FAA Compliance Hangar Inspection Juneau, Alaska

[Jon Ahlgren]

The FAA knocked on my hangar door yesterday Dec. 12, came in and took several pictures. Attached is what he saw: my two Cessnas (current annuals), my mostly complete experimental project, and other stuff. I own the hangar (40' x 60') and lease the land.

Juneau International is undergoing a compliance inspection as a result of accepting lots and lots of grant money. I'm worried and suspect Juneau International will end up like Glendale, Arizona has.

How do we get back the good old days of friendly gatherings, barbeques, and open hangar doors?

[Floatsflyer]

Jon, 2 observations based on your hangar picture. You should apply to be on "Storage Wars" or "Hoarders"; and I believe you should consider yourself very fortunate that the FAA didn't call in the fire or health departments.

[Mike M]

Jon, 2 observations based on your hangar picture. You should apply to be on "Storage Wars" or "Hoarders"; and I believe you should consider yourself very fortunate that the FAA didn't call in the fire or health departments.

what? looks like good space utilization to me:)

[Blue Chips]

Looks good to me,
Any snooping with their snapping?

[pacerpilot]

When the FAA comes "knocking at your hangar door" your NOT supposed to let them in. If they have a legal reason to need entry, make them get a warrant.

[Jeff Boatright]

When the FAA comes "knocking at your hangar door" your NOT supposed to let them in. If they have a legal reason to need entry, make them get a warrant.


When the FAA comes "knocking at your hangar door" your NOT supposed to let them in. If they have a legal reason to need entry, make them get a warrant.


Totally agree...except...

..."in May 1999, Congress directed the FAA to conduct land use inspections at all airports with lands acquired with federal assistance. "

This is a long-ish document, so I did not read it all: http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/media/5190_6b_chap21.pdf

One of the examples they give as being non-compliant with airport land use is parking an RV (the rolling house kind) in a hangar. Pretty similar to what Jon has going.

This Congressional directive can't be completely condemned as bad for aviation. It is the same one that is used keep local municipalities from turning airports into non-airport things like storage facilities and dumps (!). So, it has some good to it. But does it allow FAA to walk into a privately-owned hangar without warrant? I don't know.

If the lease Jon mentions is with the airport authority or municipality and if the airport used federal funds for land acquisition (and possibly other dollars for improvements), then probably somewhere in the lease contract is a stipulation about being compliant with FAA and Congressional mandate, and this probably includes some verbiage about having to open the door if the FAA comes calling. But I don't know.

Maybe Jon should discuss this with whoever it is that he sends his lease check to, and ask them for some clarity.

[1600vw]

When the FAA comes "knocking at your hangar door" your NOT supposed to let them in. If they have a legal reason to need entry, make them get a warrant.

Yes we need to exercise our rights. I leave my hangar door open but that does not give anyone the right to walk in. Maybe I need to mount a sign that says something to the effect. Door is open but no one allowed in without permission, or something like that.

But yes do not roll over, make them jump through hoops just as they want to make you jump through hoops.

The FAA going to clean up the whole state of Alaska. I doubt that, not enough time or money or people to do that.

This mans hanger looks fine to me.

Tony

P.S. Jeff good info and I too agree with what you say. Even at our little privately owned strip the hangers looked like a place to put boats and tractors before I came along. A couple airplanes that had not moved in over 20 years. Today we have folks flying and using the hangers for...Airplanes..The hangers looks so much better with airplanes in them. IMHO.

[Jeff Boatright]

...
P.S. Jeff good info and I too agree with what you say. Even at our little privately owned strip the hangers looked like a place to put boats and tractors before I came along. A couple airplanes that had not moved in over 20 years. Today we have folks flying and using the hangers for...Airplanes..The hangers looks so much better with airplanes in them. IMHO.

Weellll, I'm not saying that I agree with how FAA is interpreting the Congressional mandate. Preventing the local municipality from using airports as dumps and storage facilities: YES!

Everything from there on out gets gray.

[Floatsflyer]

Totally agree...except...

..."in May 1999, Congress directed the FAA to conduct land use inspections at all airports with lands acquired with federal assistance. "


But does it allow FAA to walk into a privately-owned hangar without warrant? I don't know.


