[Bryan Wood]

Another recent thread got me thinking about the following. This topic could get away from us, so please be civil. Having been on both sides of this now I can see it from both sides and from the vantage point of having a finished plane the latter now works better for me. The question is, what is "Fair, or how should the rules be?" Does your airport have similar rules?

My home field has a hanger waiting list at any given time. To put this in perspective I got my name on the waiting list in 1985 knowing the list would take twenty or more years to work my way to the top. Sometime around 2003 I checked in because the RV was going to be ready to move soon and found out that they had thrown away the entire list and started a new one a few months before. This was to make it fair! So countless people that were on the list behind me were suddenly in front of me again. Of course the tempers emerged, but that is another story.

With the list being much shorter now many homebuilders rented hangers to completely build their planes. There are several plastic airplanes being completely built taking years to complete. Here is the meat and potatoes of this thread. Phase one is not allowed from this airport so even when these planes are completed they cannot take off and fly.

Basically, should an airplane be constructed in a hanger when there are people with flying airplanes that would like to get them in doors? Factoring in that the plane cannot legally fly from the airport when it is finished should this be allowed? Should this be factored in? Or, with the completion rate for homebuilding not being 100% should builders be able to lock up a hanger from active pilots and airplanes?

???

 

[lostpilot28]

Definitely a touchy subject...I've never been on a list (it's 5+ years long here in Boise), or rented anything other than tie-down spots (covered and non-covered).

But, I'll share my opinion anyway. I think it really comes down to a free market with supply & demand defining what really happens. I'm guessing that you wouldn't have even started this thread if they offered you a hangar 2 years ago even though your plane wasn't ready...you probably would've taken it! I would have.

When supply is very short, things can get ugly. At least it's ugly if you're on the bottom of a waiting list.

 

[Bryan Wood]

Definitely a touchy subject...I've never been on a list (it's 5+ years long here in Boise), or rented anything other than tie-down spots (covered and non-covered).

But, I'll share my opinion anyway. I think it really comes down to a free market with supply & demand defining what really happens. I'm guessing that you wouldn't have even started this thread if they offered you a hangar 2 years ago even though your plane wasn't ready...you probably would've taken it! I would have.

When supply is very short, things can get ugly. At least it's ugly if you're on the bottom of a waiting list.

Agreed,

I never thought about this before this morning when reading another thread triggered it. Maybe looking at it from the eyes of a non builder. Joe Spam Can can't get a hanger because it is being used as an airport factory for a decade or so even though the planes produced there cannot use the runway when they are finished. I don't know if there is a right answer for this. Homebuilding is a priveledge that I'd hate to see impeded, but this is an interesting view that others likley have.

 

[rv7boy]

Hangar Use

Bryan,

I've also been on both sides of this issue. As in any business/contract situation, the RULES are only as good as how strictly they are enforced. In the situation you describe, I can more easily accept the situation where aviation activities, such as building one's own airplane, are going on inside the hangar. I don't think, however, that one should operate a business out of a hangar unless that is allowed in the RULES for that airport.

And I can even be okay with a car or boat or other STUFF stored in the hangar AS LONG AS there is an airplane inside. What I have a problem with is the situation where folks are storing their STUFF (items that could just as easily, but not as cheaply, be stored in a personal warehouse in town) that have nothing to do with aviation. I have a feeling that is going on at several airports. At our airport, the airport manager has a master key for each hangar, so it would be easy for him to periodically check every hangar on the field just to see that the primary activity within the hangar is related to aviation. I don't know personally what's going on in each hangar at our airport, and I have no way of knowing for sure, one way or the other.

It appears to me, and I could be wrong, that there is an increasing demand for hangars. Perhaps this goes hand-in-hand with more and more pilots building their own planes.

Just my $.02

Don

P.S. As my signature line indicates, I am building an RV-7 and presently own a 172. Contrary to what I was told, a 172 and an RV-9A will fit into a 30 by 30 foot hangar at our airport. My partner has since sold his RV-9A, but we hangared them together for over a year.

