This has flown a little quietly under the radar, what with the Third Class Medical stuff and all, but the FAA is looking for comments on a policy statement that says that the ONLY proper use for a hangar is aircraft storage, and that you are also allowed to have a desk...and keep some log books. No building, no maintenance (apparently). This is in response to all of those hangars sitting chock full of boats, old cars, household goods, etc, etc around the country.
Avweb posted a good piece on this today here, and it has the links to go make a comment to the FAA on this topic. I advise EVERYONE to go comment - it took me about five minutes.
Here is what I posted:
This is a huge threat if your local airport decides to use the FAA's definitions in a legal action. As of this morning, there were only 46 comments - there need to be 4600!
Avweb posted a good piece on this today here, and it has the links to go make a comment to the FAA on this topic. I advise EVERYONE to go comment - it took me about five minutes.
Here is what I posted:
Having been personally involved in aircraft construction, maintenance, and flight for over 40 years, I am stunned to read that aircraft construction is not an aeronautical activity. The FAA personnel involved in developing this document need to actually visit a small airport some time and see just what is going on outside the beltways of major cities. Aircraft construction and maintenance has been performed in airport hangars since the dawn of aviation - the earliest airports were no more than convenient fields NEXT TO the building in which the airplane was constructed. This policy statement shows a complete lack of touch with the real world - most small maintenance facilities are, indeed, located in "hangars" with a taxiway leading to the runway. This statement would make virtually ALL maintenance facilities fall outside of the definition, and potentially put them out of business.
In the past month alone, as an aviation journalist (Editor in Chief of Kitplanes Magazine), I have visited three different manufacturers of aircraft and aircraft kits, all of whom are constructing aircraft components and aircraft in buildings which they use as hangars located directly on airport taxiways. This policy will devastate them - they will be out of business, and the entire general aviation industry with them.
Defining hangar usage in this way will provide a legal basis for the total destruction of aviation activities, since major airplanes also do maintenance in hangars. The recourse, of course, is for an individual to hang a sign on their building clearly labeling it as something other than a hangar.
While I support the idea of limiting the use of hangars to aeronautical activities, which would provide a great many more hangars that are currently being used to store boats, household goods, farm equipment, and the like, I can not see how any reasonably educated person could refuse to acknowledge that aircraft construction and maintenance are not "aeronautical activities". This portion of the policy is clearly wrong and needs to be re-written.
In the past month alone, as an aviation journalist (Editor in Chief of Kitplanes Magazine), I have visited three different manufacturers of aircraft and aircraft kits, all of whom are constructing aircraft components and aircraft in buildings which they use as hangars located directly on airport taxiways. This policy will devastate them - they will be out of business, and the entire general aviation industry with them.
Defining hangar usage in this way will provide a legal basis for the total destruction of aviation activities, since major airplanes also do maintenance in hangars. The recourse, of course, is for an individual to hang a sign on their building clearly labeling it as something other than a hangar.
While I support the idea of limiting the use of hangars to aeronautical activities, which would provide a great many more hangars that are currently being used to store boats, household goods, farm equipment, and the like, I can not see how any reasonably educated person could refuse to acknowledge that aircraft construction and maintenance are not "aeronautical activities". This portion of the policy is clearly wrong and needs to be re-written.
This is a huge threat if your local airport decides to use the FAA's definitions in a legal action. As of this morning, there were only 46 comments - there need to be 4600!