Their direction to conduct inspections must still, nevertheless, not be in violation or contravention of any laws or supersede your constitutional civil rights and freedoms. Case in point by example: The property tax dept. has the right to inspect your home for upgrades or any enhancements that increase it's value for the purpose of tax assessment. You do not have to let them in your home under any circumstances.

[Jeff Boatright]

Their direction to conduct inspections must still, nevertheless, not be in violation or contravention of any laws or supersede your constitutional civil rights and freedoms. Case in point by example: The property tax dept. has the right to inspect your home for upgrades or any enhancements that increase it's value for the purpose of tax assessment. You do not have to let them in your home under any circumstances.

Excellent example, even if it's one that brings back bad memories for me! :eek:

[Jon Ahlgren]

A little more into: My 20 year lease was recorded November 1, 2002. In the 23 pages of the lease Article 4.1 states "The Lessee shall occupy and use the Leased Premises for the purpose of storing private aircraft." More than done! The rest is about other things like insurance, maintenance etc.. Juneau is located in a marine, salt air, temperate rain forest, so controled environment storage is important for the preservation of anything. What is wrong with personal posessions using unocupied space around the aircraft? The primary use is, by far, for aviation.

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't know the specifics of this location or of this case, but at many airports there is some cost or subsidy provided by taxpayer money and it is done for the specific purpose of making a place for airplanes. If there is no regulation or supervision of the use of the hangar, then people often will take advantage of the situation and use the below market price and use it for non aviation items. It might be one thing to have motorcycle, perhaps one used at the airport.
But putting a full size RV vehicle in there is certainly not an aviation use.

[Louis]

Just curious, what happened to Glendale AZ? I guess as long as we're dependent on Federal funds for airports, we're going to be stuck with whatever rules they decide to throw at us. Increased security is a real drag. Last time I went to Merrill Field it really made me sad, fences everywhere. The East Ramp here in Fairbanks is still reasonably accessible and friendly, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changes. Of course the State of Ak owns the airport property and enforces the rules. I've noticed vastly different standards between various state airports. When I was in Kotzebue the air taxi I was working for was ordered by the airport manager to remove a sofa from the office which happened to be a hide a bed, but one only has to make a quick drive down the East Ramp here at FAI to see blatant non-aviation use of airport property. I'm not the Juneau airport manager, but I can't see how they could reasonably accuse you of non-aviation use of your facility. Good luck.....P.s. What plane are you building?
The FAA knocked on my hangar door yesterday Dec. 12, came in and took several pictures. Attached is what he saw: my two Cessnas (current annuals), my mostly complete experimental project, and other stuff. I own the hangar (40' x 60') and lease the land.

Juneau International is undergoing a compliance inspection as a result of accepting lots and lots of grant money. I'm worried and suspect Juneau International will end up like Glendale, Arizona has.

How do we get back the good old days of friendly gatherings, barbeques, and open hangar doors?

[WLIU]

The FAA order document that explains how an airport must operate to honor its grant assurances is 800 pages, and it does NOT say that you can not store personal items along side your aircraft. What it does say is that the airport must not bring in activities and tenants that impede the aviation use of the airport. Your storing of "stuff" along side your airplane is OK.

The issue of non-aviation business in hangars has actually come up at my home airport and our review of the FAA order does not find text that requires an airport to prohibit this. Those businesses just can not get in the way of the folks committing aviation.

FAA Order 5190.6b Airport Compliance Manual is a public document and available on the internet. If you need some light bed time reading, go to Part IV Airports and Aeronautical Users. You will find text there that applies to this discussion.

So did the guys with the FAA name badges say anything about their visit and the destination for the photos?

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Bob Dingley]

A little more into: My 20 year lease was recorded November 1, 2002. In the 23 pages of the lease Article 4.1 states "The Lessee shall occupy and use the Leased Premises for the purpose of storing private aircraft." More than done! The rest is about other things like insurance, maintenance etc.. Juneau is located in a marine, salt air, temperate rain forest, so controled environment storage is important for the preservation of anything. What is wrong with personal posessions using unocupied space around the aircraft? The primary use is, by far, for aviation.
Mine states the same thing down here in FL. Everyone does the same thing. Unlock hangar. Pull plane out. Put P.U.or brown minivan or 65 Mustang in. Lock hangar and go fly. Could be for a couple of days.

