LONG lease, might move them out to a mini-storage.
|
Unless they're out of room, like an airport in the midst of a big city...
Quote:
|
All these ideas and more have NO NEED for FAA involvement! Solve local problems locally. A federal solution is always worse for everyone.
|
Maybe...maybe not. That's sounds more like a philosophical political position that's probably best not debated here...
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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).
|

08-04-2014, 12:04 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Ashton
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/#!docketD...=FAA-2014-0463
|
An, uh, interesting case history there...have you appealed to SCOTUS yet?
|

08-04-2014, 12:11 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer
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.
|
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).
|

08-04-2014, 01:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 146
|
|
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-a...%3A+140724), because that really explains it in short and concise form. Also, go to the actual rulemaking page, here http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...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/...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 by precession : 08-04-2014 at 04:12 PM.
Reason: typo, delete extra words
|

08-04-2014, 01:22 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Excellent post. I'd just like to add one thing:
Quote:
|
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
|
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.
|

08-04-2014, 01:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cary, N.C.
Posts: 1,216
|
|
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.
__________________
Noel
RV-6A N6NF
tip-up
flying
|

08-04-2014, 01:45 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by precession
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....
|
Reasoned and well written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer
They're not necessarily *federally funded* hangars.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noelf
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.
|
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 
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Last edited by DanH : 08-04-2014 at 01:54 PM.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:55 AM.
|