FAA says homebuilders have to build the components of their projects off-airport

[Larry Dighera]

FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:218609a:&st=email#222534
The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
"non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed
policy statement issued July 22. Policy
<https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the
components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final
assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online
citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 <http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>. The
agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to explaining its
stand. The essence is that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed
storage for aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is
that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an
aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The FAA is
not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final
assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point
where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use," the proposed
policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing it.

The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the rules
regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past
two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but
airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses have
been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to build and
maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses
amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars and
other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed
policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in
hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the
feds.

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
> FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:218609a:&st=email#222534
> The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
> "non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed
> policy statement issued July 22. Policy
> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
> on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the
> components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final
> assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online
> citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 <http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>. The
> agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to explaining its
> stand. The essence is that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed
> storage for aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is
> that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an
> aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The FAA is
> not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final
> assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point
> where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use," the proposed
> policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing it.
>
> The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the rules
> regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past
> two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but
> airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses have
> been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to build and
> maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses
> amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
> responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars and
> other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed
> policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in
> hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the
> feds.
>

Although of obvious concern to those who are using aircraft hangers to
build their aircraf, the FAA does appear to have a point. Demand for
hanger space for non-Aviation purposes will inevitably push up the cost
of hanger space to those who, because their use is Aviation related,
have no practical alternative.

Sylvia.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:54:17 +1000, Sylvia Else >
wrote:

>On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>> FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:218609a:&st=email#222534
>> The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
>> "non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed
>> policy statement issued July 22. Policy
>> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
>> on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the
>> components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final
>> assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online
>> citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 <http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>. The
>> agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to explaining its
>> stand. The essence is that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed
>> storage for aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is
>> that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an
>> aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The FAA is
>> not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final
>> assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point
>> where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use," the proposed
>> policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing it.
>>
>> The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the rules
>> regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past
>> two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but
>> airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses have
>> been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to build and
>> maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses
>> amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
>> responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars and
>> other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed
>> policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in
>> hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the
>> feds.
>>
>
>Although of obvious concern to those who are using aircraft hangers to
>build their aircraf, the FAA does appear to have a point. Demand for
>hanger space for non-Aviation purposes will inevitably push up the cost
>of hanger space to those who, because their use is Aviation related,
>have no practical alternative.
>
>Sylvia.

I agree.

As a side note, I've had a $150.00 deposit for a hangar at KSNA for in excess
of ten years. During that time, my position on the list has not advanced.

It would seem, that the FAA mandated fee for a hangar is on the order of
$100.00 per month, and this prompts those that hold a hangar there are induced
to "sublet" their hangars for the going rate of >$500.00 per month.

I have also been told by airport officials, that the county is manipulating the
assignment of hangars.

I'm wondering if contacting a FSDO inspector regarding these unfair practices
might be productive. Or is it likely to be another case of, "We're the FAA and
we're not happy until you're unhappy." :-)

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/08/2014 5:01 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:54:17 +1000, Sylvia Else >
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
>>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:218609a:&st=email#222534
>>> The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
>>> "non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed
>>> policy statement issued July 22. Policy
>>> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
>>> on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the
>>> components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final
>>> assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online
>>> citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 <http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>. The
>>> agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to explaining its
>>> stand. The essence is that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed
>>> storage for aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is
>>> that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an
>>> aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The FAA is
>>> not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final
>>> assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point
>>> where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use," the proposed
>>> policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing it.
>>>
>>> The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the rules
>>> regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past
>>> two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but
>>> airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses have
>>> been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to build and
>>> maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses
>>> amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
>>> responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars and
>>> other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed
>>> policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in
>>> hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the
>>> feds.
>>>
>>
>> Although of obvious concern to those who are using aircraft hangers to
>> build their aircraf, the FAA does appear to have a point. Demand for
>> hanger space for non-Aviation purposes will inevitably push up the cost
>> of hanger space to those who, because their use is Aviation related,
>> have no practical alternative.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I agree.
>
> As a side note, I've had a $150.00 deposit for a hangar at KSNA for in excess
> of ten years. During that time, my position on the list has not advanced.

That's a nice little earner - $150.00 interest free for ten years -
times however long the list is.

>
> It would seem, that the FAA mandated fee for a hangar is on the order of
> $100.00 per month, and this prompts those that hold a hangar there are induced
> to "sublet" their hangars for the going rate of >$500.00 per month.
>
> I have also been told by airport officials, that the county is manipulating the
> assignment of hangars.

If the county is also running the waiting list, then that looks like fraud.

>
> I'm wondering if contacting a FSDO inspector regarding these unfair practices
> might be productive. Or is it likely to be another case of, "We're the FAA and
> we're not happy until you're unhappy." :-)
>

Sounds like a little (more!) patience would be in order, given that a
policy change appears to be afoot (mind you, I'm not in the USA, and
have no idea how long the FAA takes to implement a change of policy).