[Mike Berg]

I think one of the things airport managers get concerned about is turning an airport into a junkyard. Ours is a little grass strip private field (club owned) where we lease the hanger ground space to hangar owners. Our by laws state "The primary purpose of hangars is for storage of aircraft" and "None club owned property must be contained within the hangars". What happens is the 'stuff' tends to spill outside. I happened to buy a hangar owned by a older tenant that was filled with matresses, old chairs, carpet, magazines and newspapers from the 1960's. Not to mention about 1000 plastic milk bottles, cans, boxes of junk....you name it. You can picture a 40 X 30 building at least knee high with trash. Not only does stuff like this give rodents a home, it's also a fire hazard to the other hangar owners. As manager I was forever after the owner to clean up piles of junk around his hangar but he just seemed to look past it. Finally it was just easier to buy the hangar and clean it out as he had sold his aircraft,anyway but take my word for it 'junk' is in the eyes of the beholder.

[I_FLY_LOW]

Anything to kill the comraderie...
http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20130622glendales-airport-hangars-fading-pilots-fun-hangouts.html

[Jonathan Harger]

EAA is acutely aware of the hangar inspections occurring at airports across the country as a direct result of the Glendale interpretation of 2012. EAA shares your concern that the interpretation has the potential to "sterilize" airports and make them inhospitable to communal and social gathering, which would have profoundly negative consequences for recreational aviation. We believe that if local pilot communities cannot gather and use hangars as community spaces, safety will be affected (because "hangar flying" is an important, time-honored way to communicate aeronautical knowledge, experience, and wisdom) and recreational aviation participation will suffer (because a big part of flying for fun is the excellent community, and flying is somewhat less fun when that community element is removed).
Late last month we had a very productive conversation with the FAA's office of airport compliance about this very issue. They told us that the Glendale interpretation had a reach and scope that they never intended, and that the FAA has no desire to police hangars. Unfortunately, before the Glendale interpretation there was no clear FAA hangar policy, and airport managers took that interpretation as the law of the land--in short, they were concerned that if they did not enforce what they thought was the new policy, they would be at risk of losing federal AIP funding. EAA supports reasonable hangar use policies, because clearly non-aeronautical use of hangars is not in the best interest of GA (like people who rent a hangar and use it as a storage locker, or as a silkscreen shop, etc.). That being said, we want a policy that allows objects that promote community gathering in hangars--so long as the space has a predominately aeronautical use.
We expect a hangar use policy (not just a legal interpretation for one airport case) to be released from airport compliance in January/February, and we hope to be able to offer EAA's comments to the new policy. Like I mentioned, our conversation with that office was very positive, and we are optimistic that the new policy will be recreational aviation-friendly. We hope that when this policy comes out, airport managers will be much less inclined to impose draconian rules on hangar usage. When this policy comes out, we will publicize it heavily on our website, forum, and eHotline.
Stay tuned!

[WLIU]

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

[pacerpilot]

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, when faced with an "inspection", tell "authority" to go get a search warrant. They need a LEGAL reason to enter your property. What somebody did in another state at another time won't get it done. A local judge won't issue on "because we want to" so they'll need to contact their buddies in OK city or DC. Everybody needs to remember, leased property is yours while the lease is in force. I don't care what some fool determined in Glendale. If the FAA, or anyone else, demands entry into/onto my property I will make them go through every process of law first-and then perhaps me. I am sick of the ever increasing presence of "Big Brother" and the "sheeple" that let our rights get trampled. We all need to question and resist these actions.

[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.

[miemsed]

Boy the whole government is a crook thing gets old after a while. Can't we argue a point without the anti government ranting.

[Freddie]

If a person were to study their history back even so far as written history has been found but more poignantly just back far enough to read the writings of our founding fathers, one might be hard-pressed to characterize a negative statement about the government as "ranting". One of my very favorite heroes is Thomas Jefferson: "The price of freedom is the continual vigilance of one's government.". If more of us took heed of that short 11 word sentence perhaps we would still be enjoying all the liberties that our founding fathers gave us. There are many hundreds of these short warnings handed down to us from our founding fathers because they knew that human nature mandated that there would be a sizable portion of the population who would consider keeping a watchful eye on the government as "ranting". By not being vigilant and holding our politician's feet to the fire, we lose through gradualism all of our rights. I for one choose to be vigilant.

