FAA's Proposed Hangar Use Policy- Comments wanted

[TedK]

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-2014-07-22/pdf/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/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2014-0463-0001

[CarlOrton]

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.

[TedK]

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...

[WLIU]

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

[Dave Stadt]

Glad my hangars are on a privately owned public use airport. No Fed assistance and no Fed intervention.

[TedK]

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?

[Mike M]

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.

[TedK]

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?

[L16 Pilot]

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.

[Frank Giger]

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.

[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.

[Jonathan Harger]

Prior to this proposed policy (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars), there was no comprehensive FAA hangar use policy.

The only official materials for appropriate hangar use guidance were legal decisions, legal interpretations, and letters (http://www.flybvu.com/sites/default/files/FAA.KWillis.July12%2C2012.ltr_..pdf) 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 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2014-0463-0001) 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?