"Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Everything about your Aeronca, not Chief or Champ or Sedan specific.
Aerco
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 13:32
Location: Corona CA
Contact:

"Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by Aerco »

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Ha ... 540-1.html

I just read this Avweb article and it just makes me livid. I can understand that hangars which have been even partially funded by FAA money, should not be used for an activity whioch has nothing to do with aviation. To say that building an airplane is "non-aeronautical" use just makes me want to take a 20 lbs wet fish and slap the guy who wrote this around the head with it until he sees the error of his ways.

I totally agree on one thing: hangars should be used primarily for aviation-related purposes. If you don't have an airplane in there, or aren't working on one or building one, move aout and let somebody have the hangar for its proper purpose. Which in my book is storing, building, restoring or repairing aircraft or aircraft engines. If you do that, and have space in there to park your motorbike or whatever, what does that matter to anyone? As long as its primary use is airplane stuff.

And around here (southern CA) NOBODY gets a hangar to house purely non-aviation junk; not at the prices you pay here. My rent for a 1234 sq.ft hangar - $800 a month. It's daylight robbery but as much as I would pay for an industrial shop around here. If I could not use the hangar to make a buck , I'd store my stuff and at the local RV yard for maybe 1/5 the cost.


You can comment here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResu ... ue;ns=true

clipperfixer
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 09:56
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by clipperfixer »

I am amazed at the number of people that store stuff at one of the local, city owned airports here. Seems like 50 percent of them hold junk, and there is a waiting list a mile long to get a hangar if want to park your aircraft. On the other hand restoring one is fine with me.

jnmeade
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 19:24
Location: Eastern Iowa
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by jnmeade »

This topic has generated a lot of strong reaction from those who want to build their airplanes in a hangar rather than in their garage or other rented facility.
Our airport went through this controversy a few years ago. We had people subletting their hangar to persons who stored their RV and boat. There was and still is a waiting list. These renters were indignant when told the hangar was to store airplanes.
The airport has built new hangars over the last few years but it is not an easy process and not a quick fix to lack of hangar space.
I've followed this topic on a number of websites and it's obvious that many people have not read the FAA document. It's hard to take strong exception to it with the possible exception that someone believes they have a right to rent a hangar and start building in it from scratch. The FAA has no problem with final assembly or with repairs or maintenance.
Well, I guess I'd rather see a flying airplane in a hangar than a tail kit, if forced to choose.
None of us defend RV campers, boats, etc., although probably all of us have a table or desk, maybe a mini fridge and similar items the FAA has specifically said they have no problem with.
These questions are resolved at the local level. The local people who object to someone with a camper, boat, motorcycle and 10 year old J3 wing in the hangar while their Cirrus 22 is tied down on the ramp have a basis for complaint based on this reiteration of what has always been the policy.

Aerco
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 13:32
Location: Corona CA
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by Aerco »

clipperfixer wrote:I am amazed at the number of people that store stuff at one of the local, city owned airports here. Seems like 50 percent of them hold junk, and there is a waiting list a mile long to get a hangar if want to park your aircraft. On the other hand restoring one is fine with me.
ANY other activity apart from storing an airplane is illegal; you can't repair. You can't build. You can't use tools or equipment in there. Nothing except park your airplane in there and do some flight planning on the specifically allowed desk. They say nothing about a chair, so be careful!

It is ludicrous. "Non-aeronautical use" should not include building or repairing aircraft. How the hell is that "non-aeronautical use" in any sane person's mind??

I would urge you to send comments about this to the FAA. If they start to enforce this, it will be another nail in the coffin for GA. It will not just affect the other guy - it will affect you eventually if you use a hangar. If you have a grudge against somebody filling his hangar with truly "non-aeronautical" junk, tell the airport management and work out a solution - don't hope that this legislation goes through and he gets kicked out that way. It has bad consequences for all of us who restore and build airplanes.

User avatar
hangerash
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 06:12
Location: Montezuma, OH (CQA)
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by hangerash »

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Our local airport (as many others have) took funds to lengthen the runway. Then they took funds to improve the ramp area. Now they are going to take funds to move the taxiway farther from the runway to meet 'this year's setback' requirements necessitating tearing down six perfectly good hangars. In the plans are some more funds to build new hangars (presumably to replace the ones they are going to tear down and they have already torn down six good hangars to make room for the new ramp that sits empty awaiting airplanes to come.)

