FAA's Proposed Hangar Use Policy- Comments wanted

[cub builder]

My question is why are the Feds involved in this at all? This should be a locally managed issue based on supply and demand, not an overreaching federal issue with a one size fits all regulation. I get it, the idea is that airports that have hangars full of trailers, campers and boats aren't really being used as airports, and those uses displace the intended use, for which the Feds are doling our funds back out to us to support. On the surface, it seems that building an aircraft would be a natural activity for an airport. The problem is that I'll be every one of us knows of a hangar with a project sitting in it that hasn't been touched or made progress in years. Locally, we argued this issue a number of years ago. Our solution was quarterly progress reports. One is allowed to lease a hangar to build a plane. However, you also have to demonstrate progress to the airport manager quarterly. If you aren't progressing on your build, your lease may be subject to cancellation.

Of course this needs to apply to certificated aircraft as well. I'll bet all of us could also point at a hangar containing a certificated aircraft that hasn't been flown or had an annual inspection in decades. If building a plane is not to be allowed, then why not start pushing dead storage of aircraft off the airport as well? Where does one draw the line?

-Cub Builder

[Jonathan Harger]

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?

Ted,

We are working on our comments, but unfortunately the proposed policy was released July 22, and then we got a little bit busy with AirVenture. We are in the process of drafting comments, which we will post on our website. Before the comments are done, we will have a briefing paper on this issue prepared and posted for our members.

[Jonathan Harger]

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.

The mechanism to do this is to remove certain hangars or airport areas from the ALP (airport layout plan). When a building or area is not on the ALP, the aeronautical use rule is no longer in effect. This is a valuable tool for municipalities who have airport resources that exceed aviation demand.

[dusterpilot]

We are in the process of drafting comments, which we will post on our website. Before the comments are done, we will have a briefing paper on this issue prepared and posted for our members.

EAA HQ: Please take a look at the impacts this could have at the Chapter level. Many chapters have a hangar on an airport that has become the local chapter clubhouse and they vary in use (and often by size) whether they house ANY aircraft. Many have a meeting room and a workshop and maybe some aircraft pieces, parts, and components in various stages of construction. Some have enough room to facilitate final assembly of an aircraft, but they are quickly moved out to another hangar once completed. The proposed rule would make most EAA Chapter facilities non-aeronautical facilities. Another area to look at is aviation museums and educational facilities. Many airports have air and space museums and aviation technical training facilities that house NO operable aircraft. Museums, educational facilities, and EAA Chapter facilities all generate a lot of aeronautical activity at an airport. The indirect aeronautical activity these type of facilities generate certainly should warrant an exemption or a special designation that allows them to legally continue to operate as they are today.

[dusterpilot]

The mechanism to do this is to remove certain hangars or airport areas from the ALP (airport layout plan). When a building or area is not on the ALP, the aeronautical use rule is no longer in effect. This is a valuable tool for municipalities who have airport resources that exceed aviation demand.

Has there ever been a State or Federal AIP grant used to construct a ramp or taxiway adjacent to, or leading to, the hangar or airport area? If yes, it will be VERY difficult to have the area removed from the aeronautical use area of the ALP. Much easier said than done. I believe this could be a viable answer in very few instances.

[TedK]

and then we got a little bit busy with AirVenture.

Yeah, I kinda noticed that. Great events! You guys did a first rate job!

tk

[Aaron Novak]

EAA HQ: Please take a look at the impacts this could have at the Chapter level. Many chapters have a hangar on an airport that has become the local chapter clubhouse and they vary in use (and often by size) whether they house ANY aircraft. Many have a meeting room and a workshop and maybe some aircraft pieces, parts, and components in various stages of construction. Some have enough room to facilitate final assembly of an aircraft, but they are quickly moved out to another hangar once completed. The proposed rule would make most EAA Chapter facilities non-aeronautical facilities. Another area to look at is aviation museums and educational facilities. Many airports have air and space museums and aviation technical training facilities that house NO operable aircraft. Museums, educational facilities, and EAA Chapter facilities all generate a lot of aeronautical activity at an airport. The indirect aeronautical activity these type of facilities generate certainly should warrant an exemption or a special designation that allows them to legally continue to operate as they are today.

.
Correct me if Im wrong, however I don't think this proposal covers privately owned hangars. The agreement between the hangar owner and land owner (if a public field) dictate the useage guidelines and land lease fees. I believe this is just for hangars built with federal $$$ and rented (i.e. not owned by an individual or organization).

[dusterpilot]

.
Correct me if Im wrong, however I don't think this proposal covers privately owned hangars. The agreement between the hangar owner and land owner (if a public field) dictate the useage guidelines and land lease fees. I believe this is just for hangars built with federal $$$ and rented (i.e. not owned by an individual or organization).

NEGATIVE!!!! This applies to ALL facilities located within the designated aeronautical use area of a public use airport, whether the hangar is owned by a private individual or owned by the airport and leased/rented to an individual. The FAA's thought is that if you own a hangar on a public use airport, it must be used for aeronautical purposes because the land it sits on must be used for aeronautical purposes. Ownership does not matter.

[Mayhemxpc]

"Ownership does not matter." Boy, doesn't THAT sound like a current theme of the government in recent times. Once upon a time, things were different.

[Jonathan Harger]

EAA HQ: Please take a look at the impacts this could have at the Chapter level. Many chapters have a hangar on an airport that has become the local chapter clubhouse and they vary in use (and often by size) whether they house ANY aircraft. Many have a meeting room and a workshop and maybe some aircraft pieces, parts, and components in various stages of construction.

Please note that the FAA's general understanding of aeronautical vs. non-aeronautical hangar use is not changed by this policy--the policy is simply a statement of the Agency's long-standing position. Also, this proposed policy does not introduce a new inspection procedure or mandate. So, EAA Chapter hangars that were okay before this proposed policy will likely remain okay. If not, of course, we at HQ will aggressively pursue the situation.

Good question; thank you.