 

[cytoxin]

as long as its and active aviation project i dont see a problem with them being in there. now when thew local fire dept stores there fire truck in the hangar i get somewhat miffed. which is the case aty my local airport.(KUDG) and i was next on the list but they truck has to stay inside. locked up because they sell fuel. my guess is a plane would burn to the ground with the ouccupants being killed or mamed before thay even found the keys to the truck and got it started if it will start.

 

[N130WN]

Why is Phase 1 not allowed? Is that even possible? Is it private? No state/fed funding?

 

[Steve Brown]

Don't mind waiting for a builder

But I get really mad when there is a multi-year waiting list (as at TOA) while many tenants are doing nothing but restoring cars or the like.

My current airport (RHV), where I'm now on a list that is hopefully shorter than 1 year, has rules against that sort of thing.

 

[osxuser]

I see many distinct advantages to building at the airport VS. your house, but if they are taking a WHOLE hanger to do it, why not get a high-wing in there in the mean time, and build? When stuff gets in tight demand it should be AIRWORTHY airplanes first. I'm building in my hanger, but I've also got my Dad's Cessna in there, an unairworthy Ercoupe project, and 4 cars. Without the airworthy airplane, I wouldn't have gotten the hanger.

 

[kentb]

Bryan, your a real trouble maker....

Now your going to get all kinds of opinions and we will have a war going on.

So here goes with mine.

If a person rents or buys a hangar, then they should abide by the agreement at the time. If there are airport rules where they are located they should abide by those. If there are no rules prohibiting what they want to do (as long as it isn't illegal) then they do what they want.

Yes, you and I agree that airport should be used for airplanes, but if a persons hobby is building cars, boats and they got there first, why shouldn't they get to enjoy their hobby?

There was a time that I rented a hangar at a private airport to store my ski boat in the winter. They said that they would not rent to me if I planned to put an airplane in the hangar. They didn't want any more flight activity at their airport.

It is not fair that you lost your position on the list. In a way that was a violation of a contract, but I don't thinks that you could get far by suing. I just don't think that you should expect that someone building their plane in the hangar at the airport would give it up when someone with a flying plane is ready to move in.

Kent

 

[terrykohler]

Bryan:
I have had some of the same frustration with "Waiting Lists" for hangar space in SE Michigan. For nearly 20 years, I flew out of PTK (Oakland Pontiac International) with a Cessna T210 which I based there. Around 2000, I sold the plane and started to build my RV. Contacting the airport authority for another hangar, I was told I would be placed on the back end of a wait list that stretched an estimated six years in length. Pretty much the same response at every airport within a 30-50 mile radius. Interestingly, not a single one of these facilities required a deposit in order to be placed on the list. At the same time, my search for a hangar showed a very small number of aircraft in tiedowns at each facility. This lead me back to Pontiac with a suggestion to the airport authority that a substantial fee be requested of everyone on the list in order to see who was really serious. I was advised that a federal building program was on the books which would add over 100 hangars on the field - no change planned on the wait list.
Fast forward to late 2003, and I was offered a spot in a hangar row scheduled for teardown due to a runway realignment (tenants of those hangars were moved to the front of the wait list and given spots as soon as vacancies occured). I moved in October of '03 and completed the aircraft in February '04. Within a year's time, I was assigned one of the new hangars and am pleased to now be in close proximity to a number of other builders and friends.
Forward now to present date, and I believe Pontiac has approximately 70 hangars available for immediate occupancy. To my knowledge, none of the other airports in my original search radius have wait lists at this time.

Sorry for the long story, but my guess is that the bulk of these wait lists were made of of people like myself, who when uable to secure space, listed at three or four facilities in an attempt to snag the first one available. If these airports had establised a requirement for a hefty deposit (I was thinking $1,000-2,000), there may never have been a problem in the first place. One other thought. If a registration and proof of insurance are also required for occupancy, this would make it pretty tough for anything other than a flying or soon to be flying aircraft to occupy the space.
Terry

 

[rleffler]

Why is Phase 1 not allowed? Is that even possible? Is it private? No state/fed funding?

I suspect it has nothing to do with funding, but being in an urban area. I have a similiar situation where I'm based. I have to do Phase I at another airport. My home base is surrounded by homes and apartments.

Fortunately I have two other airports that are only a few minutes farther away, but are in a more rural setting.

 

[N130WN]

I suspect it has nothing to do with funding, but being in an urban area. I have a similiar situation where I'm based. I have to do Phase I at another airport. My home base is surrounded by homes and apartments.

Fortunately I have two other airports that are only a few minutes farther away, but are in a more rural setting.

But who made this rule? Do they have the authority? Is it in the AIM? Where can I look to see if my favorite airport has such a rule? I'm interested in seeing it in writing... Thanks.

 

[dhusk]

Phase 1 out of Pontiac

Terry:

Is phase one allowed out of PTK? The population up there has increased quite a bit over the last couple decades. Did you do your phase 1 there?

I'm considering Pontiac as a place to finish my RV9A when I get a little further along. Good to know there are hangars available. It is a bit of a drive for me.

New Hudson would be closer, and Mettetal closer yet. I believe there are hangars at New Hudson. I'm on the waiting list at Mettetal, and it is a long one, 15 years or so. I think that's just because Mettetal is a small airport with limited hangar space.

I'd still like to hook up and get a ride in your plane.

 

[rleffler]

But who made this rule? Do they have the authority? Is it in the AIM? Where can I look to see if my favorite airport has such a rule? I'm interested in seeing it in writing... Thanks.

In my case CMH FSDO. They won't approve Phase I within and/or under the Class C airspace. KOSU falls within that boundary. Nearby KMRT AND KDLZ don't.

The FARs restrict Phase I to unpopulated areas. It would be difficult to debate that subdivisions and apartment complexes are unpopulated.

 

[terrykohler]

Darryl:
No problem with flight testing out of PTK. DAR Ted Gauthier is located right across from me when you're ready for inspection. At present, I'm planning on flying Friday afternoon, as well as Saturday and Sunday mornings. Please let me know ASAP if you're interested. Phone: 248-417-8585. BTW, New Hudson's hangars are managed by the staff at PTK. I've also heard space is available.
Terry

 

[Jim P]

Personally, hangars ought to be for aviation. Unless a guy has an aircraft in the hangar, no boats and no cars. I'd suspect that the majority of hangars at public airports are constructed with some form of FAA funding, paid for by your aviation fuel tax, not auto or boat fuel. I've seen some interesting things with lists, even saw a little old widow get kicked out because her name wasn't on her husbands aircraft when he died. I was lucky enough to get a new hangar at Hollister, CA when they completed the new rows, part of the reason being I was in the right place, paid my deposit when they cleansed the old list, and got a hangar. Here in Seattle, hangar lists are pretty long so I just bought a condo hangar when one became available.

 

[RatMan]

The FARs restrict Phase I to unpopulated areas. It would be difficult to debate that subdivisions and apartment complexes are unpopulated.

Not "unpopulated" but "sparsely populated". It does make a difference. With the right information and perhaps some planning and suggestions of route you might be able to fly from your airport. There are guys that fly from airports that are surrounded by neighborhoods that are "densely populated". Really depends on the FSDO I guess.

-----------------------------------------------------

"91.305 Flight test areas.
No person may flight test an aircraft except over open water, or sparsely populated areas, having light air traffic."

Also see 8130.2F, Chapter 4, Section 7, Paragraph 135.

(1) In the case of the first flight of an aircraft from an airport surrounded by a densely populated area, but with at least one acceptable approach/departure corridor, the FAA must ensure that the selected flight corridor subjects the least number of persons and property to possible hazards. In addition, upon leaving such an airport, the aircraft must be required to operate from an outlying airport until its controllability and safety are established, after which the aircraft may return to its base and use the established corridor for subsequent operations. The description of the area selected by the applicant and agreed to by the FAA must be made a part of the operating limitations.

(2) In the case of an aircraft located at any airport surrounded by a densely populated area and lacking any acceptable approach/departure corridor, the FAA must deny the airworthiness certificate and process the denial in accordance with paragraph 88 of this order. The applicant must be advised to
relocate the aircraft by other means to a suitable airport.

NOTE: An acceptable approach/departure corridor exists when the corridor provides reasonable opportunity(s) to execute an off-airport emergency landing that will not jeopardize other persons or property.

