FAA Compliance Hangar Inspection Juneau, Alaska

[WLIU]

Well, I work with the FAA to get airspace approvals and aircraft modification approvals. So based on my experience, and since the Airports Division is just another branch to develop a relationship with, I would rather just continue to use the approach that has been successful with other parts of the FAA. Read their manual and beat them to death with it. They can't really get angry with you when you point out that they are not following their own policies and procedures, which can have career implications for them.

Plus, if all of the airport community speaks up together, it is less expensive and stressful overall than if one guy at a time pushes back. That is why we organize into groups like EAA.

In the case of my airport, we have a new airport manager who seems to be using the justification that "the FAA requires" or the state DOT has some policy, and our local folks have gotten together to push back using the existing FAA airport compliance book (see post #14). So we have many against one. Since the airport authority is a political body, we can influence the one's boss. No politician wants to see a front page story about how all of the airport residents are organizing a revolt against the new airport manager.

But since the FAA airports people in my locale may be working off bad policy that will be changed shortly, today's question is how we diplomatically get any local FAA airports division staff and the airport management to understand that they are on the wrong side of a policy change, which may be embarassing to them in the not too distant future.

Hence my question to Mr Harger.

The good news about running into this sort of problem is that my neighbors are digging into obscure FAA docs, the Clean Water Act, and other regulatory agency docs that can affect what we do on the airport. No one really cares about this stuff until a new official arrives with an agenda. Knowledge is power and while we would rather go have fun and fly, the learning that is taking place will benefit everyone in the end. We just wish it wasn't so painful now.

Best of luck,

Wes

[Jonathan Harger]

We have a couple of airports in NH that may be running into the fall out of Glendale. Suggestions for the best way to push back?

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

Wes,
I would suggest to your local airport management that they wait on creating hangar use policies to satisfy Glendale, especially because 1)that legal interpretation was not intended as a nationwide policy, and 2)the FAA office of airport compliance is currently drafting a policy for hangar use that we hope will get the FAA out of the hangar police business, where they do not want to be.
Again, non-aero use policies are a necessary and sometimes good thing--they are designed to let pilots with operable aircraft use hangars, instead of being forced to use tiedowns because the hangar space is occupied by the contents of someone's grandma's attic. It also prevents local airport sponsors from getting a federal grant to build hangars and then turning around and using the (federally paid for) building for something else entirely. Municipalities have done that before--and the grant assurances are there in large part to prevent muni-misuse of "free federal money."
The best thing to do is to let airport management know that a policy is slated to come out in the next three months, and there is no reason to go scorched-hangar-earth until there is a policy in place.

[WLIU]

Jonathan,

I just learned that one of our local folks spoke with you. Thanks a lot for the advice and support.

Thanks!

Wes
N78PS

[Jon Ahlgren]

More hangar lease info (and other rants):

I have (to me anyway) a large capital investment in my hangar building. I pay local property taxes on the building. I also pay local property taxes for the lease of the land I do not own.

Add up the costs of capital investment, taxes, lease, building maintenance, fuel flowage fee (100 LL is $7.04/gal), insurance and utilities: owning a hangar is a very expensive endeavor - not to mention owning certified airplanes.

I fail to see how the FAA should be so concerned that I might be taking advantage of somebody.

I think the FAA is invading my privacy and restricting my freedom. The current level of attempted control is federal overreach. If the primary use of my privately owned hangar is aviation, that should be the end of it. Whatever else I put in the hangar is not their (FAA) business.

Maybe somebody can help me with the answer to a question I have: I’m having a problem justifying the picture and blanket statement made in the Dec 9, 2009 – Administration FAA Order 5190.6B and Small Airport Management Guide. In “C. Other Non-Aeronautical Uses of Airport Property Not Approved By The FAA”, there is a picture of a motor home in a hangar with a couple of business jets. I think FAA inspectors use this picture as a blanket denial of any RV in any hangar. Maybe, maybe not. Is it a private or government owned hangar? After reading this and other grant assurance documents I cannot find justification for this blanket guidance.

I’ll post a link to the Juneau airport compliance report when it becomes available, probably in a couple weeks.

Thank goodness we have EAA working for us.

P.S. I’m a lucky pilot: my spouse is a pilot and she likes flying.

[I_FLY_LOW]

It may be a privately purchased/owned hangar, but it sits on federally funded in some way, land.
Not that I'm agreeing with them, in any means, but I think that could be their basis for their stance.
For that matter, if the FAA can bitch about that, I wonder if other privately owned structures on federally owned land, could be subjected to the same scrutnity.
Say like a garage, where they could say you can keep a car in there, but no workshop and tools...

[Jeff Boatright]

...I fail to see how the FAA should be so concerned that I might be taking advantage of somebody.

I think the FAA is invading my privacy and restricting my freedom. The current level of attempted control is federal overreach. If the primary use of my privately owned hangar is aviation, that should be the end of it. Whatever else I put in the hangar is not their (FAA) business...

...P.S. I’m a lucky pilot: my spouse is a pilot and she likes flying.

Hi Jon,

Just to get a clearer picture for the readers here, what was the follow-up from FAA or the airport after the inspection? Has a local or federal entity required or requested "corrective" action? If not, have you had a chance to follow up with them to see what the heck is going on? As you note, you're a lucky pilot. Maybe the feds are using photos of your hangar contents as examples of how the rules should be properly applied - primary use is aviation, other stuff shouldn't be a problem.

Don't laugh! I've seen that side of regulators, too!


Jeff

[Floatsflyer]

More hangar lease info (and other rants):
I also pay local property taxes for the lease of the land I do not own.

Why do you pay property taxes on the land as a lessee? Is that a State of Alaska thing? Other than that, it doesn't make sense to me, as in all other property jurisdictions with respect to leasing/renting, the landowner is responsible for property taxes.

[WLIU]

"Why do you pay property taxes on the land as a lessee?"

In NH we fought that battle in court and lost. If you have the right wording in your land lease, you have agreed to pay for the use of the land plus all taxes and any other fees that are related to the the land as if you own it. So we have a 50 year lease for the land from the airport and city, and we get to pay property taxes on the land as if we own it. Then we pay property tax on our building.

So read and negotiate the finest print that appears on your contracts. Little things can cost you $$ and you need to calculate that before you sign.

Best of luck,

Wes

[Floatsflyer]

In NH we fought that battle in court and lost. So read and negotiate the finest print that appears on your contracts. Little things can cost you $$ and you need to calculate that before you sign.

Really!? So I guess what your saying is, you get the lawyer you paid for...bar admitted or otherwise. A cautionary tale.

[Freddie]

For your info: As my research has shown in the past, you simply need to post a "No Trespassing" sign where it can be seen and even with the door open, the Supreme Courts in all the states as of 1976 have ruled that viewing past a no trespassing sign constitutes trespass and that under Maranda, "no evidence collected in an illegal manner is admissible in any court". They have ruled that this also applies to photographs taken inside or outside the property and photographs taken from aircraft or satellites. I have used this to very good effect in the past. Twice against tax assessors and once against a building department. All it takes is that no trespassing sign. One quick example: a few decades ago I had a mobile home that was a rental in one town and was moving it to another county to be a rental in another town. The space was not available for about three days so it was dropped off on my property halfway in between the two locations. The next day I received a tax bill from the new County. I sent a nice friendly letter to the courthouse asking for the name of the individual who entered my property by passing past a no trespassing sign either in person or with his eyeballs so I could prosecute him for criminal trespass. By return mail I got a letter stating that they were mistaken and that they had no idea if I had a mobile home on my property or not and to please disregard the first letter. It was kind of humorous because it would be hard to hide a 73 foot long mobile home parked broadside 50 feet inside a gate. It's called standing up for your rights. It is my policy to always post that sign simply to enforce my rights; if everyone would do that it might go a long way toward keeping government under control. I didn't do it for a long time because it didn't seem very friendly but what almost always happens is that everyone, good or bad, simply ignores the sign if they see it at all. The only time you actually enforce it is against the bad guys whether crooks or government; but that's redundant…… They're the same.