[miemsed]

Boy the whole government is a crook thing gets old after a while. Can't we argue a point without the anti government vigilant talk.

[Skyhook]

If a person were to study their history back even so far as written history has been found but more poignantly just back far enough to read the writings of our founding fathers, one might be hard-pressed to characterize a negative statement about the government as "ranting". One of my very favorite heroes is Thomas Jefferson: "The price of freedom is the continual vigilance of one's government.". If more of us took heed of that short 11 word sentence perhaps we would still be enjoying all the liberties that our founding fathers gave us. There are many hundreds of these short warnings handed down to us from our founding fathers because they knew that human nature mandated that there would be a sizable portion of the population who would consider keeping a watchful eye on the government as "ranting". By not being vigilant and holding our politician's feet to the fire, we lose through gradualism all of our rights. I for one choose to be vigilant.

Agreed. Besides, how can one actually discuss a problem and ignore the known cause?
That would seem childish.

[WLIU]

Merry Christmas,

I will suggest that railing against the evils of government does not create progress. In this case, you have to read the FAA compliance manual and push back against silly or misinterpreted policy. And that is what our friends at EAA are doing on our behalf. At the local level, you can tear apart the stated reasons for each policy and explain how the local officials are not following the policy correctly. If you put in the time, you will find all of the info that you need to push back on the FAA's own web site. They do not make navigation easy, but Google is your friend and their own manuals and the data that they have compiled and are supposed to be using to justify their policies are there. You have to dig. Or find and internet savvy kid and get them to dig on your behalf. Airports are functions of local governments. Politicians hate bad press and airport tenants can band together to have a greater impact on local policy than a cohort of individuals can.

Complaining does not create action or solutions. If we really want to solve the problem of "big government" each of us has to engage and/or organize and find a pressure point to push back.

In the case of airport hangar intrusions, at my airport, where each hangar structure is privately owned, we have folks, including a lawyer, who will refuse entry and insist that a search warrant be presented. If you own your space you can do that. And if your land lease specifies that the airport can look in your space, you can insist that they do so at your convenience since most of us have day jobs. Your lease likely does not state that the airport can look in your space 24/7. Make them meet on your terms. I will note that the FAA folks know that they are not allowed to open doors and are not allowed to enter private space unless they are invited. You are not obligated to invite them. This includes the inside of your airplane for what its worth.

Now many folks are not assertive that the local authorities follow their "book", in part because most of us don't take time to learn what the "book" policy and procedure is. But that is our problem. You can not insist that someone at your hangar door stay within the limits of their agency's authority unless you know what that authority is. And since our knowing that takes time away from fun stuff like flying, most of us are delinquent in that knowledge. But if you are concerned about the limits of the big government, rather than complain you should hit the books and be able to look an FAA employee in the eye and say "are you operating according to manual XYZ? It looks like this situation is really covered by chapter ABC..." I know folks who do that. Done diplomatically but firmly it brings issues to a close pretty quickly.

So today's problem is airport staff and FAA looking into hangars. Posting a "No Trespassing" sign in your open hangar door can be legally enforced in most states. Yes your friends can come in. Others must ask permission and you are not obligated to offer entry or answer requests affirmatively. And taking photos from the open hangar door is trespassing in many states. And most of our "public servants" are aware that trespassing is a criminal offense. You can use that as part of your negotiated relationship with them.

So it depends on what fights you want to pick and whether complaining is as much activism as you have the ambition for.

I will guess that 1% of the people create 99% of the action. The rest are likely along for the ride. Each of us has to decide which group we are part of.