To our little airport, as well as others in the area who have accepted these funds, came a letter encouraging each to adopt policies consistent with Federal guidelines for airports including user fees for people who land and use the airport.

The long and short of this is if you work on an aircraft they will want you to have additional insurance and perhaps an increased fee for special use above storing an aircraft.

Government has become too big and there isn't anything we can do about it anymore. (my two cents)
Richard

jnmeade
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 19:24
Location: Eastern Iowa
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by jnmeade »

Aerco wrote:
clipperfixer wrote: ANY other activity apart from storing an airplane is illegal; you can't repair. You can't build. You can't use tools or equipment in there. Nothing except park your airplane in there and do some flight planning on the specifically allowed desk. They say nothing about a chair, so be careful!
Final assembly is permitted. Repairs are permitted. Maintenance is permitted. Desk, work benches, chairs, refrigerators, fans, tool boxes and so forth are permitted.
The EAA supports the proposal and their web site has more discussion of the affect on hangar use.
What is not permitted is someone renting a hangar to build an airplane for 7 years while your flying airplane sits on a tie-down waiting for a hangar.
Not all airports can build new hangars at the drop of a hat. Many airports (mine is one) has a waiting list for hangars and that is after we went through this drill several years ago. The guys who were storing their boat and RV were asked to move them, which freed up some hangars. The guy who was subletting his hangar was told that was not permitted and he had to use it for his own aircraft or let it go. The airport and some tenants built three big new hangars, one a public use hangar, and it filled up immediately.
Final implementation of this kind of proposal is always at the local level, but the guy on a tie-down now has a lever to move the guy who is a long time builder out so he can store his aircraft and the builder can move to his garage or rent space not sitting on an airport with access to a runway that he doesn't need.

MikeB
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 17:07
Location: Western Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by MikeB »

Here's my thought for the day "When some agency is in a position of authority they need to make changes to justify their existence". This happens all the time with government agencies. There may not be a problem but they create one so they can create a solution. Our little airport (3WN9) is owned by the flying club and managed by a board of directors who are voted on by the membership. Local control seems to be the best and this is about local as it gets. I serve as the unofficial manager, grass cutter, toilet cleaner, etc (pay zero by the way). We have two and probably three new hangars being built as I speak. Now we're worried about running out of space.
Mike

User avatar
rkittine
Posts: 912
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 13:48
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by rkittine »

I have hangers at two airports and am on the boards of both. At one, we highly discourage use if a hanger as cheap storage and encourage people without planes to vacate. At the end of their 1-3 year leases, we can not renew. We have a waiting list to get hangers and about 75 of our hangers are owned by the airport and therefore we can control them. The other hangers are owned by the builder with 30 year Pay Back schedules so until their 30 years are up, not much we can do about it.

At the other airport there are numerous people that would love to get a hanger even at $600 or a more a month for a "T" hanger, but 100 % of the hangers are privately owned. The current going rate for a resale "T" hanger, albeit a large one, is $170,000 plus a land lease to the town and real estate taxes. As these are all owned, we have no control over the use as long as the use is legal.

Where I have kept the seaplane, the owner of the field does not rent hangers, but rents aircraft indoor parking spots. Covers the use issue pretty good.

Bob
Robert P. Kittine, Jr.WA2YDV
West Nyack Aviation, L.L.C.
New York, New York 631-374-9652
rkittine@aol.com

MikeB
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 17:07
Location: Western Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by MikeB »

We operate as a 'non stock corporation and lease the hangar 'foot print' to the hangar owner at .12 square foot so a 40 x40 hangar would be 1600 square feet or $192 per year with personal property taxes of about $175 or around $367 a year cost. Taxes on the airport (about $900 on 11 acres) are paid by the flying club and included as part of the membership. Obviously we pretty much operate as a non profit with a lot of volunteer labor but we have electricians, carpenters, mechanics, farmers, construction folks so everything seems to work pretty well. The local town seems very supportive as it doesn't cost them anything.
Mike

clipperfixer
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 09:56
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by clipperfixer »

Aerco,
I just read most of the proposed rule. I just read it differently than you I guess. The proposed rule loosens up the regs a bit. The Faa is saying it is ok to assemble an aircraft, but not build the pieces in the hangar. I don't see this as a big deal. You take money from the feds to build your play area and they will tell you how to run it. Simple as that. While I see the federal government as over reaching in almost every part of life anymore I don't see this rule as evil as you do. Don't like the rules at the faa funded airports? Don't park your aircraft there. When my champ is done it will go to my buddies place on a private strip. You want the grass cut there? You get the mower and do it! You want to build a homebuilt in his hangar? you will help him finish his first. Hell I almost agree with the Faa about building sub assemblies in the hangars. Even my champ is being restored in my garage. (ok, I have a bigger garage than most) and when it is done it will get transported to the airport and assembled there. Their regs seem stiff in current form I agree. On the other hand I work for the airlines and if you want to see stiff oversight, and over reaching you should go through an Faa audit there. Hell, I can't even have a bottle of window cleaner on my desk!! (and my desk is not near a hangar where maintenance is being performed.) I have been written up for it, yes.......

