Originally Posted by
CarlOrton
I have mixed emotions on this issue. ...
I didn't read more than the first two pages, but didn't see that you couldn't build in a hangar. Don't see how that's considered to be non-aviation.
Section on homebuilding quoted below:Use of Hangars for Fabrication and Assembly of Aircraft
While building an aircraft results in an aeronautical product, the FAA has not found all stages of the building process to be aeronautical for purposes of hangar use. A large part of the construction process can be and often is conducted off-airport. Only when the various components are assembled into a final functioning aircraft is access to the airfield necessary.
In Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, (3) the complainant objected to the airport sponsor's prohibition of construction of a homebuilt aircraft in an airport T-hangar. The decision was based on a FAA determination that aircraft construction is not per se an aeronautical activity. While final stages of aircraft construction can be considered aeronautical, the airport sponsor prohibited this level of maintenance and repair in T-hangars but provided an alternate location on the airport. The FAA found that the airport sponsor's rules prohibiting maintenance and repair in a T-hangar, including construction of a homebuilt aircraft, did not violate the sponsor's grant assurances. (emphasis added)
There have been industry objections to the FAA's designation of any aircraft construction stages as non-aeronautical. While the same principles apply generally to large aircraft manufacturing, compliance issues involving aircraft construction have typically been limited to homebuilt aircraft construction at general aviation airports. Commercial aircraft manufacturers use dedicated, purpose-built manufacturing facilities, and questions of aeronautical use for these facilities are generally resolved at the time of the initial lease. In contrast, persons constructing homebuilt aircraft sometimes seek to rent airport hangars designed for storage of operating aircraft and easy access to a taxiway, even though it may be years before a homebuilt aircraft kit will be able to take advantage of the convenient access to the airfield.
The FAA is not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use.
I'm bothered by two things in the above.
1. The city prohibition on maintenance and repair in a T-hangar. What the heck is a hangar for if not maintenance and repair?
2. Is this GA's Roe v. Wade? At what point does building an airplane become an aeronautical activity? IM<HO, It is when you shift from Design to Manufacture.
It seems to me that both these situations are standing aeronautical activities on their heads and are enabling a culture of enforcement hostile to GA. This is truly Orwellian DoubleSpeak, where the individual statements are seemingly supportive of GA but it allows anti-GA forces to erode GA. Talk about being damned by faint praise...