FAA's Proposed Hangar Use Policy- Comments wanted

[Jonathan Harger]

• Prior to this proposed policy, there was no comprehensive FAA hangar use policy.
  
  • The only official materials for appropriate hangar use guidance were legal decisions, legal interpretations, and letters to various parties in response to specific inquiries.
  • Letters and legal interpretations, which are FAA responses to specific cases, were often erroneously understood to be general FAA policy.
  • EAA supports the FAA’s creation of a hangar use policy because it helps eliminate confusion about appropriate hangar use for the aviation community.

• Homebuilding in hangars at federally obligated airports was never before a protected aeronautical activity. The FAA’s proposed policy states: “Final, active assembly of an aircraft in the manufacturing or homebuilt construction process, resulting in a completed, operational aircraft requiring access to the airfield, is considered an aeronautical activity for the purposes of this policy.”
  
  • Protected aeronautical activities are those activities that airport sponsors must allow at their airports as a condition of accepting federal grant money.
  • This proposed policy marks the first time the FAA states that any stage of homebuilding as a protected activity, i.e. airport sponsors may not discriminate against it.
  • Many homebuilders may have erroneously believed aircraft construction already was a protected aeronautical activity simply because their local airport officials had allowed it.
  • EAA does not agree that “final assembly of an aircraft” is the only stage of homebuilding qualifies as “aeronautical use.” EAA believes that ALL active aircraft construction for education and recreation should be a protected aeronautical activity.

• The FAA’s proposed policy allows some incidental storage of non-aeronautical items.
  
  • In a widely circulated letter, the FAA stated that “household items that do not have aeronautical purposes” and “recreational/playground equipment” such as golf clubs or fishing equipment may not be stored in hangars.
  • The proposed policy, on the other hand, allows that if the hangar is serving an aeronautical service, then “incidental storage of non-aviation items that does not interfere with the primary purpose of the hangar and occupies an insignificant amount of physical hangar space will not be considered to constitute a violation of the grant assurances.”
  • EAA agrees that incidental storage of non-aeronautical items should not constitute a violation of grant assurances. EAA believes that if the hangar is used for an aeronautical purpose then personal, social, and decorative items that do not detract from the primary aeronautical purpose of the hangar should be permitted.
  
  
• Airport leases and uses are often subject to local ordinances and codes. Hangar renters should always thoroughly read and understand their leases prior to signing.
• EAA members are encouraged to submit comments to the FAA before the September 5 deadline.

[Frank Giger]

If the clarification is adopted as written, the EAA should ask for an exemption as laid out as a bulk request by lists o chapter and airfields.

It's a cinch -

The EAA charter and the FAA mandate to further aviation match perfectly.
EAA chapters and meetings further their mandate of increasing safety, particularly in the over-represented-in-number-of-wrecks of Experimentals.
Jonathan is just too pretty for them to say no to.

[WLIU]

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.

Could you further explain this? I passed this statement to my airport management and they can not conceive of the FAA approving an ALP with hangars designated "non-aeronautical".

Thanks!

Wes
N7th

[TedK]

Removing hangars from the ALP sounds like a marvelous way to slit one's own throat. Once the hangars are outside the ALP then they no longer have to be hangars and the airport owner can abuse the aircraft owners to his hearts content. Further, you now run into all the Thru the Fence obstacles the FAA has created.

This is simple, let's not let the sea-lawyers screw it up.

Hangaring an airplane is an Aeronautical Use.

Building an airplane is an Aeronautical Use.

Performing maintenance or repair on an airplane is an Aeronautical Use.

Teaching and promoting aeronautics (eg a chapter hanger) is an Aeronautical Use.

Let's not turn ourselves inside out on this and find we have moved ourselves to outside the ALP.

Ted

[WLIU]

Thanks for the non-help.

At my local airport understanding this may help resolve some serious issues with airport management and their attempts to mis-apply what they think is FAA policy.

We have many acres of empty ramps, condo hangar bays that the owners have been unable to sell for months, and airport management appears to spend more time admonishing tenants that growing a couple of tomato plants outside their door is unacceptable instead of focusing on customer service.

So I would be very appreciative to hear our EAA expert(s) offer more insight on the option of drawing the "aeronautical use" line on the ALP to put our condo buildings outside the FAA's policy area.

Thanks!

Wes
N78PS

[Frank Giger]

Oof...in your convoluted situation of leases, subletting, and property easements I think the issue would be best dealt with using the local zoning board rather than the FAA. Work up an airport plan that draws new lines and deals with the through-the-fence issues, get it passed, and present it to the FAA as a non-issue update to the layout.

Once the hangars are only semi-officially part of the airport (or not at all, being private property with access to public ones) it's a never-mind. However, all upkeep, including pavement, falls on the condo owners up to the border of the airport. Treat it like a homeowner with a dock on a publicly held lake.

