FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

[skier]

I am surprised that there is no talk on here about the news that the FAA does not consider building an airplane to be "aeronautical activity". Surely the members of EAA must have opinions on this.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA-Says-Hangars-No-Place-For-Homebuilders222534-1.html
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463-0001
http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FAA-2014-0463;fp=true;ns=true


Homebuiltairplanes.com has a thread running about it, and I thought I would start one here.

Please also leave your comments with the FAA.

[Frank Giger]

I fully understand and agree with the intent of the clarification, and don't really see a problem with it. Hangars are for airplanes, not projects. Or relics, for that matter. I can't get into a hangar at my local airfield largely because there are aircraft owners who store their non-flying out-of-annual-for-many-years aluminum sculptures. It's not an airplane until it gets an airworthiness certificate.

I also understand that local interpretation and enforcement by the airport manager is the real heart of the matter practically.

The airport manager for the one I will be flying out of sat down with me to talk about when I'm moving the plane in, and had no problem with my plan to have pretty much everything done but hanging the engine. We both figured that's "final assembly." What he doesn't want is build tables and a full suite of shop tools and piles of tubing along one wall, and I don't blame him.

Neither he or I are worried about a highly zealous FAA inspectors driving out to a rural county airport to spend his day looking into hangars, mostly because they don't exist.

The rule does eliminate argument when someone converts one of the hangars into a workshop or a storage unit and he tells them they've either got to get right or get out.

[TedK]

As you can see above, we will have differing opinions.

I urge everyone to read the proposed new policy and then comment on both what you agree with and what you take issue with. In essense you will be voting, and the FAA will tally that in their final calculus.

Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463

Comment period closes 5 Sept.

Ted

[Aaron Novak]

I fully understand and agree with the intent of the clarification, and don't really see a problem with it. Hangars are for airplanes, not projects. Or relics, for that matter. I can't get into a hangar at my local airfield largely because there are aircraft owners who store their non-flying out-of-annual-for-many-years aluminum sculptures. It's not an airplane until it gets an airworthiness certificate.

I also understand that local interpretation and enforcement by the airport manager is the real heart of the matter practically.

The airport manager for the one I will be flying out of sat down with me to talk about when I'm moving the plane in, and had no problem with my plan to have pretty much everything done but hanging the engine. We both figured that's "final assembly." What he doesn't want is build tables and a full suite of shop tools and piles of tubing along one wall, and I don't blame him.

Neither he or I are worried about a highly zealous FAA inspectors driving out to a rural county airport to spend his day looking into hangars, mostly because they don't exist.

The rule does eliminate argument when someone converts one of the hangars into a workshop or a storage unit and he tells them they've either got to get right or get out.

I guess a person’s reaction to this clarification is largely dependent on their own personal situation. Some fields have lots of unused rentals, and so the people there probably don’t see the issue. At fields with a waiting list…..its a different story. Putting a law in black and white is pretty much impossible, when so much of the hangar useage is gray. What is final assembly? When does a repair fall outside the intention of “aeronautical purposes”? Do we really want more work put into this subject , or should we let common sense prevail? Of course I don’t feel that the hangar should be used for just non-aviation purposes.
I do however feel the EAA has a special interest here, and that is the potential to discourage entry level homebuilding. I know of many situations where the only suitable location of enough size to construct an aircraft, is a hangar. Having a large shop behind your house (if you even own a house) is not an option for many. In many cities, there are not large shop areas to rent, and even if you could the costs are staggering as the shops are usually rented for business not hobby. In many locales you are not allowed to conduct painting in your own garage, and neighbors can be picky about noise. For many years the small tee was the answer, it was large enough to work in, you did not have neighbors complaining of noise, and most of all you were surrounded by both inspiration and experience. Losing that I feel will be a blow to homebuilding for a segment of the population.
I would prefer that the primary intent of a rented hangar, be one directly related to aviation in any of its forms. If there is a shortage of hangar space, then we should not be nit-picking what KIND of aviation activity is taking place, rather instead we should be meeting the needs of the local area with more facility. If there is unused hangar space, then as the FAA lays out it should be rented at a non-aviation rate to interested parties, under the agreement that they can be displaced by a tenant which wants the space for any aviation purpose.

[Frank Giger]

The thing is that the rule clarification covers just the issue you bring up - if there is plenty of available hanger space an exemption for using it for homebuilding is available.

Think about it the other way - an airport manager may decide that it is more profitable to rent hangars as storage facilities (and it would be), which could keep a homebuilder off the field if the rules aren't laid down. Not what our tax dollars are going to fund the airfield for. An airport that is largely a general U-Stor-It is a huge target for closure and housing development - it'd actually be better to have empty hangars than be known as a federally funded place to keep old furniture.

It all comes down to the airport manager, of course. Most are very reasonable people - we can all find the exceptions of jerks being dumb about the couch and end table in a hanger that prove the rule - so that's where the rubber really meets the road. I'm a homebuilder and might not be too keen to having the guy on the other side of the chain link wall welding, planing and routing wood, and painting. I think the first time I pulled open my hangar door and found my aircraft covered in fine sawdust there would be a very pointed discussion about hangar use.

If they can find a hangar where building won't interfere with other aircraft, great. Just file the exemption.