Merry Christmas,

Wes
N78PS

[Freddie]

And Merry Christmas to you Wes,

I agree 100% with what you just wrote. I do and have done precisely what you described all of my adult life. What I do take issue with is your characterization of what I wrote as "railing, complaining, ranting". I have complained about nothing, rather an offhanded observation…… just as you have done. As you correctly state, with the freedoms we enjoy from intrusive government comes the responsibility and obligation to be informed and with that knowledge to keep government within the limits that we the people have set on it. All through the ages it has been a recognized fact that any government will continually attempt to overstep its bounds; it is in it's nature to do so. It is also an accepted fact. It is incumbent upon all citizens to stay informed and use that information to good effect. Please take note that there is no complaint in what I write; only an observation of a characteristic of all government and our responsibility as citizens to set and enforce limits on that government. Precisely what you are alluding to. I would invite you to go back and reread my initial comments; I said what you subsequently said and gave one example of a successful use of what you and I both described. Add to that my offhanded remark about government which seems to be the only thing that set you off. Other than that we are precisely on the same page. I could accept your criticism if you had just referred to my offhanded remark as being inane or stupid, but I will not accept "railing, ranting, complaining".
Anyway, for whatever it's worth, at our airport the pilots own the hangers and lease and pay property taxes on the ground. The only real limitation on the use of the hangers is that they must be primarily for housing an aircraft. No one under any circumstances has the right to inspect anything. in addition there are also some necessary items such as meeting codes. As long as the applicable codes are met and the hangers are used for housing airplanes, there should be no real intrusions into the owner's property rights. I tried to make sure of that when I wrote the land lease agreements between the pilots and the city. Of course the city wrote in many provisions that we thought were unacceptable and therefore didn't accept them. What we ended up with was a very short and reasonable agreement for all parties concerned. My closest neighbor houses his RV trailer and the truck to pull it with…… Along with two airplanes. He runs a charter operation from that hangar and the fact that it has an RV inside doesn't seem to hurt anything. The primary purpose is to house two airplanes. I can't think of any reason why that RV is a detriment to the airport, the city or any other hangar owner.Our city originally tried to bar maintenance of any kind in the hangers. The fact that my hangar has given birth to 11 airplanes doesn't seem to have negatively impacted the airport at all. Maybe we here are exemplary manifestations of humankind but I don't think so. I agree with the great founders of this country that the people are best left to govern themselves. In our case, which is the better situation: Fighting over the restrictions that the city wanted to place on the hangers for over 40 years and not getting anything done or 60 days of intense negotiations which resulted in 10 very nice privately owned and well-maintained hangers, with few restrictions? I guess the bottom line to my thinking is to work toward getting any oppressive restrictions removed. Why would anyone want to grant the FAA the right to inspect their hangar? If you are in fact leasing the hangar, then the landlord should have the right to periodically inspect his property; his property being the physical hangar.
Just a final note: I am in possession of the aforementioned documents so I don't need a techie to do a search for me.
I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion and hope that a few others did also. THANKS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR.
Louie

[miemsed]

And Merry Christmas to you Wes,

I agree 100% with what you just wrote. I do and have done precisely what you described all of my adult life. What I do take issue with is your characterization of what I wrote as "railing, complaining, ranting". I have complained about nothing, rather an offhanded observation…… just as you have done. As you correctly state, with the freedoms we enjoy from intrusive government comes the responsibility and obligation to be informed and with that knowledge to keep government within the limits that we the people have set on it. All through the ages it has been a recognized fact that any government will continually attempt to overstep its bounds; it is in it's nature to do so. It is also an accepted fact. It is incumbent upon all citizens to stay informed and use that information to good effect. Please take note that there is no complaint in what I write; only an observation of a characteristic of all government and our responsibility as citizens to set and enforce limits on that government. Precisely what you are alluding to. I would invite you to go back and reread my initial comments; I said what you subsequently said and gave one example of a successful use of what you and I both described. Add to that my offhanded remark about government which seems to be the only thing that set you off. Other than that we are precisely on the same page. I could accept your criticism if you had just referred to my offhanded remark as being inane or stupid, but I will not accept "railing, ranting, complaining".
Anyway, for whatever it's worth, at our airport the pilots own the hangers and lease and pay property taxes on the ground. The only real limitation on the use of the hangers is that they must be primarily for housing an aircraft. No one under any circumstances has the right to inspect anything. in addition there are also some necessary items such as meeting codes. As long as the applicable codes are met and the hangers are used for housing airplanes, there should be no real intrusions into the owner's property rights. I tried to make sure of that when I wrote the land lease agreements between the pilots and the city. Of course the city wrote in many provisions that we thought were unacceptable and therefore didn't accept them. What we ended up with was a very short and reasonable agreement for all parties concerned. My closest neighbor houses his RV trailer and the truck to pull it with…… Along with two airplanes. He runs a charter operation from that hangar and the fact that it has an RV inside doesn't seem to hurt anything. The primary purpose is to house two airplanes. I can't think of any reason why that RV is a detriment to the airport, the city or any other hangar owner.Our city originally tried to bar maintenance of any kind in the hangers. The fact that my hangar has given birth to 11 airplanes doesn't seem to have negatively impacted the airport at all. Maybe we here are exemplary manifestations of humankind but I don't think so. I agree with the great founders of this country that the people are best left to govern themselves. In our case, which is the better situation: Fighting over the restrictions that the city wanted to place on the hangers for over 40 years and not getting anything done or 60 days of intense negotiations which resulted in 10 very nice privately owned and well-maintained hangers, with few restrictions? I guess the bottom line to my thinking is to work toward getting any oppressive restrictions removed. Why would anyone want to grant the FAA the right to inspect their hangar? If you are in fact leasing the hangar, then the landlord should have the right to periodically inspect his property; his property being the physical hangar.
Just a final note: I am in possession of the aforementioned documents so I don't need a techie to do a search for me.
I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion and hope that a few others did also. THANKS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR.
Louie

That was very well worded and I agree. I was the poster who said the government is a crook thing is gritting old and I think it is. However, when you word things as you did above, it makes perfect sense and I totally agree with your point of view above.

[crusty old aviator]

I've observed over the years that most of the airport managers that enforce a "sterile hangar" policy are NOT doing it to comply with any FAA guidelines, but to limit the city's liability* and promote/protect the utilization of the local aircraft maintenance businesses.
The other extreme is like where I'm based, at a private strip where the owner fills vacant hangars with anything but aircraft, and we have a heck of a time getting him to clean one out after he's filled it, so we can get another plane in to help keep our rent down.
As for the RV parked beside the Cessna inside the hangar: it's an office, not an RV. Many hangars have offices built into their back corners...so this one has tires, big deal!

*City attorneys are great at putting the fear of being sued into municipal insolvency into the hearts of council and committee members so they implement incredibly draconian rules.

[Freddie]

Exactly right. My aviating clock has just turned over 52 years and looking back over that period of time several thoughts pop into my head. At small airfields, there is an incredible, friendly relationship between everyone concerned with aviation. At the larger airports, the exact opposite has been true. Certainly not always but usually a very antagonistic relationship between the various entities such as, pilots, maintenance personnel, airport managers, etc. That's why I take great pains to avoid such places. I have a collection of horror stories that have occurred to mostly other pilots who didn't take pains to avoid these places. Several of them were financially devastating. This is certainly a shotgun approach to the situation but it happens often enough to ruin lives.

[Eagle Six]

I read a quote from Glendale Mayor Weiers, "The friendliness and how people were treated, when people weren’t afraid to open up their hangar doors, it helped the airport grow,” Weiers said. “Now, people don’t want to go out there, and it’s not the inviting place it used to be."

From what I have experienced in the past several months, I would agree. I'm involved with renting a hanger on the north end of GEU. I've been told by many they simply remove personal belongings the day before inspection, and bring them back the day after. I've also been told, some have a grandfather clause that permits living quarters. Of the several hangers I have viewed, as passing by, they all are housing at least one airplane.

I hope the FAA does finalize reasonable rules that will get them out of the hanger police business. I understand and support reasonable rules which serve to improve GA, while reducing the infringements to those you live it at their hangers. I drive 3.5 hours to the airport and often layover and return the following day. If a lay down at night on a cot in the hanger, I suppose I'm in violation of some rule, but how many have the passion to drive 7 hours round trip to maintain and fly an LSA? I might be wrong, but I don't think I'm harmful to GA.

I'll be patient to hear from the OP as to the outcome of the inspection of his hanger and wish that he does well.

And finally.....this is my first post and appreciate the comments, suggestions, and contribution in this thread.