Honestly, the FAA doesn't really care either way so long as the public hangars and the primary infrastructure are under their purview; let's not overestimate the zealous nature of this small bureaucratic department in a huge agency.

Your busy-body airport manager can probably be sold on it as well - one huge PITA in his day-to-day operations removed. Rather than worry about what the condo nuts are doing now to potentially get him in trouble with the imaginary FAA enforcement team he can stress out over that new, odd stain on the concrete at the corner of the primary ramp.

[L16 Pilot]

Here again I think it's a government agency trying to justify it's existence. In other words: create a problem so we can create solution. Doesn't bother me as we're on a private airport the flying club owns but let me give you can example: I was a technical college teacher in my former life. In addition to teaching full time I took care of all the administrative functions related to our department and specifically wrote (and rewrote) all the curriculum related to our program. Everything was going along just fine. Then the school hired a 'curriculum specialist' who would 'review any changes' we made to the program. He became a stumbling block because he knew nothing of the technical material being taught so any changes took twice as long because we had to justify the changes. Kind of reminds me of how the government operates in most venues.

[dusterpilot]

We have many acres of empty ramps, condo hangar bays that the owners have been unable to sell for months....
So I would be very appreciative to hear our EAA expert(s) offer more insight on the option of drawing the "aeronautical use" line on the ALP to put our condo buildings outside the FAA's policy area.

First of all, I'm a pilot and an aircraft and hangar owner who does as much of my own maintenance as I legally can, not being an A&P. I only own my own personal hangar which is my toy box. So, I understand the issues and desires of hangar occupants. Secondly, I've been an airport manager dealing with the FAA for a couple of decades and understand the ALP requirements and an airport's Grant Assurances.

There is a long list of reasons NOT to redraw the "aeronautical use" lines and a long list of hurdles to jump in order to make it happen. First and foremost, if an FAA or State grant has ever been used to construct or improve a taxiway, ramp, utilities, fence, etc. associated with or adjacent to that area, the FAA will not allow the area to be changed to non-aeronautical use unless at least a pro-rated share of the grant is paid back to the FAA. The airport would also have to make a case that the airport would be more profitable by taking the area out of aeronautical use. Also, if the area is successfully redesignated as non-aeronautical use, the FAA would encourage construction of a new fence or other barrier to protect the "aeronautical" area from incursions from vehicles and people operating in the non-aeronautical area. And, as previously mentioned, there would be no further possibility of any grant assistance to reconstruct failing pavements or improve the area. If accomplished, a through-the-fence agreement would have to be written and approved by the FAA.

If it's a privately-owned airport, you can do anything you want. If it's a public use airport, it would be difficult to do. If it's an airport that has a Part 139 operating certificate (and many do have that do not have airline service), you're screwed--it would be almost impossible to accomplish. I don't think this is a viable or prudent approach for you to pursue.

[WLIU]

Thank you for your perspective. The info makes sense from a governmental point of view and is food for thought. Our situation is clearly a mess compared to the average.

We are not, and never will be, a Part 139 airport. Local politics made that impossible some years ago.

The physical plant layout forces car traffic onto the inner aircraft taxi lanes. The airport does not have the real estate to change that. There are "islands" of hangars inside the existing fence that can only be accessed by driving on the same pavement the airplanes use. The airport management and the tenants periodically talk about this but in the end the real estate, money, and politics can not, and will never, converge to separate the two types of traffic. The legacy plant layout makes the needed change not possible no matter what the FAA desires.

We have been told that the ramps around our hangars, with grass growing up through the cracks, are not eligible for FAA grant funds. That assertion frees us tenants to beat up the airport management about planning to prioritize and make available local funds for the work. And to stop bothering us about FAA issues.

While the FAA might encourage putting more fences up, they would have to volunteer to pay 100% and include automatic gates that the airport control tower could operate remotely. Anything less will face huge local political opposition and not fly. We have an existing fence around the entire airport property that was thrown up without any real thought some years ago. That fence is actually being replaced right now and the type and configuration of the fence has been a big political dispute. Hard to encourage business at a location that looks like a prison. But my point is that with a new fence in place at the original perimeter, there will be no local funding for more fences for a long long time.

We are long overdue for a Master Plan and ALP update, so this is the time for us to ask questions like how we can redraw the ALP lines. Which is all part of a big negotiation between the airport management, city aldermen, and airport tenants.

So all information on the mechanics, pro's, and con's is valuable. Not changing anything is likely the "best" course of action, but when confronted with a set of unhappy options, moving the ALP lines may be the least painful course.

As you can guess from my comments, many of my peers at our airport believe that the airport management needs "help" to develop a better customer service focus. The "if we built it they will come" business model no longer works but some of the folks who are supposed to be taking care of business have not updated their priorities yet.

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

[WLIU]

So are there any updates available on the status of the docket?