[Aaron Novak]

The thing is that the rule clarification covers just the issue you bring up - if there is plenty of available hanger space an exemption for using it for homebuilding is available.

Think about it the other way - an airport manager may decide that it is more profitable to rent hangars as storage facilities (and it would be), which could keep a homebuilder off the field if the rules aren't laid down. Not what our tax dollars are going to fund the airfield for. An airport that is largely a general U-Stor-It is a huge target for closure and housing development - it'd actually be better to have empty hangars than be known as a federally funded place to keep old furniture.

It all comes down to the airport manager, of course. Most are very reasonable people - we can all find the exceptions of jerks being dumb about the couch and end table in a hanger that prove the rule - so that's where the rubber really meets the road. I'm a homebuilder and might not be too keen to having the guy on the other side of the chain link wall welding, planing and routing wood, and painting. I think the first time I pulled open my hangar door and found my aircraft covered in fine sawdust there would be a very pointed discussion about hangar use.

If they can find a hangar where building won't interfere with other aircraft, great. Just file the exemption.

Frank,
I am thinking of the individual port-a-tee, not the big unit buildings. Common sense and courtesy goes a long way.

[Frank Giger]

You're right about that!

Down here the vast majority of public airports have big unit buildings as they're cheaper to build and maintain.

I think it's a tempest in a teapot, a set of rules the FAA has neither the manpower or the will to enforce. And what's the penalty for violating it? Are they going to send me to FAA jail? Or are we going to engage in either a dunning letter with no real teeth or a long process of Replies By Endorsement, at which time the aircraft would be completed and the whole thing dropped. It would have to be a systematic, airport wide series of violations for the FAA to pull funding for an airport - at which point Congressmen get involved, a new airport manager is hired, and the funding remains in place as they go through a "probationary period."

[skier]

[QUOTE=Frank Giger;43714]Think about it the other way - an airport manager may decide that it is more profitable to rent hangars as storage facilities (and it would be)[QUOTE]

Maybe some places, but not everywhere. We have $600+ per month for a hangar and waiting lists multiple years long. That being said, as long as it is for an "aviation use" whether it's a project, a flying aircraft, restoration, or maintenance, why not let the free market decide the best use. Pump up the rates for the hangars until you see who values them the most. Then rent to those people.

[WLIU]

A lot of the discussion above makes the assumption that the airport owns or somehow controls all hangars. Not true where I am. I own my condo space. Sate laws on real estate apply. The airport is not a party to the buying and selling of the condo hangar units.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Frank Giger]

None of this counts on private airfields that do not receive federal funding.

Skier, we have that problem at some airports here, and the guys with the most money store aircraft that aren't airworthy and haven't flown in years.

[WLIU]

But I am at a public airport that does receive federal funds for runway improvements.

So the city leases the land to the airport authority, the airport leases land to hangar condo association, and we buy and sell condo units. In this environment I own my space. State law presumes that I am entitled to the "quiet enjoyment" of the space that I own.

The world is more complicated than the one size fits all FAA view.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Frank Giger]

Ah, that's the rub - the condo association doesn't own the land, the airport does. So the hangar is on land that belongs to the airport with access paid for by federal dollars.

The crux of the matter is that the FAA isn't going to send a team of investigators to look into your hangar, so I wouldn't worry about it. Even if they did a survey of the airfield, they'd look at public hangars.

[Aaron Novak]

But I am at a public airport that does receive federal funds for runway improvements.

So the city leases the land to the airport authority, the airport leases land to hangar condo association, and we buy and sell condo units. In this environment I own my space. State law presumes that I am entitled to the "quiet enjoyment" of the space that I own.

The world is more complicated than the one size fits all FAA view.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Wes,
What is the written agreement between the airport authority and the condo association as far as building useage?

[WLIU]

We have a land lease. The land lease, in its second 25 year renewal, says that the land is leased for the purpose of erecting and aircraft hangar. I do not have the text in front of me. I do not recall that the lease says anything about restrictions on what can be in the building. And of course, since the lease is to the condo association, you can assert that if any unit of the building contains an airplane, then the building is being used for aeronautical purposes.

My airport is long overdue for a revision to the Master Plan. Since there is no federal money in the hangars or the ramps around them, and the hangars are back from the general flow of traffic from the runway to the FBO's and towers, I plan to lobby for the ALP change suggested in a previous post. If the update of the ALP can show the hangar blocks as "non-aeronautical", then a lot of distress and controversy with airport management can be avoided.

Thanks,

Wes

[WLIU]

In response to post #12 ... The airport does not own the land, the city does. The condo sublets. And in my state, the tax law is such that the condo association pays the real estate taxes on the sub leased land.

Part of the effects of this structure is that the condo owners can go to the city council if airport management gets too many residents upset. So there is a local check and balance that comes from being taxpayers.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Frank Giger]

Good grief, the land ownership and use of your situation is so convoluted that if I were an FAA guy I'd run screaming from the airfield.

"Hello, Mr. FAA guy, glad to have you come out."
"Thanks. I'm here to talk about hangar use and your airport plan."
"Yep, that's what your office said. We've provided you with a copy and a notepad to go along with the sixty-eight slide PowerPoint presentation covering the legal and practical land ownership and use in and around the field using broad strokes that we will now begin - if you don't need a moment to go to the bathroom and weep at the prospect first."

:)