http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...s222534-1.html
The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a "non-aeronautical use" and it's singled out homebuilders....
...The FAA's argument is that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an aeronautical use
Obviously our govt is too big, and with too many with nothing better to do.
Maybe they could pay more attention to those working on race cars, storing motor homes, or storing non aviation junk.
Why am I not surprised at this?
Ninth biggest airport here - they mostly do not care what you do with hangars. I hear Santa Monica has so many speedboats stored they have to park airplanes outside.
The problem is, storage at a federally supported airport is way under market. We actually have a cabinet maker in a hangar. I am in favor of building and restoring airplanes at the airport, but I can see a push to remove really, really non- aviation stuff out.
I guess that also means that an A&P will not be allowed to do a major overhaul of an airplane in a hangar at the airport? How is that any different from a homebuilder building an airplane? All of the processes are the same. It is time to cut the FAA's employee budget.
NX1PA
The airport I am based at is overrun with motorhomes, boats, car collections, impromptu warehouses, and various junk collectors world headquarters which all serve to drive up the cost of hangers to stupid prices (but i guess less than warehouse space) and I while support the reasonable elimination of excessive non-aviation use (which the Airport Authority rattles the saber about but does nothing) but to call experimental builders non-aviation is an absolute CROCK!
Support the Pilots Bill of Rights-2, Senator Inhofe's announcement addressed hanger use rights.
Last edited by OLDCROWE; 08-03-2014 at 07:29 AM.
Remember, These are the Good old Days!
So I assume this would affect anyone restoring an antique or warbird also? The can of worms this opens is large. If I am an active pilot with aircraft in my hangar I should be free to use my extra space for what I wish as long as it is not illegal.
I thought the FAA's mission is to promote aviation? Seems they are now just puppet of Homeland Security and need to protect us from ourselves.
Sounds like they need to better define who gets to use the entitlement money and for what. I'm not a fan of entitlements. Just sayin'.
Here's a broader perspective of the issue (scroll up and start at the top). It isn't very different from the regulation compliance efforts we had at Lake Hood a few years back. Complaints come from guys who want the spaces. https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-hangars#h-13
Last edited by stewartb; 08-03-2014 at 11:14 AM.
How do I get in line for these federal subsidies? I would gladly clean some of the crap out of my hangar for some fed bucks. My old jeeps are aircraft tugs so I am safe there. Why not put a hitch on your 69 Camaro and call it an aircraft tug?
The Feds are only talking about airports and hangers that have been built with Federal money. You are either for smaller government or not, you can't have it both ways. Many if not most airports have accepted Federal funding. And at many of those airports the Federal money is used not only for the runway, but also for ramps and hangars. This is done even at some of the "privately owned" airports. If you use their money you have to play by their rules.
Even though General Aviation activity has declined significantly since I started flying in 1971, there are still long waiting lists for hangars at all the airports in Central Texas. While home-built airplanes are certainly aviation related, a guy that is going to take several years building doesn't need access to the runway yet. If a PRIVATELY OWNED hanger is used, that's great. But I can see the reason for the Feds taking the position they have on this if the hangar is subsidized.
I built my Cub, and it took me over two years. And the first thing I did was build a shop at my house so I would have a place to build my plane.
I'm all for a smaller Federal Government, not just the FAA but ALL of the Government. And I realize that if we ever achieve that it means we don't get tax money for private use!
N40ff is building an aircraft in his hangar but also has a flying airplane there. Also a privately owned hangar.
OTOH, to say that building an airplane is not aviation related is simply crazy. But do kick the other stuff out.
I am ambivalent. I would rather be based at a small grass field, but my home base is within 11 minutes of my front door.
Keep this secret: My airport is the 9th busiest GA airport in the country - maybe the world. It is quite expensive to operate. They just resurfaced the main runway for six million bucks. I do not know how many employees are now engaged in operating it, but I know seven personally, and there are many more offices.
So I kept track last year. By actual count, I was responsible for just under 3% of all operations at my airport. Me, personally - only counting my students when I was aboard. Restricting that to only aircraft based here, I am over six percent! There are seven Cubs here that belong to my students, so if we count them as sort of related to me, I bet I am over ten percent. If I had to actually pay for that fraction, I would be out of aviation in about three microseconds.
Not really related, but worth adding - we were at exactly 50% of our 1977 tally for operations last year. I do not have numbers, but Martha Lunken hinted that there may be five times as many FAA inspectors now as there were in 1990. Our then- busy airport had three employees in 1977, and they pumped gas!
So if its non aernautical use then they have no reason to have anymore Feds doing checks and have no reason to regulate the building of planes because they are no longer doing aernautical stuff with bucking rivets. or building engines or doing anything non aeronautical on the non aeronautical airplane. I think its fantastic we can now do whatever we want to our non aeronautical aircraft. lol.