-------------------------------------------------

 

[s_tones]

I think it's ridiculous to allow people to hold up hangers simply to store their cars, boats, furniture. I know it's prevalent at our field. I really think it's just about the dollars (surprise). If they mandated only aircraft in hangars there would be a lot more hangar available and rents/prices would drop. The owners of the hangars and leases sure don't wanna see that now do they?

Steve

 

[L.Adamson]

I think it's ridiculous to allow people to hold up hangers simply to store their cars, boats, furniture. I know it's prevalent at our field. I really think it's just about the dollars (surprise). If they mandated only aircraft in hangars there would be a lot more hangar available and rents/prices would drop. The owners of the hangars and leases sure don't wanna see that now do they?

It's a fact. For the square footage, a lot of hangars can be rented for less than comparible storage units.

I say yes, to aircraft only; and the airport should stand behind that stipulation. Our local airport has
thrown all the storage out.

L.Adamson

 

[roadrunner20]

I finished up my last 9 months of building in a hangar.
My airport requires a N number. Therefore, an aircraft is required to lease a hangar. They do periodic fire inspections to eliminate the ones where there are no aircraft and becoming a fancy storage unit.
Everything inside must be aviation related.
The down side is that they will only allow one aircraft/hangar.
I wanted to start building another RV but I was denied even though it doesn't become an airplane until it's registered and/or AW.

To respond to Bryan's issue...
I guess if the occupant was actively building, I have no problem with them occupying the space. I would try to partner with someone with a flying aircraft to defer some of the costs while building if allowed.

 

[fehdxl]

Heard a story about Anthony, OK. I guess they openly allow hangars to be used as self-storage units because it brings in revenue that would otherwise be zero with no one in there. However, there's a stipulation that if they fill up and someone needs a hangar for thier airplane, the self-storage tennant has 30-days to vacate. Seems logical to me. Just another data-point. -Jim

 

[N130WN]

In my case CMH FSDO. They won't approve Phase I within and/or under the Class C airspace. KOSU falls within that boundary. Nearby KMRT AND KDLZ don't.

The FARs restrict Phase I to unpopulated areas. It would be difficult to debate that subdivisions and apartment complexes are unpopulated.

OK, I'm with you now. I thought the airport mgmt was not allowing phase one. FAA is a different story....

Back to rivets.......

 

[JDAviator]

A hangar is just a building that happens to be located on an airport. Sometimes these buildings are nested together and have a symmetrical 'T' shape that lends itself to storage of an airplane. But the thought of a hangar being used for only aviation is a bit idealistic in my view. I purchased a condo T hangar for many reasons. For one, it appears to be a good investment. Two, I need storage for not only my RV-8 pieces parts, but other stuff as well. As long as I remain within the deed restrictions, I'll do with it what I want. Yes, it does need to house an airplane to meet one of the restrictions and I have a few pieces of one stored there - so I meet that criteria. But at present it is more non-aviation storage facility than airplane storage or factory. This will change in due time.

And when the time comes, I'll have to move the airplane to (probably) BKV for phase 1 testing as we now have homes off each end of the runway. But I'll worry about that later.

In the near term, I'm not adverse to sharing this hangar with someone of like interests who needs building space.

 

[L.Adamson]

A hangar is just a building that happens to be located on an airport. Sometimes these buildings are nested together and have a symmetrical 'T' shape that lends itself to storage of an airplane. But the thought of a hangar being used for only aviation is a bit idealistic in my view. I purchased a condo T hangar for many reasons. For one, it appears to be a good investment. Two, I need storage for not only my RV-8 pieces parts, but other stuff as well. As long as I remain within the deed restrictions, I'll do with it what I want. Yes, it does need to house an airplane to meet one of the restrictions and I have a few pieces of one stored there - so I meet that criteria. But at present it is more non-aviation storage facility than airplane storage or factory. This will change in due time.

And when the time comes, I'll have to move the airplane to (probably) BKV for phase 1 testing as we now have homes off each end of the runway. But I'll worry about that later.

In the near term, I'm not adverse to sharing this hangar with someone of like interests who needs building space.

"Idealistic"........ I don't think so.

At many locations, hangars are in short supply. Therefor, in my view, it's not just a "building" located on airport property, that can be used as a storage shed.

