Airport Mgmt may require written plans for homebuilts under construction in hangars

[Mike Berg]

Our little airport is owned by the flying club and I served for about 20 years as club president and still serve as manager. Both positions without pay I might add. We own the airport but lease the building space or "foot print" to hangar owners. I happen to own two. Our bylaws state "The primary purpose of hangars is for the storage of aircraft". Basically we didn't want to have the airport become a self storage place for old cars, boats and a lot of junk that the owner didn't know what to do with it. This not to say that a person can't put a car or boat in there but the primary reason has to be for the storage of aircraft. Maybe a bit hard to enforce but so far it's worked. We do have one hangar that contains a damaged Bonanza, a project Stinson (in pieces), a KR-2 (started but never finished), a BD-4 (wings off and never to be looked at again) and a few various other toys. So in essence I suppose the owner meets the spirit of the bylaws but he is taking up space that someone else could use and I guess if he makes his yearly hangar assessement payments we don't really have a beef coming but I often wonder why anyone would sit on all those project and just store them for no real purpose. Not to mention he hasn't been at the airport for years to my knowledge.

[cub builder]

Of course they have no legal grounds to do that. I guess if you want to push back, just tell them to pound sand.

If the municipality owns the land and the hangar owner is paying a lease for the land, the municipality can put all kinds of limitations and requirements on that lease. Having watched a number of aircraft sit on the ramp and rot into the ground and others sitting in hangars that haven't moved in years, and yet other "builders" who's projects haven't seen a rivet driven in years, it really galls me to say so, but I have to agree with the municipalities on this one. If you don't like their method for verifying progress, educate them a bit about how one would demonstrate progress. More than likely they will change the wording of the lease to be more agreeable. The airport owners have a vested interest in seeing that it is used as an airport rather than a derelict bone yard. The only way to do that is to put limitations on storage of unairworthy projects in the hangars.

-CubBuilder

[martymayes]

If the municipality owns the land and the hangar owner is paying a lease for the land, the municipality can put all kinds of limitations and requirements on that lease. Having watched a number of aircraft sit on the ramp and rot into the ground and others sitting in hangars that haven't moved in years, and yet other "builders" who's projects haven't seen a rivet driven in years, it really galls me to say so, but I have to agree with the municipalities on this one. If you don't like their method for verifying progress, educate them a bit about how one would demonstrate progress. More than likely they will change the wording of the lease to be more agreeable. The airport owners have a vested interest in seeing that it is used as an airport rather than a derelict bone yard. The only way to do that is to put limitations on storage of unairworthy projects in the hangars.

Sure, they can put all kinds of limitations and requirements on a lease. Whether or not any of that is enforceable is the question. I think it's ridiculous that someone wants a "no plane left behind" rule at their airport. Builder/restorer fails to make adequate yearly progress, (or AYP as it's called in no child left behind) they get kicked out of their hangar or kicked off the airport? Wow, if there is that much demand for hangar space, perhaps the airport owner/management should take an economics 101 course and build more hangars to satisfy demand. Hangar rent and land leases = revenue. Otherwise, the land is not doing anything.

[Mike Berg]

"Wow, if there is that much demand for hangar space, perhaps the airport owner/management should take an economics 101 course and build more hangars to satisfy demand. Hangar rent and land leases = revenue. Otherwise, the land is not doing anything."

Of course there has to be enough room to build more hangars which isn't always the case. I admit being a bit of a 'neat freak' but I hate to see a nice airport turned into a junk yard and some of the stuff stored in the hangar spills to the outside after a period of time. Several years ago I had to litererly force a tenant to remove several old cars and building material that was stored behind his hangar. His answer was ..he didn't have any place else to keep them and he wanted to save them for parts.

[Joe LaMantia]

Marty,

It would be great if we could see an increase in hanger space availability and Econ 101 presents the basis of supply and demand. We really don't have that model working in our airport system, most of the dollars for "capital" improvement budgets for airports comes from the fed. Local authorities tend to request those funds for runways, lights, ILS and new airport terminal improvements. Most of the new hanger space comes from "private" funds and in many cases the airport "authority" will acquire ownership of those hangers at a future date, 10 or 20 years. So there is no incentive for local govt. to pony up $$ for more hangers. The way things are going in GA a lot of these hanger queens will wind up in the junk yard and the eventually the hanger space they currently occupy will become available. Maybe we will hear from somebody with some insight into airport improvement funding, but the supply and demand model is slowed down from what I see.

Joe

[martymayes]

I admit being a bit of a 'neat freak' but I hate to see a nice airport turned into a junk yard and some of the stuff stored in the hangar spills to the outside after a period of time. Several years ago I had to litererly force a tenant to remove several old cars and building material that was stored behind his hangar. His answer was ..he didn't have any place else to keep them and he wanted to save them for parts.

Mike, I'm not a neat freak....but stuff spilling outside the hangar is unacceptable and easily controlled. Either clean it up or the airport cleans it up and the tennant gets the bill. You'd be surprised how that clause will motivate someone.

[martymayes]

Most of the new hanger space comes from "private" funds and in many cases the airport "authority" will acquire ownership of those hangers at a future date, 10 or 20 years.

Exactly, so open it up for private funds to do just that. I find that the biggest stumbling block is the airport authority not wanting to give up "control."

Many yrs ago I was based at an airport in the South and convincing them to allow a private developer on property was worse than pulling teeth. Once they agreed, a developer put in 2 rows of nestled T-hangars, occupancy was 100% in the first yr and now there is a sustainable waiting list. Airport revenues increased! Since homebuilding is a large chunk of GA activity now, let people build planes, I don't get the "prove progress" clause--tennant paying his bills is the only progress I'd be concerned with. There's going to be a hangar queen at every airport -- so what?

[FlyingRon]

I can understand what is going on here. Hangars are often in short supply and the airport authority limits them to be for storing aircraft. Many airports have people storing RVs or just plane junk in the hangar like they were some Self Storage locker rather than using them for airplanes. They are saying, you can build in the hangar, but we want you to actually be progressing, not just storing your airplane parts there.

I've got two hangars. One is subject to all those restrictions or they'll terminate my lease.
The other I own, on land I own, attached to a runway that I share with other owners on the field.

[Joe LaMantia]

Marty,

I agree it would be great if we could actually buy the land and put on the "improvements", then the local govt could provide the maintenance services and get paid via property taxes just like private homes or commercial property. Ron's 2nd hanger sounds like an air park and we do have those all around the country, which is in fact the kinda thing you described.

Joe