Aerco
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 13:32
Location: Corona CA
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by Aerco »

All well and good if you live anywhere near a cheap, non-FAA funded airport. Try this finding that in Southern California.

And I don't "take FAA money", I pay $800 a month for my hangar! Not that they built them in the first place...

Yes, those are their rules and they are stupid. There is hardly an aircraft owner in the land who hasn't had some work done on an airplane in a hangar that wasn't "final assembly". Fort example, are we supposed to only do annuals outside on the ramp (which is probably also illegal in some other way anyway...) or disassemble the aircraft, truck it away from the airport, rent space elsewhere, do the annual and then truck it back for final "assembly"? Stupid, stupid stupid. What grave problem with the universe does this kind of nonsense fix exactly?

When governments make stupid rules you fight them, you shouldn't simply accept them. They work for us. This is an issue that will affect all of us eventually.

I have read most of the 350 or so comments on the FAA rule and I have yet to come across one that says it's a sensible idea. Like I said before, it's a legislation based on a non-existent problem.

bob turner
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 23:09
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by bob turner »

Different take:

At our Southern California airport the hangars are owned by us, but the city rents us space on a month to month basis at way less than comparable space in the surrounding area.

What happened is that hangar owners started renting their hangars to others at exorbitant rates - paying for the structure within four years, then raking in profits without expenses. What they were really renting out was taxpayer subsidized land with a worthless structure on it.

Then they started selling them. You could buy a new Port-A-Port for $16000, or you could get an older, rusty, worn out one on a city tie down spot for maybe $25K. We are still doing that. I just did it.

We made an attempt to stop the sub- leasing, and it worked for a while. In my hangar row there are maybe twenty hangars. Four or five are used to store operating aircraft, the rest are split between non- operating aircraft, auto storage, cabinet making, and in one case assembly of a homebuilt. The assembly process has been going on for about twenty years.

The first question is whether the taxpayer should be supporting all this. I vote yes, but then I have a selfish interest. The second question is, then, if it is subsidized, exactly what activity should be subsidized? My answer would be that if an operating aircraft is involved, you can also have tools, a motorcycle, car parts, a desk, chairs, refrigerator, couch . . .

The minute the hangar no longer houses an aircraft that is regularly operated in navigable airspace, the clock should begin ticking. There should be an exception for homebuilts and restorations, but that too should have a reasonable time limit. My impression is that that is what will happen.

Opinion.

Aerco
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 13:32
Location: Corona CA
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by Aerco »

This business of "subsidizing" my hangar - I pay through the nose for this, so how am I taking any FAA money? They certainly did not erect these hangars and I pay plenty of fuel taxes. Certainly more than the maintenance of this hangar costs, even if they did foot the bill for it, which they don't.

I have no problem with the FAA discouraging or even banning the " non aeronautical use" of hangars; I just find their definition of that term ridiculous. Working on an airplane is certainly aeronautical use. And putting on time limits seems unenforceable and arbitrary.

Homebuilts make up 30% of light aircraft in this country - the FAA ought to recognize that fact and appreciate that many of their jobs are paid for by homebuilders' taxes. To simply curtail the activity for no good reason doesn't do anyone involved any good in the long run. Another solution to non-existent problem.

User avatar
shorty
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 21:09
Location: 47A and JZP
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by shorty »

I would think that if you follow the spirit of the rule here. (Keep an airplane in the hangar)
Then you would be OK. But there could be a problem if you park your car in the hangar, while you take your airplane to Blakesburg, or Middleton, for a week, and the inspectors happen to come by for a look-see while you're gone.
Thanx
Shorty

User avatar
shorty
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 21:09
Location: 47A and JZP
Contact:

Re: "Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":

Post by shorty »

[quote="Aerco]"Hangars are no place for building airplanes...":[/quote]
What about storing airplanes?
Thanx
Shorty

Post Reply