Airport Mgmt may require written plans for homebuilts under construction in hangars

Has anyone seen this at other airports? New airport manager at Sedona KSEZ has published a draft airport operations manual, which among other things, has increased rules and regulations about what can and cannot be done in hangars. FYI - hangars are privately owned, owner pays land lease to County for the pad.

SOCAA = Sedona Oak Creek Airport Authority

"If the aircraft in the hangar is an experimental aircraft under construction, it must show continual signs of progress in the construction, through hangar and logbook inspections conducted by SOCAA. SOCAA may also ask that a "Progress Plan" be provided which outlines the anticipated time frame for completing the construction of the aircraft."

Dave

It depends on they type of ownership of the hangar for me.

A huge problem we have in my area is that airports don't have hangars with aircraft in them; they have storage sheds for long neglected trophies. It's the reason I'll be driving an hour an a half to get to my aircraft - the local long term nostalgia dark room collection doesn't care so long as the fees are paid and they're full up.

The airport I am going to is reasonably pro-active on this: airworthy or out! If a plane isn't airworthy or is being built, progress must be shown in getting it that way - and they're very reasonable on time frames (roughly two years). For homebuilts they are more lenient, but they want to see progress.

Let's say one is an airport manager and some guy says he wants to buy a hangar. You ask him what kind of airplane he has and he says he's going to build one. "How long will it take?" "Five to ten years."

Let's say one is an airport manager and there is limited capacity. Airport activity is low as well. They could have one more active aircraft, but that guy has been hogging up a hangar for over five years with the project that's covered in dust and cobwebs. Hadn't seen the guy for three years out here. And the FAA just shifted funds away from airport improvement - the writing is on the wall for tumbleweed County airports; no funding equals no maintenance equals decertifying airport equals new local subdivision/industrial park tax revenue potential.

It's an airport, not a storage facility or a factory location. So says the guy building his plane in the backyard under a tent.

If one truly owns the hangar, then by all means property rights kick in and it can be used to house anything from uncompleted aircraft to cast off furniture.

This is nothing new and I'll tell you how I handled it. I put a 12" x 12" door in my hangar at standing height. It had a hasp and padlock on the outside. Airport mangement could come by at any time, open the viewing door, inspect, close door and be on their way. I saw no reason for them to have unlimited access to my hangar, tools, equipment and aircraft. Airport management was okay with it after I indicated they would be responsible for anything missing or damaged in my hangar (since they are the only other party with access). And I told them I would use video surveillance.

I know of 2 airpots,.....one in WI & the other in FL....that the airport management inspects every 30 day....and are only alolwed 1 quart of oil...nothing else.

They use the fore code as reason.

And no homebuilding allowed.

An airport manager recently told me that in his locale hangar rent was generally less than the rental rate for long-term storage space/units. Consequently, hangars were being used for storing cars, boats, and misc. household items which meant zero airport revenues for fuel and aircraft maintenance & repair. He wanted to see regularly flying airplanes in the airport's hangars.

More specifically, I'm looking for instances where an airport requires the ability to perform "logbook inspections" of a homebuilt aircraft under construction as stated in the proposed wording. What "logbooks" (traditionally that means aircraft and engine logbooks) exist for a homebuilt aircraft under construction? The engine log follows the engine, which the builder may or may not have purchased. The aircraft log comes into existence once the airworthiness certificate is issued, right?
Now the builder may keep some form of builder log, or a record of his/her progress, but that is not done in the logbooks. So, the airport wanting to perform "logbook inspections" doesn't make sense.
And, I want to find instances where an airport may require a written "progress plan" from the hangar owner (not renter).
I'm not looking for examples of what people are doing in their hangars or storing in their hangars.

I have seen a whole published list of what is allowed and not allowed regarding hangers. It comes down to who "owns" the airport and it's location. City owned and run airports have an airport mgr and a board or committee that decides what activities take place on the airport property. There is no real standard it's all local, I know a guy who restored a C-140 about 10 years ago and got in trouble over using a few touch-up spray cans of paint. He was using a hanger that the airport had set aside for the local EAA chapter to use for a very low fee ($10/month). This got really political, and ugly. County airports tend to be a bit more laid back, but don't count on that if the airport is in the suburbs near a big city.

Joe
:cool:

One would think that inspections of a builder's log would be overly intrusive and a fruitless endeavor for most people (except us homebuilding nuts).