Firm believer we can fix stupid. Takem out of the equation.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...e222796-1.html
AOPA Says Homebuilding An Aeronautical Use
AOPA says pretty much anything to do with aircraft storage, and active maintenance and construction should be considered an "aeronautical use" and be permitted in hangars on federally funded airports. In comments to the FAA on its proposed policy on the definition of aeronautical uses, AOPA says it wants the FAA's policy to use "common sense" and reflect "the practical realities of general aviation flying and ownership." In a news release the organization was to the point. "Specifically, the association is asking the FAA to classify every hangar that houses an airworthy aircraft, or one that is under active construction, repair, or renovation, as being in aeronautical use," the story on AOPA's Web site reads. "AOPA is also asking the FAA to consider the construction of an aircraft an aeronautical use." As we reported earlier this month, the FAA has extended the comment period on the policy and comments are due by Oct. 6. The FAA has received more than 2,000 comments on its proposed policy, which grew out of a couple of disputes at federally funded airports and requests by both AOPA and EAA to clarify what can be in a hangar at a federally funded airport and what activities can take place there. The FAA determined that only the "final assembly" of homebuilt aircraft is an aeronautical use and most of the comments received so far protest that interpretation.
Ok Mr. FAA; now lets see you define what home built "final assembly" means. This should be comical to see happen.
Marty57
N367PS
Psalm 36:7 "High and low among men find refuge in the shadow of His wing"
www.marty2plus2.com
I believe what they are after is the guy who buys an empennage kit from Vans, bucks a few rivets, hangs it on the wall, and either runs his business out of a federally subsidized hangar or stores his business records/equipment there.
When folks do that, they have a cost advantage over other businesspeople - they are competing with tax dollar assistance.
No matter what you think about federal funding of airports, this just seems wrong. Check with Vans to see how many empennage kits he has sold, compared to complete kits?
Local zoning laws are there to take care of that. Inviting the feds in to take care of local problems is always a disaster. All they can do is up the micro management and invoke "one size fits all" solutions and to top that off, apply them everywhere!Originally Posted by bob turner
This sounds like an expensive way to get "cheap" rent. Do you really think this happens very often?
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." Wyatt Earp
You haven't priced commercial rent in a good area lately?Hmmm hanger space: good security, large area for industrial storage or building things, away from other (OSHA, EPA etc.) prying eyes, 1/10 the rent compared to other locations, good parking usually. What's not to like? Well it's not good retail and 3 phase power can be difficult but you can adapt.
Still this is a matter for local authorities, definitely not a place for the feds. Those who invite the feds into their lives to fix things may be happy for a while but always wind up on the short end taking crumbs and complaining over time. The government can only do things while causing big problems and inefficiencies and also creating monster bureaucracies ( I can never get the spelling right on that word. I don't even try anymore. Just put something in the space and let spell check fix it. Annoying!) . Government has to do some very limited things and we have to accept the losses when it wields it's big sledge hammer but it always uses a big hammer even when a ballpene is whats called for. Having them come in and regulate commerce at an airport is a very bad idea. Better to attend your local meetings and elections and make those people do their job to stop the abuses. Bob what would you think if the "aircraft use" didn't include ground school? There is no reason to take up valuable airport space to have students sit in a class room or even by an inactive aircraft. Maybe you should be forced to park your training aircraft when a flight lesson is over and exit the area for debriefing in another commercial off-airport classroom setting that you are required to have perhaps even show evidence you are renting an off-airport space to conduct a flight school. I know that seems silly but I have had just that kind of thing happen when in business. I generally just did my own thing and stayed under the radar to get things done (as do all of you by the way). As a cop I was always amazed that folks would invite us into their lives over some trivial thing only to have us "discover" other things that cost them dearly (warrants they were not aware of comes to mind). Nope this is one of those trivial things like calling the cops when your neighbors dog pees on you lawn. In the case of hanger mis-use get the locals to do their jobs and keep the feds away any way you can. It's not anything they can fix without getting into your life in awful ways you haven't even dreamed of yet. In the meantime we should all fight this tooth and nail.
Yes I do, it is happening at my home airport. Cabinet shop in one hangar, car/hotrod storage and workplace in another and that is all I know the details of, I suspect that is not all at my airport. I think there should be an airplane in the hangar and if room for more stuff like a motorcycle, snow machine or couch and fridge then ok, have at it. This should be controlled by the local airport authorities and not the Fed's.
Just my humble opinion.
The reason the feds are involved is that aviation is mostly regulated by, and funded by, the feds. If your local airport is 100% funded by the locality, or privately owned, these rules will not apply. The minute you accept federal funds, you become bound by what they call "Grant Assurances".
I am actually in favor of private airports, but they no longer work in most towns and cities. My favorite was Gila Bend, Arizona, owned and operated by the Reillys. It was scraped dirt, big enough for a DC-3, and close enough to walk to town for lunch. Mr. Reilly was the sheriff, and Mrs. Reilly pumped the gas. I truly loved to stop there.
Gila Bend opted for federal assistance - they shut the Reillys down and moved the airport ten miles north of town. Paved it. In the end, they could not get anybody to man the pumps, and it became a ghost airport. I suppose by now it has self serve pumps, but it is still no fun - I got a big wing tank, and that hassle is over.
Posting Permissions
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks