More movement on the "legal use of your hangar" issue. The first link is the article from AOPA and the second link is to the Federal Register with the discussion of the intent and clarification of the rule.

AOPA article:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/July/24/faa-drafts-new-hangar-policy?WT.mc_id=140725epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv

Federal Register discussion:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars

It seems we are getting closer to common sense, at least.

Some may not agree with my assessment of the situation but here's my comment. Comment deadline is September 5th.


While I'm generally in agreement with FAAs "Hangar Policy Draft", I draw exception with regard to the assembly of experimental aircraft, I think that an N number assignment would be a more easily interpreted definition by agency field inspectors and airport managers. The "Hangar Policy Draft" does address aircraft repair and manufacturing as a commercial exercise that can be left up to airport management to define as an aeronautical activity during the initial lease negotiation. It is my belief that airport management can likewise make a judgement as to the permissibility of kit assembly or even scratch building activities provided that some baseline guidance is provided by FAA. The assignment of an N number would be an easily recognizable threshold for airport management and FAA inspection and enforcement personnel. Questions as to meaningful progress could easily be addressed in the agency's "Regulatory Guidance Library" orders.

There is apparently some concern at FAA that allowing "homebuilt" aircraft assembly at airports receiving government grants could be construed as and unauthorized subsidy of private activity. I might counter that as a matter of public policy such subsidies abound in the solar and wind energy industries, farming, and the small business administration amongst others. Such subsidies are encouraged by government generally as the promotion of activities that are beneficial to commerce and the general welfare. FAA should be in the business of promotion of aviation as well as regulation.

The agency might at some time take a look at the accumulation of de-registered aircraft in some hangars as non aeronautical activity. Clearly the storage of automobiles and boats on a permanent basis, the use of hangars in furtherance of other non aeronautical commercial enterprises or the use of hangars to store household items in the long term should be forbidden. I would like to see FAA pursue some guidance for airport management going forward to provide opportunities for individuals to erect additional hangarage on airport property. Too often the permit process and de-facto appropriation by airport managers of hangar buildings at the end of lease discourages the building of desperately needed hangars.

Well, I have to disagree with part of your argument. Though I do concur that constructing a homebuilt airplane in a hangar should be a valid use of hangar space.

BUT, how in the hell is the FAA going to enforce this stupid rule? Are they going to hire a thousand new "Hangar Inspectors" equip them with lock picks and bolt cutters and turn them loose on every airport in the country? Or are they going to dump this additional duty on the current crop of Inspectors, who are already overloaded? Ever try to get ANYthing out of a FSDO quickly? Gee, let's add this to their plate.

OR, are they simply going to dump the responsibility to enforce this on airport managers? I've seen airport managers that were totally reasonable, while still running a tight ship, and I've seen some real assholes, sneaking around trying to catch someone doing something wrong on HIS airport.

I agree that every hangar should be used to house an aircraft. Within reason, that aircraft should be airworthy at some point. Using a hangar to store airplane parts shouldn't be tolerated......should be some progress toward fly able.

That said, if I have a fly able airplane in my hangar, and it can also fit a car/motorcycle/motor home, etc in that hangar, why should anyone object to that? As long as the hangar stil primarily houses a fly able airplane, who cares?

Now, another point: At an airport which owns the hangars and leases them out to aircraft owners presents one scenario. Fairly easy to deal with. But, I OWN my hangar. So, it's not as if the airport can just cancel my lease and rent my hangar to someone else. And, I can't store a motorcycle in a hangar that I bought, just because it's on airport grounds, and despite the fact that I have an airworthy plane in that hangar?

Interesting issue, but in my mind, this is NOT something the FAA should be doing. Leave it to the airport to deal with. If an airport becomes really bad in this regard, threaten them with loss of their AIP funds. That seems to have worked in past.

I for one would hope that the FAA has better things to do.

Big Brother rears his ugly head once more.

MTV

When I watched the video clip of the interview with Mr. Huerta I heard him justify his finding as having something to do with subsidizing homebuilt airplane construction. I probably should have addressed only that aspect of it. Fair enough. Hangars are impossible to find in Washoe County. That's stupid seeing as how the one thing we have here in Nevada is empty ground. Try to get permission to put up a hangar at Reno/Stead some time. I know for a fact that there are non-aviation business' being run out of hangars here. That chaps my ass.

My half of a 30'x42' hangar at N86 is rented and is on ground leased by an "airport association" from the BLM. We pay the government they don't pay us. My goal is to relocate a used hangar from a closed airport to this location. I don't think this ruling will have any effect on me at all so long as I stay at N86 and BLM continues to grant leases. It took me two years to get in here and I've been on the list at Stead with no movement for nearly that long. I don't care what anybody puts in their hangar as long as there is an airworthy airplane in there with it.......that is being used. If you find a T-craft to stick in your 8000'^2 hangar and then run a race car or motorhome rebuilding business out of it I want you out of there. I'm selfish and pigheaded I guess.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What MTV said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, and by the way. Get your comments in now. Deadline is Sept. 5th

G44 wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What MTV said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+1

BTW, the FAA's Mission Statement: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world."

How is this part of that mission?

Mister701 wrote:When I watched the video clip of the interview with Mr. Huerta I heard him justify his finding as having something to do with subsidizing homebuilt airplane construction. I probably should have addressed only that aspect of it. Fair enough. Hangars are impossible to find in Washoe County. That's stupid seeing as how the one thing we have here in Nevada is empty ground. Try to get permission to put up a hangar at Reno/Stead some time. I know for a fact that there are non-aviation business' being run out of hangars here. That chaps my ass.

My half of a 30'x42' hangar at N86 is rented and is on ground leased by an "airport association" from the BLM. We pay the government they don't pay us. My goal is to relocate a used hangar from a closed airport to this location. I don't think this ruling will have any effect on me at all so long as I stay at N86 and BLM continues to grant leases. It took me two years to get in here and I've been on the list at Stead with no movement for nearly that long. I don't care what anybody puts in their hangar as long as there is an airworthy airplane in there with it.......that is being used. If you find a T-craft to stick in your 8000'^2 hangar and then run a race car or motorhome rebuilding business out of it I want you out of there. I'm selfish and pigheaded I guess.

Hey, I feel your pain, and I understand that frustration. My point is simply that this SHOULD be a function of the local airport, not the FAA.

At least if these actions are the prime responsibility of the local airport, you can go to the city/county/state government and seek relief. Granted, that doesn't always work, but try to petition the FAA for relief on a hangar lease at your local airdrome"..........

MTV

mtv wrote: My point is simply that this SHOULD be a function of the local airport, not the FAA.

At least if these actions are the prime responsibility of the local airport, you can go to the city/county/state government and seek relief. Granted, that doesn't always work, but try to petition the FAA for relief on a hangar lease at your local airdrome"..........

MTV

If I failed to convey your point then I need to re-group and work on my writing skills. What I had tried to convey, inexpertly, was that FAA already recognized the right of airport management to negotiate Hangar use with FBO's and manufacturers of aeronautical equipment. Why can't we extend that to homebuilt aircraft with an N number?.. Perhaps I'll drop them another line and speak to them about private hangar use for the pilot owners of recreational equipment and junk. I doubt it's necessary though.

I've harped for several years here that the biggest threat to freedom in America is not congress or the president. It's administrative law and rule making. The bastards do just whatever they want, and congress let's them get away with it. I've written both of my senators and my congressman repeatedly to express my view of this sort of encroachment on the principle of legislative law. One of them is of course good old Harry. Will Rogers never met Harry Reid. The other Senator is Dean Heller who has never given me the time of day. He's too busy with the easy stuff where no one will disagree. My congressman Mark Amodei is right on top of it though. I may not have expressed the general view of each of you here regarding this proposed rule making but why not get your comments on record expressing YOUR view rather than giving me a load for mine.

I mostly agree with 701. I've been looking for a hangar for several years and know of several city hangars that are full of junk or empty but the city will do nothing about it. They feed me a line about them doing the best they can...blah blah blah. I hate to involve any level of government but I've talked to the state and the FAA and they agree it is an issue that needs addressing. The FAA has people on staff to deal with issues at federally obligated airports. What's a little guy like me supposed to do? I did everything I could before I called the FAA.

whee wrote:I mostly agree with 701. I've been looking for a hangar for several years and know of several city hangars that are full of junk or empty but the city will do nothing about it. They feed me a line about them doing the best they can...blah blah blah. I hate to involve any level of government but I've talked to the state and the FAA and they agree it is an issue that needs addressing. The FAA has people on staff to deal with issues at federally obligated airports. What's a little guy like me supposed to do? I did everything I could before I called the FAA.

Yep, the FAA generally has one person per office. That often means two states or so........

Keep pinging the city. For years it was impossible to lease a tiedowns at Lake Hood in Anchorage. Eventually ,they got a new manager and he decided to enforce all the policies that'd been in place all along......no subleasing, tenants required to have an airworthy airplane registered to the leasee in the slip, etc. it worked.

Don't give up on this. Is there an airport commission? Get appointed to it. Work it from inside.

Most of all, get creative. Our Airport Mgr at my previous base wanted to clean up some of these things, but was a little nervous about the politics. I was on the commission, and he and I started working on commissioners. I submitted a proposal to enforce lease agreements, it passed unanimously, and the junk left the drone.

Sometimes it takes a while, and working behind the scenes may be a good tack.

But, don't give up.

MTV

Here is notice of an extension on the comment period. There is also a discussion about the proposal itself.


http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and- ... Use_Policy