Overly intrusive in that the only one that has a qualified opinion on its quality is the DAR.

Fruitless in that little can be gleaned about actual progress from a builder's log (if it looks anything like mine). I have many days of seemingly minor progress (jig making, gusset fabrication, rib installation measurements) and a few single days where there is huge visible progress (putting together the wing spars and compression struts). The uninformed won't be able to see the forest for the trees.

The fact that the airport association doesn't know the difference from a logbook and a builder's log screams of ignorance on their part.

A rough timeline on completion by subcomponent (July-September: major right wing fabrication for example) sounds more in line with the intent of having the owner actively working on building an aircraft rather than just storing a kit.

Time for a non-confrontational discussion that seeks to educate and clarify seems to be in order. One hopes that what was typed out as policy garbled the intent and actual implementation planned on their part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

One would think that inspections of a builder's log would be overly intrusive and a fruitless endeavor for most people (except us homebuilding nuts).

---

Of course you are correct about their wording being overly intrusive and it displays a lack of knowledge about the process of building an aircraft. So push back on it with alternative wording that accomplishes the same goal.

The gist of what they are trying to accomplish is to have the hangars used for aircraft that fly and produce revenue and utilization numbers for the airport. The management wants to verify that progress is being made on the project and that it will some day be a flying aircraft that belongs at the airport. A very high percentage of homebuilt aircraft get started, but then languish as a dust covered dream. Those projects are taking up hangar space that could be used by planes that actually fly and help to keep the airport vital. I'll bet the same lease agreement has wording requiring certificated aircraft to be maintained in airworthy condition for the very same reason. Dead dreams taking up hangar and ramp space prevent the use of the same space by aircraft and owners that would otherwise use the airport and contribute to it's vitality. Every one of us has seen this kind of thing happen with both certificated and Experimental Aircraft that are under construction. You can't blame the airport management for trying to make sure the airport is used. That keeps the airport vital and involved. Once the hangars are crammed full of unairworthy airplanes, dead projects, boats, motorhomes and household items, the airport is as good as dead.

-CubBuilder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by longwing110

More specifically, I'm looking for instances where an airport requires the ability to perform "logbook inspections" of a homebuilt

---

Of course they have no legal grounds to do that. I guess if you want to push back, just tell them to pound sand.

Our little airport is owned by the flying club and I served for about 20 years as club president and still serve as manager. Both positions without pay I might add. We own the airport but lease the building space or "foot print" to hangar owners. I happen to own two. Our bylaws state "The primary purpose of hangars is for the storage of aircraft". Basically we didn't want to have the airport become a self storage place for old cars, boats and a lot of junk that the owner didn't know what to do with it. This not to say that a person can't put a car or boat in there but the primary reason has to be for the storage of aircraft. Maybe a bit hard to enforce but so far it's worked. We do have one hangar that contains a damaged Bonanza, a project Stinson (in pieces), a KR-2 (started but never finished), a BD-4 (wings off and never to be looked at again) and a few various other toys. So in essence I suppose the owner meets the spirit of the bylaws but he is taking up space that someone else could use and I guess if he makes his yearly hangar assessement payments we don't really have a beef coming but I often wonder why anyone would sit on all those project and just store them for no real purpose. Not to mention he hasn't been at the airport for years to my knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

Of course they have no legal grounds to do that. I guess if you want to push back, just tell them to pound sand.

---

If the municipality owns the land and the hangar owner is paying a lease for the land, the municipality can put all kinds of limitations and requirements on that lease. Having watched a number of aircraft sit on the ramp and rot into the ground and others sitting in hangars that haven't moved in years, and yet other "builders" who's projects haven't seen a rivet driven in years, it really galls me to say so, but I have to agree with the municipalities on this one. If you don't like their method for verifying progress, educate them a bit about how one would demonstrate progress. More than likely they will change the wording of the lease to be more agreeable. The airport owners have a vested interest in seeing that it is used as an airport rather than a derelict bone yard. The only way to do that is to put limitations on storage of unairworthy projects in the hangars.

