Hangar Talk sure seems to be the appropriate spot to bring this new proposed policy to your attention.
see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014...2014-17031.pdf
FAA wants comments by 5 Sept.
OF NOTE: Building a homebuilt aircraft (except for final assembly) is not considered an aeronautical activity and might effect one's hangar lease. EAA ought to look at this stipulation very closely.
Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitC...2014-0463-0001
Last edited by TedK; 07-22-2014 at 11:17 AM.
I have mixed emotions on this issue. On one hand, I'm a firm believer in property rights. But in this case, is it my property or the airports? Usually the latter.
On the other hand, as one who's had to wait over a year and a half on a wait list, it sure chaps me to see several hangars filled with 4-wheel RVs etc.
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:Originally Posted by CarlOrton
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...
Last edited by TedK; 07-22-2014 at 12:18 PM.
Folks should check on whether the proposed FAA policy is in conflict with state law on leases and ownership of land and buildings. Since I own a "unit" of a condo hangar on land leased from the airport, who leases the land from the city, the airport has limited powers to control what I can do or store in my space under the laws of my state. Interestingly, we could pressure the airport to designate the entire hangar area as "non-aeronautical" when they update the Airport Layout Plan since the FAA does not provide grants for pavement and facilities maintenance around hangar areas. That would place all of the hangars outside the FAA policy. Hmmmm..........
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
Glad my hangars are on a privately owned public use airport. No Fed assistance and no Fed intervention.
Thread bump. 5 Sept is coming quickly. Time to read the new policy and comment ...both if you agree or if you have issues. But if you don't comment you aren't voting.
Jonathan - Has there been an EAA comment on this? Can you post it or put a link to it?
Last edited by TedK; 08-05-2014 at 07:48 PM.
A small-town airport i was based at survived on non-aero uses of rental hangars. They rented space for non-aero uses at the same rate as the local store&lock in town if no aircraft-related user needed the space right then. Boats, campers, stuff, whatever. When an aircraft owner needed a hangar for any aircraft or assortment of aircraft parts soon to be an aircraft, the most recent non-aviation renter in the appropriate sized hangar was moved out. Why have empty hangars when $$$ can flow in? Common sense goes a long ways when paying the bills.
Amazingly, the FAA Policy contains that common sense logic when there is no demand from the airplane side.
However, it doesn't seem so supportive of things that I would consider an aeronautical use such as maintenance, or the homebuilding of an airplane shy of its final assembly.
shouldn't homebuilders get priority over those storing their boats?
how would you feel if you got bumped because you were doing maintenance in a hangar?
Our small private airport is owned by the flying club and our bylaws (which I wrote and was approved by the membership) reads "The primary purpose of hangars are for storage and protection of aircraft". We have several building and/or maintenance projects going on at various times but without some kind of statement regarding aircraft it winds up being a storage place for old cars, furniture, etc.
If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!
I guess I'm the only one that really doesn't have a problem with the proposed clarification of the rules.
If there's room (availability) of hangar space and one can come up with an agreement with the airport manager about building, get the exemption.*
It all comes down to common sense and being a good neighbor at the airport. Do I want someone planing and routing wood on the other side of a chain link fence wall from my aircraft? No, I do not. Do I want them using it as a paint shed? No, I do not. I don't want someone sanding fiberglass next to my plane, either. Imagine pulling open the door to your hangar and being forced back out because the guy next to you was covering with PolyPro and closed up to go to lunch as it dried? I'd want that to stop ASAP, and don't want to have to put up with my plane covered in saw, fiberglass, or foam dust, let alone paint overspray because it's his "right" to use a hangar as his build shop.
OTOH, I wouldn't mind a bit if it were happening in a hangar apart from others and would lend a hand!
I had a conversation with my airport manager about when the Nieuport will come out to the field, and we were in perfect agreement on when I think it's ready for the hangar. I'm bringing it out complete except for mounting the engine and the fitting of the cowling (I have a FWF package - we'll need to mount it and hook up the electrics and fuel, which I'll have prepared ahead of time). To both of us, that's "final assembly" as it will result in an aircraft that can taxi. And he knows it won't just be sitting there for months waiting on the engine to arrive or work to be done; then again, he's an EAA member and knows I want it out there to be closer to our Chapter experts who agree it would be fun to make it a group project.
We have an airport with hangars full of aircraft that haven't been cranked, let alone flown, in years. Why? Get them out of there and make them available for working aircraft!
On maintenance, not all maintenance is equal. Changing the oil or remounting a prop is short term stuff. Who's to know anyway? The rule gets a little clearer when it's a long term rebuild and the owner is taking up a hangar with no actual work being done on it for months or years.
It's not like the FAA has tiger teams of inspectors out to look at what's in a hangar. This rule clarification just makes it easier for airport managers to manage the field.
* What isn't in the ruling is who issues the exemption and what is required to get it. It should be as local as possible and straight forward.
Last edited by Frank Giger; 08-06-2014 at 11:30 AM.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote