flyingriki
Well Known Member
So glad and fortunate to own my own hangar and not having to deal with beaurocrats and politicians.
Only if it's on your own land.
So glad and fortunate to own my own hangar and not having to deal with beaurocrats and politicians.
Thanks Dan.Point is, such a policy is not entirely unreasonable. The proposed clarification merely supports local administrative efforts....IF your local sponsor chooses to write a no-homebuilding clause into a lease and enforce it in the local courts. The Feds themselves won't enforce. They merely withhold grant funds, and then only if somebody plays squeaky wheel.
Seriously believe this is smoke screen for something else....
FAA Releases New Hangar Use Policy
Homebuilding now a protected activity under proposal
July 24, 2014 - The FAA released a long-awaited hangar use policy this week that addresses non-aeronautical use of hangars at federally obligated airports. EAA worked with the FAA to create the policy, which is designed to alleviate confusion stemming from a 2012 letter to the city of Glendale, Arizona.
The letter was widely circulated in the airport community and was interpreted by some as general policy. It suggested that the only objects that were acceptable in hangars at federally-funded airports were aircraft and a very limited list of aircraft-related items such as tow bars and wash racks, and the bare minimum of furniture and personal convenience items necessary for flight planning.
Because it suggested that all non-aeronautical objects in hangars constituted a violation of airport sponsors? grant assurances, this letter led to many airports tailoring their own local hangar use policies to mimic the letter for fear of losing federal grant money.
The recently released policy, on the other hand, allows that ?the incidental storage of non-aviation items that does not interfere with the primary purpose of the hangar and occupies an insignificant amount of physical hangar space will not be considered to constitute a violation of the [airport sponsor?s] grant assurances.? The policy also reiterates that the FAA is willing to work with airports with insufficient aviation demand for its hangars to use airport structures for interim non-aeronautical use, albeit at higher, non-aviation rental rates.
The policy explicitly recognizes for the first time ?final, active assembly? of aircraft as a protected aeronautical activity. Homebuilders in the past often found themselves unable to rent a hangar because their aircraft were not yet airworthy and their local airport required airworthiness as a prerequisite for hangar rental, which left the homebuilder in the awkward position of being unable to finish the aircraft and transport it to the airport for inspection and flight testing. This new policy eliminates that situation and codifies the aeronautical nature of homebuilding.
The FAA is accepting comments on the proposed policy, and EAA members are encouraged to read the policy and offer comments to the agency. EAA is reviewing the policy and will submit formal comments, which will be made available to our membership.
But why does the FAA even need more regulation on this? I am opposed to this on the homebuilding front AND on the regulation and inspection front. Why should I not be able to do anything I want in my hangar as long as aviation related stuff is ALSO taking place? Live in your hangar? Sure...as long as your plane lives there too. Park your hot rod project in your hangar? Why not as long as your ultralight is there too. Run a dentistry in your hangar? Absolutely as long as the dental chair is the front seat of your helicopter. This smells to me of just more control and government spending that will drive more people out of GA and entice fewer people into GA.
I will say this... If the FAA in anyway wants to stop experimental builds in hangars, you can kiss GA goodbye for good. We are the ONLY part of the GA market that has kept GA alive this long.
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/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463
They are driven and motivated by fear, fear of real people doing real things. It takes an official appointment to see any of them. No more personal informal contact, it is forbidden. They fear everything outside their very small life circles and are driven to protect what they have. Power to government, thats what it's all about.
A classic definition of Dante's Inferno if ever there was one.
As a private property owner and the owner of several hangars. What role does the Federal Government have telling me how to use my property as long as I pay my taxes and airport use fees. REALLY?
I filed my comment on the government site..........
As a private property owner and the owner of several hangars. What role does the Federal Government have telling me how to use my property as long as I pay my taxes and airport use fees. REALLY?
I filed my comment on the government site..........
EAA is calling the new proposal an imperfect but "significant win" that they support.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2873-full.html?ET=avweb:e2873:344885a:&st=email#222540
It is my understanding that the airport does receive Federal Grants.
I also OWN the land the hangars are on.
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.
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/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463
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.
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
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....
They're not necessarily *federally funded* hangars.
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’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.
<snip>
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. . .
Well, except for the misuse of the word "misapprehending", I would agree!Reasoned and well written.
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.
Read more of the story...
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-...aign=!Membership&utm_content=eHotline:+140724