Best Regards.......George

[Freddie]

George,
I admit to being an historian and a patriot and a devourer of books and as such I had several synapses make contact with your statement that spending the night in your hanger must be a violation of some rule. That statement goes right to the heart of the problem in this day and age that is ruining the country. In the 1920s, Pres. Herbert Hoover wrote a book in which he made numerous predictions, all of which had come true by the time I read the book around 1980. The only prediction that wasn't immediately apparent as having come true was the statement that he made that America would end up a fascist state. I thought he had missed that one prediction out of the many he made until I went to the Webster's unabridged dictionary. It's definition of fascism: Control of the people through taxation and regulation. Over a period of days I contemplated what job or profession could you have in this country that did not require either you or the person you worked for to have a license. I never thought of any. That's why I would not be surprised that having a cot in your hangar would be illegal. A simple thing that disturbs no one except some overreaching bureaucrat. Due to our founders and the great American spirit, we have had it very good in this country for a very long time. Two or three consecutive generations who were able to live without great personal fear is all that is necessary to lose the American spirit. In fact, Thomas Jefferson stated that "A democracy is never more than one generation away from tyranny." This allows gradualism to erode our rights because we put up with such seemingly insignificant rules such as not being able to spend the night in your hangar to avoid a seven hour round-trip. And tomorrow we put up with yet another seemingly insignificant rule. Then the next generation comes on scene thinking that this is the way it has always been. Then they allow a few more innocuous rules. I recall a statement that I read way back in the 1980s: "If you think we have it good today in this country, consider how good it would be if we still had the 93% of our rights that have been taken away from us." With consideration of the above, then contemplating the possible illegality of spending the night in your own hanger seems to have a much greater significance than mere inconvenience.
Louie

[Eagle Six]

That statement goes right to the heart of the problem in this day and age that is ruining the country.

Nice post Louie, it's sad, but I agree with you.

Through the years I've been rich and I've been poor......I'm in one of my poor stages (as far as money goes). But, even though I'm currently on a small fixed income, I could spring for a flop house room to spend the night. I also have a lot of friends in the area I can stay with. So, I suppose it is more of a convenience issue......I can work late in the hangar, not inconvenient friends, crash on the cot for a few hours....then spring back up with the sun rise, to do more fiddling on the plane. The money I save from renting a room helps pay for the gas down and back.

But, there is a BUT......if I lived in the same town, just a few miles away, I see no harm in me flopping on a cot in the hangar for an over-nighter. Actually back in the 70's, I lived in a little 2 bedroom bungalow which was on the airport......I walked to work! I was a CFI at the time, but often helped the A&P's on some late night repair jobs, and more than once I just flopped on a cot in the hangar rather than walk the 1/4 mile back to my bed. No one got offended.......but (there's that BUT again!) times have certainly changed, some things for the good, most, at least from my perspective, have changed for the worse.

On the other hand, I suppose the worse day at the airport and around little airplanes, is better than the best day at work (wait a minute George, you don't work anymore...or at least you don't have a day job.....yippee!).


Best Regards.......George

[Jon Ahlgren]

No FAA report yet, the following is quoted from the Juneau airport board meeting minutes:
"B. FAA Certification Inspection. The Airport had a dual certification inspection the week of December 9, 2013. For the Part 139 inspection, the Airport had eight correction items; from lighting, signage and markings to scheduling of fuel inspections. Some of the correction items stemmed from the runway shift during the runway safety area (RSA) project. Most of the corrections can be completed by the end of January, while some will have to wait until we have weather to paint or after the runway rehabilitation work is complete.
The second part of the inspection was related to grant assurances and land use. The inspection will be on-going as this is a very lengthy process. The Airport has not received the official findings of this investigation at this time, but more information will be gathered over the next few months. Only two airports in Alaska are inspected in this manner each year because it is so in-depth. We will keep the Board updated on this part of the inspection and any operational changes that may arise due to land use compliance.
The Airport appreciates both FAA Certification Inspectors, Eric Swann and Gabriel Mahns, as they were great to work with during the inspections."

I'll post a link when more is available.

I chatted with the airport manager a little about the inspection. The FAA is looking at things like should the Civil Air Partol lease their hangar land for one dollar a year? (yes, written into law). But, what about the Fish and Wildlife hangar, US Customs or the fire hall/comination crash rescue building? Looks like pallet burn pile is no more.

The local folks have been good to work with but what will happen with the feds?