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
> FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

Having taken a look at the legislation, I have to say that I'm far from
certain that the FAA really has the power to say how hangars are to be used.

It probably should, given that the government is subsidising them, but
to my mind the legislation doesn't go that deep. The airport plan will
show where the hangars are, and the airport owner will not be able to
pull them down and erect something else, but as long as the hangars are
there, I can't see a constraint that they be used for aviation purposes.

Charging a market rate rent when a hangar is not used for aviation
purposes appears to go against the express words of 49 USC 47107.a(13)(B).

Sylvia.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:218609a:&st=email#222534
> The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
> "non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new
> proposed
> policy statement issued July 22.

You will probably also find that activities such as building an airplane
would not be allowed by the hangar's insurance policy, unless it has a
sprinkler system. I have personal knowledge of this being the case.
--
Jim in NC


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Larry Dighera]

Commemorative Air Force Fights Hangar Rule
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2892-full.html?ET=avweb:e2892:218609a:&st=email#222678The
Commemorative Air Force is asking the FAA to extend the Sept. 5 comment
deadline on a proposed policy on "aeronautical uses" permitted in hangars on
federally funded airports. The CAF says its various museums and shops are all
in violation of the new rules and is asking the FAA to extend the comment
period so the agency can "delve deeper into the unintended consequences" of the
existing document.



On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:03:06 -0700, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:218609a:&st=email#222534
>The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
>"non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed
>policy statement issued July 22. Policy
><https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
>on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the
>components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final
>assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online
>citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 <http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>. The
>agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to explaining its
>stand. The essence is that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed
>storage for aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is
>that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an
>aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The FAA is
>not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final
>assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point
>where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use," the proposed
>policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing it.
>
>The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the rules
>regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past
>two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but
>airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses have
>been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to build and
>maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses
>amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
>responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars and
>other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed
>policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in
>hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the
>feds.

[Bug Dout]

There was a great outcry about the FAA's position on the Vans Air Force
forum, as you can imagine. I took the minority view that the rule
clarification to prohibit building (and all non-aviation activities) was
a Good Thing. Of course the VAF'ers don't take well to thinking outside
the narrow box they are in. Somewhere I read a good explanation of the
clarification: if an activity can be done off-airport, it should be done
there. But if the activity can ONLY be done on-airport (like an actively
flying aircraft, or fixing/assembling one so it is flying), then those
should be in hangars.

As someone who was on a waiting list at one airport for years, and
seeing hangars "sub-let" to personal buddies and the wait-list never
advance, and seeing maintenance "projects" drag on for years with no
flying aircraft in hangars, I'm all for this FAA clarification. If
someone wants to build long-term, and doesn't have a garage, there's a
business opportunity: make a few storage units with heat, A/C,
electricity, and a nearby toilet for building projects of any kind. I
think there would be demand for this.

As for the FAA enforcing this, no. It simply gives the airport operator
the means to enforce it. And, it gives the airplane owner with no hangar
access the means to compel the airport operator to enforce this.

Larry Dighera > writes:

> Commemorative Air Force Fights Hangar Rule
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2892-full.html?ET=avweb:e2892:218609a:&st=email#222678The
> Commemorative Air Force is asking the FAA to extend the Sept. 5 comment
> deadline on a proposed policy on "aeronautical uses" permitted in hangars on
> federally funded airports. The CAF says its various museums and shops are all
> in violation of the new rules and is asking the FAA to extend the comment
> period so the agency can "delve deeper into the unintended consequences" of the
> existing document.

--
The difference between our decadence and the Russians' is that while
theirs is brutal, ours is apathetic.
~ James Thurber

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:54:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
>
> > http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:218609a:&st=email#222534
>
> > The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
>
> > "non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed
>
> > policy statement issued July 22. Policy
>
> > <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
>
> > on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the
>
> > components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final
>
> > assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online
>
> > citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 <http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>. The
>
> > agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to explaining its
>
> > stand. The essence is that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed
>
> > storage for aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is
>
> > that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an
>
> > aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The FAA is
>
> > not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final
>
> > assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point
>
> > where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use," the proposed
>
> > policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing it.
>
> >
>
> > The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the rules
>
> > regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past
>
> > two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but
>
> > airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses have
>
> > been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to build and
>
> > maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses
>
> > amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
>
> > responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars and
>
> > other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed
>
> > policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in
>
> > hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the
>
> > feds.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Although of obvious concern to those who are using aircraft hangers to
>
> build their aircraf, the FAA does appear to have a point. Demand for
>
> hanger space for non-Aviation purposes will inevitably push up the cost
>
> of hanger space to those who, because their use is Aviation related,
>
> have no practical alternative.
>
>
>
> Sylvia.

How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis Island ??

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:54:17 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
> >
> > > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
> >
> > > http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:21
> > > 8609a:&st=email#222534
> >
> > > The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
> >
> > > "non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new
> > > proposed
> >
> > > policy statement issued July 22. Policy
> >
> > > <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-
> > > the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
> >
> > > on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to
> > > build the
> >
> > > components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for
> > > final
> >
> > > assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted
> > > online
> >
> > > citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 <http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>.
> > > The
> >
> > > agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to
> > > explaining its
> >
> > > stand. The essence is that the principal role of a hangar is to supply
> > > enclosed
> >
> > > storage for aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's
> > > argument is
> >
> > > that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an
> >
> > > aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The
> > > FAA is
> >
> > > not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that
> > > final
> >
> > > assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a
> > > point
> >
> > > where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use," the
> > > proposed
> >
> > > policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing
> > > it.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the
> > > rules
> >
> > > regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the
> > > past
> >
> > > two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about
> > > everything but
> >
> > > airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses
> > > have
> >
> > > been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to
> > > build and
> >
> > > maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical
> > > uses
> >
> > > amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
> >
> > > responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars
> > > and
> >
> > > other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The
> > > proposed
> >
> > > policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items
> > > in
> >
> > > hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe
> > > from the
> >
> > > feds.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Although of obvious concern to those who are using aircraft hangers to
> >
> > build their aircraf, the FAA does appear to have a point. Demand for
> >
> > hanger space for non-Aviation purposes will inevitably push up the cost
> >
> > of hanger space to those who, because their use is Aviation related,
> >
> > have no practical alternative.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sylvia.
>
> How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis
> Island ??

How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/5/2014 7:32 AM, wrote:

> How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis Island ??
>

I'm pretty sure that's not an aeronautical use.

Sylvia.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:28:20 -0400, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:

>> How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis
>> Island ??
>
>How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?

Nah. There's no sense in empowering a troll to compromise our ethics. Let's
just let him reveal his ignorance and venom-filled heart publicly for the world
to see.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:06:29 AM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:28:20 -0400, Orval Fairbairn >
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis
>
> >> Island ??
>
> >
>
> >How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?
>
>
>
> Nah. There's no sense in empowering a troll to compromise our ethics. Let's
>
> just let him reveal his ignorance and venom-filled heart publicly for the world
>
> to see.

I went hiking on Mt. Cue Ball and got numbnuts.

[Bug Dout]

Orval Fairbairn > writes:

> How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?
How about using a good Usenet reader, and filtering his kind from your feed.
--
This is very true; for my words are my own, and my actions are my
ministers.
~ Charles II

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Bug Dout > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > writes:
>
> > How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?
> How about using a good Usenet reader, and filtering his kind from your feed.

I would rather see what the Neanderthals and Philistines have in mind
(if you can call it a mind).

[george152]

On 14/09/14 03:32, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Bug Dout > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > writes:
>>
>>> How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?
>> How about using a good Usenet reader, and filtering his kind from your feed.
>
> I would rather see what the Neanderthals and Philistines have in mind
> (if you can call it a mind).
>
:)
The trouble with killfiling such is as there is no response from the
credible and sane they believe the group is hanging on every one of
their posts

[Larry Dighera]

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 (PDF:
<http://download.aopa.org/articlefiles/140918faa.pdf>) on its proposed policy
<https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
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 website
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:
<http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2014-0463-0001>.

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.



On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:27:59 -0700, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
>Commemorative Air Force Fights Hangar Rule
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2892-full.html?ET=avweb:e2892:218609a:&st=email#222678The
>Commemorative Air Force is asking the FAA to extend the Sept. 5 comment
>deadline on a proposed policy on "aeronautical uses" permitted in hangars on
>federally funded airports. The CAF says its various museums and shops are all
>in violation of the new rules and is asking the FAA to extend the comment
>period so the agency can "delve deeper into the unintended consequences" of the
>existing document.
>
>
>
>On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:03:06 -0700, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
>>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:218609a:&st=email#222534
>>The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a
>>"non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed
>>policy statement issued July 22. Policy
>><https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13>
>>on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the
>>components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final
>>assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online
>>citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 <http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>. The
>>agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to explaining its
>>stand. The essence is that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed
>>storage for aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is
>>that bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an
>>aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The FAA is
>>not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final
>>assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point
>>where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use," the proposed
>>policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing it.
>>
>>The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the rules
>>regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past
>>two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but
>>airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses have
>>been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to build and
>>maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses
>>amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
>>responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars and
>>other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed
>>policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in
>>hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the
>>feds.

[Bug Dout]

I applaud the FAA's interpretation. In California there's a shortage of
hangars generally, in no small measure because of hangars full of junk
airplane parts that supposedly make 1 or more airplanes. Guys go and
tinker endlessly a few hours a week and make no progress to a flying
machine. Meanwhile actual flying aircraft are forced to deteriorate on
the ramp.

Likewise for home builders. I'm building an RV-9A, at home, and have
little sympathy for those who want to occupy a hangar for years for
their hobby. Long restoration and builds can be done most anywhere;
flying aircraft can only be kept at an airport. Keep airport hangars for
flying aircraft, not endless projects.
--
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of
the user.
Theodore Roosevelt

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com