In other words, while someone's snow-mobiles and boats sit inside, the planes sit outside. While the snow-mobiles and boats can reside at numerous storage facilities in just about any given locations..................planes certainly can NOT!

Needless to say, I'm totally against using hangars as "any use" storage facilities, unless they are privately owned at airports with owner/hangars. And at that point, I still would prefer to see an aircraft registered for every hangar.

I even went out of my way, not to give a good friend more info on buying a hangar for storage of construction equipment, because he didn't have an aircraft. At the moment, all hangars at this airport are now filled to the max. We don't need aircraft sitting out in the elements, because someone's using the limited availability of hangars for other uses. And of course, this is MY view on the subject.

L.Adamson -- RV6A at U42

 

[dadroot]

Hangars

I will add me 2 cents since I'm going through this with my county Airport Board at this time.

Hangers built with Federal dollars fall under the rules of the grant agreement. The "Airport Improvement Funds" guideline states that all monies spent are to promote aeronautical activity. This would rule out boat, cars, storage, ect.

 

[Steve Brown]

Airports not a free market

..
Yes, you and I agree that airport should be used for airplanes, but if a persons hobby is building cars, boats and they got there first, why shouldn't they get to enjoy their hobby?
............
Kent

Because its an airport. Airports are for airplanes not boats. I can't rent a local garage to put my airplane in, it must stay at an airport. Airports are not use neutral.

I'm all for a free market approach when applicable, it just isn't in this case.

If there is no wait list then back filling with other activities may be a way to help airport finances. Even in that case, however, the non airplane tenants should be booted if an airplane needs the space.

Also, I wouldn't want to give local officials a helping hand at axing an airport by using hanger rentals as a way to reduce airport operations. We're already an endangered species.

 

[cwreeves]

Hangars

Sorry guys,
I'm going to change the subject a little bit, but it does concern hangars. I'm currently using a T40 hangar (44') at AVQ. Does anyone have experience where you've fit an RV-7 and 7A in this size hangar. My hangar mate is building the 7A
Charlie, RV-7, Painting

 

[kentb]

Round # 2....

I am all for aviation: Flying , building, airshows, reading, whatever.
I have other interests: (I won't go into a long and boring list).
Just because I am not (currently) into car restoring, boating, etc. doesn't mean that those who are don't have just as much right to enjoy them as I do my airplane.

I have had experience with hangars at three different airports. Two are private and the other state (Oregon) owned. The hangars at the State airport are either on private land or the land was leased from the state and an individual built the hangars. The hangar that I rented there did pay a monthly access fee to the state as well as rent to the owner of the hangar. Later I bought a hangar at state airport and again needed to pay the access fee. The access fee was per airplane.

The owner of the rental that I had also rented to a number of non aviation customers. Although I would have enjoyed having more "plane" neighbors I don't think that I have any say over what the owner of the hangar does. It is up to him to decide if he will only rent to plane-people.

Later when we bought our hangar it was like a condo, in that we had an agreement about usage. The restriction there was no non-aviation business use. There was no restriction on the number of planes or storing other stuff in the hangar.

At the private airports that I rented hangars at, one as I mentions before didn't want me to have an airplane. My current airport (private) doesn't restrict me, but maybe the owner before selling to me knew that I was an airplane person.

If the airport (hangar owner) has restriction on the hangar usage, then anyone renting them should be required to follow the rules.
But as a pilot we (I) don't have the right to create rules just because I need a hangar and there is someone that has one, and I don't think that they deserve it as much as I do.

After all, what would be the eviction order?

1. Non-aviation evicted for aviation.
2. Builders evicted for flying planes.
3. Experimental evicted for certified.
4. Single engine evicted for multi-engine.

Should the number of flight hours be used some how?

Who gets to chose? Although I am a big supporter of the free market system, I don't think that it is the issue here. It a matter of who is in control and how fair would their rules be.

If the hangars at your airport are owned by the government, then you should get your representative to change the rules to suit you. If there is enough agreement, it will happen.

If there are restrictions in the current rules and you know of some hangar user that is violating them, report them and maybe you will be able to get their hangar. If there aren't enough hangar to go around and the people that are using the hangars are not breaking the rules, then move on and figure out something different.

Kent