-CubBuilder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cub builder

If the municipality owns the land and the hangar owner is paying a lease for the land, the municipality can put all kinds of limitations and requirements on that lease. Having watched a number of aircraft sit on the ramp and rot into the ground and others sitting in hangars that haven't moved in years, and yet other "builders" who's projects haven't seen a rivet driven in years, it really galls me to say so, but I have to agree with the municipalities on this one. If you don't like their method for verifying progress, educate them a bit about how one would demonstrate progress. More than likely they will change the wording of the lease to be more agreeable. The airport owners have a vested interest in seeing that it is used as an airport rather than a derelict bone yard. The only way to do that is to put limitations on storage of unairworthy projects in the hangars.

---

Sure, they can put all kinds of limitations and requirements on a lease. Whether or not any of that is enforceable is the question. I think it's ridiculous that someone wants a "no plane left behind" rule at their airport. Builder/restorer fails to make adequate yearly progress, (or AYP as it's called in no child left behind) they get kicked out of their hangar or kicked off the airport? Wow, if there is that much demand for hangar space, perhaps the airport owner/management should take an economics 101 course and build more hangars to satisfy demand. Hangar rent and land leases = revenue. Otherwise, the land is not doing anything.

"Wow, if there is that much demand for hangar space, perhaps the airport owner/management should take an economics 101 course and build more hangars to satisfy demand. Hangar rent and land leases = revenue. Otherwise, the land is not doing anything."

Of course there has to be enough room to build more hangars which isn't always the case. I admit being a bit of a 'neat freak' but I hate to see a nice airport turned into a junk yard and some of the stuff stored in the hangar spills to the outside after a period of time. Several years ago I had to litererly force a tenant to remove several old cars and building material that was stored behind his hangar. His answer was ..he didn't have any place else to keep them and he wanted to save them for parts.

Marty,

It would be great if we could see an increase in hanger space availability and Econ 101 presents the basis of supply and demand. We really don't have that model working in our airport system, most of the dollars for "capital" improvement budgets for airports comes from the fed. Local authorities tend to request those funds for runways, lights, ILS and new airport terminal improvements. Most of the new hanger space comes from "private" funds and in many cases the airport "authority" will acquire ownership of those hangers at a future date, 10 or 20 years. So there is no incentive for local govt. to pony up $$ for more hangers. The way things are going in GA a lot of these hanger queens will wind up in the junk yard and the eventually the hanger space they currently occupy will become available. Maybe we will hear from somebody with some insight into airport improvement funding, but the supply and demand model is slowed down from what I see.

Joe
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Berg

I admit being a bit of a 'neat freak' but I hate to see a nice airport turned into a junk yard and some of the stuff stored in the hangar spills to the outside after a period of time. Several years ago I had to litererly force a tenant to remove several old cars and building material that was stored behind his hangar. His answer was ..he didn't have any place else to keep them and he wanted to save them for parts.

---

Mike, I'm not a neat freak....but stuff spilling outside the hangar is unacceptable and easily controlled. Either clean it up or the airport cleans it up and the tennant gets the bill. You'd be surprised how that clause will motivate someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe LaMantia

Most of the new hanger space comes from "private" funds and in many cases the airport "authority" will acquire ownership of those hangers at a future date, 10 or 20 years.

---

Exactly, so open it up for private funds to do just that. I find that the biggest stumbling block is the airport authority not wanting to give up "control."

Many yrs ago I was based at an airport in the South and convincing them to allow a private developer on property was worse than pulling teeth. Once they agreed, a developer put in 2 rows of nestled T-hangars, occupancy was 100% in the first yr and now there is a sustainable waiting list. Airport revenues increased! Since homebuilding is a large chunk of GA activity now, let people build planes, I don't get the "prove progress" clause--tennant paying his bills is the only progress I'd be concerned with. There's going to be a hangar queen at every airport -- so what?

I can understand what is going on here. Hangars are often in short supply and the airport authority limits them to be for storing aircraft. Many airports have people storing RVs or just plane junk in the hangar like they were some Self Storage locker rather than using them for airplanes. They are saying, you can build in the hangar, but we want you to actually be progressing, not just storing your airplane parts there.

I've got two hangars. One is subject to all those restrictions or they'll terminate my lease.
The other I own, on land I own, attached to a runway that I share with other owners on the field.

Marty,

I agree it would be great if we could actually buy the land and put on the "improvements", then the local govt could provide the maintenance services and get paid via property taxes just like private homes or commercial property. Ron's 2nd hanger sounds like an air park and we do have those all around the country, which is in fact the kinda thing you described.

Joe
:cool: