Leasehold hangars and content restrictions

[Tony Cox]

At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
discovered FAA support for this position during his
"on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
one way or another.

Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.

Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
and comfort items along with aircraft.

Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
ruling from the local FSDO...

[Robert M. Gary]

It should have been in the lease agreement. If not, you should be able
to modify the lease with certain terms. You'll need to review the
original lease and perhaps speak with a property attorney.

-Robert


Tony Cox wrote:
> At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
> who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
> but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
> discovered FAA support for this position during his
> "on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
> aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
> anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
> skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
> one way or another.
>
> Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
> originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
> exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
> of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
> FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
> hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
> 139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
> and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
> store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
> our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
> cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
> and comfort items along with aircraft.
>
> Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
> ruling from the local FSDO...

[Don Tuite]

There's a 20 year waiting list at our airport. These are county-built
hangars. Guys on the list with working airplanes seem happy to have
the airport manager evict people who use their hangars for storage
lockers.

Don

On 15 Nov 2006 13:21:30 -0800, "Tony Cox" > wrote:

>At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
>who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
>but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
>discovered FAA support for this position during his
>"on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
>aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
>anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
>skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
>one way or another.
>
>Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
>originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
>exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
>of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
>FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
>hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
>139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.
>
>Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
>and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
>store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
>our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
>cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
>and comfort items along with aircraft.
>
>Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
>ruling from the local FSDO...

[Jules]

My airport has gone through that phase. It was pretty rough. They even
banned people parking in the hangar when they go away. We couldn't drive
out to the hangar also. Winter trips thinned out because nobody wanted
to drag their suitcased through the mud'n slush. Then return to a plowed
in or plow damaged or vandalized car. Of course those who curried favour
with the owners were allowed to drive in and park. But the whole time
those who could drive up to their hangars and had garage doors on the
hangar just parked in anyway.

They even banned having a tin of wd40 in the hangar.



Tony Cox wrote:
> At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
> who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
> but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
> discovered FAA support for this position during his
> "on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
> aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
> anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
> skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
> one way or another.
>
> Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
> originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
> exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
> of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
> FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
> hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
> 139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
> and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
> store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
> our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
> cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
> and comfort items along with aircraft.
>
> Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
> ruling from the local FSDO...
>

[Tony Cox]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> It should have been in the lease agreement. If not, you should be able
> to modify the lease with certain terms. You'll need to review the
> original lease and perhaps speak with a property attorney.
>

Well, our situation is rather complex. Leases are governed
by eight different agreements (depending on when the hangars
were constructed), some of which have blanket clauses that
incorporate the general airport rules and regs, others that
don't. That's why I didn't want to get into the specifics of the
our leases and just (hopefully) trawl for what people at other
airports have experienced. We have obtained legal advice, and
the opinion, FWIW, is that the lease rules are most probably
unenforceable due to the airport's neglect over the last several
years.

Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
aircraft is more of a procedural problem for us airport tenants
attempting to regularize the various leases than a threat to
our lifestyle -- no one in the City is prepared to consider any
concrete proposal because they confidently expect the FAA
to "rule" definitively on the issue. Those of us with more experience
with the FAA think that getting anyone in the local FSDO to
commit is likely to be as frustrating as waiting for Godot.

That's why I'd like to hear from anyone who *has* managed
to get a ruling. Failing that, "points on the graph" at FAA-funded
airports would be very helpful.

[Tony Cox]

Jules wrote:
>
> They even banned having a tin of wd40 in the hangar.
>

You've got to be kidding me? What sort of maniac would
try to enforce that?? Did they make you drain your tanks
of 100LL before putting the plane to bed at night too??

[Newps]

Tony Cox wrote:

>
> Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
> aircraft


No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.

[Tony Cox]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tony Cox wrote:
>
> >
> > Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
> > aircraft
>
>
> No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.

That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??

I'm not exactly sure the FAA _doesn't_ have an interest here.
Airport funds are poorly spent if hangar owners (in the extreme
case) just use them for general storage because its cheaper than
the local lock-up. Not that its anything remotely like our case, but
we seem to be in danger of being swept up with the latest
"imaginary hobgoblin".

[Newps]

Tony Cox wrote:


>>
>>No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.
>
>
> That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
> City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
> that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??

No way she said that or she was taken out of context.


>
> I'm not exactly sure the FAA _doesn't_ have an interest here.
> Airport funds are poorly spent if hangar owners (in the extreme
> case) just use them for general storage because its cheaper than
> the local lock-up. Not that its anything remotely like our case, but
> we seem to be in danger of being swept up with the latest
> "imaginary hobgoblin".


Airports often have rules about what can be stored in hangars. There's
no problem with reasonable rules.

[Robert M. Gary]

Tony Cox wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.
>
> That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
> City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
> that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??

They have. Every airport in my area has had to extract the non-airplane
users of hangers as part of the federal grants. However, I believe you
said the airport hasn't taken federal money. Further, if you did, the
feds would require you to kick them out so you'd need to have a lease
agreement that allowed for that. I hope your leases at least expire.
In every case here, the leases dating back to 1940 required the hanger
to be used for aircraft.

That's about the limit of what you want to feds to do. Imagine the
farmer who built a barn for his J-3 and now wants to keep hay in it as
well. You don't want the feds bothering that poor guy. Its not able
airports, its about accepting federal grant money.
-Robert

[Kyle Boatright]

>
>
> Tony Cox wrote:
>> At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
>> who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
>> but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
>> discovered FAA support for this position during his
>> "on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
>> aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
>> anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
>> skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
>> one way or another.
>>
>> Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
>> originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
>> exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
>> of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
>> FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
>> hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
>> 139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.
>>
>> Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
>> and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
>> store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
>> our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
>> cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
>> and comfort items along with aircraft.
>>
>> Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
>> ruling from the local FSDO...

Our airport went through that a few years ago. I can't come up with the
reg's, but my understanding is that property on a federally funded airport
must be used for aviation related themes. We had people using hangars as
workshops for their auto racing teams, people storing boats, etc. If you
have an aircraft in the hangar, the airport doesn't have any problem with
you storing odds and ends there in addition to the aircraft.

KB

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:


>
>
> They have. Every airport in my area has had to extract the non-airplane
> users of hangers as part of the federal grants.

There's no federal grants that require hangar owners to take their couch
out of the hangar. Likewise storing an additional car or boat or
putting your car in the hangar while you are on a trip. No way, no how.

[Tony Cox]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Tony Cox wrote:
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.
> >
> > That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
> > City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
> > that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??
>
> They have. Every airport in my area has had to extract the non-airplane
> users of hangers as part of the federal grants. However, I believe you
> said the airport hasn't taken federal money.

The airport *has* taken FAA money for various things (an
ASOS, runway lights, new taxiways), but the hangars themselves
were constructed (between 8 and 15 years ago) with private
funds.

> Further, if you did, the
> feds would require you to kick them out so you'd need to have a lease
> agreement that allowed for that. I hope your leases at least expire.

Actually, we're hoping that they don't ;-)...

[BT]

As long as there is an aircraft in the hanger, you should be able to store
other items that you personally own. Some airports are pushing against RVs,
Cars and Boats and household junk. But most will lean over if there is an
airplane in the hanger.

It makes no difference if the hangers are personally built and owned. They
are sitting on airport property where you probably pay a lease for ground
use and the airport has FAA Money. The Airport could loose future funding
and have to pay back previous funding if they continued to allow non
aviation use of airport property.

BT

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
> who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
> but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
> discovered FAA support for this position during his
> "on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
> aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
> anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
> skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
> one way or another.
>
> Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
> originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
> exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
> of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
> FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
> hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
> 139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
> and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
> store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
> our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
> cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
> and comfort items along with aircraft.
>
> Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
> ruling from the local FSDO...
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Our airport went through that a few years ago. I can't come up with the
> reg's, but my understanding is that property on a federally funded airport
> must be used for aviation related themes. We had people using hangars as
> workshops for their auto racing teams, people storing boats, etc. If you
> have an aircraft in the hangar, the airport doesn't have any problem with
> you storing odds and ends there in addition to the aircraft.

That's the same approach our airport takes, and I think it's
appropriate. Heck, we've got a TON of stuff in our hangar, and no one
cares -- just so long as we keep an airplane in there, too.

For a while, we had a guy storing used hospital equipment in a hangar.
He also had another hangar in which he kept his plane(s). Every year,
he would ship all of this used hospital equipment to Nicaraugua, or
Haiti, or some other incredibly needy place, all at his own expense.

Although it was a wonderfully charitable thing to do, eventually he ran
afoul of the "must have an airplane in the hangar" rule, and he removed
all the stuff. It was an ugly political thing, though.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > They have. Every airport in my area has had to extract the non-airplane
> > users of hangers as part of the federal grants.
>
> There's no federal grants that require hangar owners to take their couch
> out of the hangar. Likewise storing an additional car or boat or
> putting your car in the hangar while you are on a trip. No way, no how.

I'm not sure what your point is. The federal grant requires there be
some airport use for the hanger. non-airplane users certainly don't
qualify. You have to at least have an airplane.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Tony Cox > wrote:
> At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
> who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
> but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
> discovered FAA support for this position during his
> "on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
> aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
> anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
> skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
> one way or another.

> Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
> originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
> exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
> of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
> FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
> hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
> 139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.

> Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
> and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
> store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
> our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
> cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
> and comfort items along with aircraft.

> Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
> ruling from the local FSDO...

Don't know about regs, but at my airport (privately owned but has
taken Federal money) you can put anything you want in the space
under the condition that airplanes have absolute priority.

That is, you can rent a hanger and put an RV in there, but if
someone comes along looking for a hanger for an airplane, you
have to immediately vacate for the airplane owner.

There is a waiting list for enclosed hangers but numerous shade
hangers are open, so only the shade hangers have any non-airplane
renters.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[A Lieberma]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
ups.com:

> Although it was a wonderfully charitable thing to do, eventually he
> ran afoul of the "must have an airplane in the hangar" rule, and he
> removed all the stuff. It was an ugly political thing, though.

Not so sure Jay it's an ugly thing...

Considering there is a 2 to 3 year wait for hangar space at my own airport,
I'd not be a happy camper to know that a hanger was used for storing
"paper" when my plane could enjoy the comforts of a hangar.

Allen

[ktbr]

Tony Cox wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
> and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
> store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
> our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
> cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
> and comfort items along with aircraft.
>
> Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
> ruling from the local FSDO...
>

Has nothing to do with the FSDO. The airport exists for
aviation. The airport has a right to insure the proper
usage of the property will promote aviation and aircraft
operations. On the other hand, if they granted someone
a long term lease to build a hangar on the property and
the lease does not state that the hangar is to be used
for an airplane and/or aviation related activites then
that's a different story.

[ktbr]

Don Tuite wrote:
> There's a 20 year waiting list at our airport. These are county-built
> hangars. Guys on the list with working airplanes seem happy to have
> the airport manager evict people who use their hangars for storage
> lockers.

Any airport that thinks it is a good idea to lease their hangars
out to people who are using them to store furniture in is not
serious about aviation.

[xyzzy]

Tony Cox wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Tony Cox wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
> > > aircraft
> >
> >
> > No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.
>
> That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
> City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
> that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??
>

People waiting in line for years at Santa Monica for hangars that are
being used as movie sets or storage for movie stars' classic car
collections would be grateful for this. The FAA does need to crack
down on hangar misuse, but of course will they draw the line in the
right place? Hangars should be used for aviation, not for storing
cars, RVs, etc. However putting a couch and a beer fridge in there
doesn't prevent aviation use, nor does parking your car in it while
you're out flying.

I think the idea is a good one, even if the implementation needs
tweaking.

[Tony Cox]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Tony Cox wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
> > ruling from the local FSDO...
> >
>
> Has nothing to do with the FSDO. The airport exists for
> aviation. The airport has a right to insure the proper
> usage of the property will promote aviation and aircraft
> operations. On the other hand, if they granted someone
> a long term lease to build a hangar on the property and
> the lease does not state that the hangar is to be used
> for an airplane and/or aviation related activites then
> that's a different story.

I think we all agree that hangars are for aircraft, not
storage. But then if one can fit a boat under the wing
of a Cessna, why not? It's not like its taking space that
could otherwise be used for another plane.

But I'm not out to start a debate on what *ought* to be
stored. Rather, it is the FAA missives that *regulate*
what can be stored if, in fact, they actually exist.

We are being told that *no personal items* whatever
can be stored in hangars. This means no tables, chairs,
sofas or fridges, as well as "arguable" items such as
RVs and boats. Further, we're being assured that there
is a FAA regulation that mandates this. Frankly, we don't
believe it, but proving it is another matter. Looking at
the various grant assurance passages reveals nothing. Checking
the advisory circulars draws a blank too. So what is left?
Opinions from the local FSDO is all that comes to mind.

What I'm hoping for is for someone to say "Yes, we had
a similar situation at xxxxx and asked FSDO for a ruling.
And this is what they said...".

[Tony Cox]

ktbr wrote:
> Don Tuite wrote:
> > There's a 20 year waiting list at our airport. These are county-built
> > hangars. Guys on the list with working airplanes seem happy to have
> > the airport manager evict people who use their hangars for storage
> > lockers.
>
> Any airport that thinks it is a good idea to lease their hangars
> out to people who are using them to store furniture in is not
> serious about aviation.

I agree, but sometimes it happens without the airport management
even knowing about it. Then you'll find out how hard it is to put
right.

In our case, we have some leasehold agreements that don't specify
aviation activity. We have some that do, but whose owners have been
in blatant default for *decades*. We have a sprinkling of the well-
connected who ignore the regulations entirely and get away with it.

But the vast majority of us are bone fide pilots. We put our planes
to bed at night and then socialize in the hangars. Lot of fun that'd
be on the concrete floor with no beer. Some of us fly in from out of
town on the weekend, park the plane and swap it for a boat to go
on the lake. We're caught up in a "rationalization" caused by the
accumulated mis-management over several years and are doing
our best to preserve the environment we love.

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Tony Cox wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>It should have been in the lease agreement. If not, you should be able
>>to modify the lease with certain terms. You'll need to review the
>>original lease and perhaps speak with a property attorney.
>>
>
>
> Well, our situation is rather complex. Leases are governed
> by eight different agreements (depending on when the hangars
> were constructed), some of which have blanket clauses that
> incorporate the general airport rules and regs, others that
> don't. That's why I didn't want to get into the specifics of the
> our leases and just (hopefully) trawl for what people at other
> airports have experienced. We have obtained legal advice, and
> the opinion, FWIW, is that the lease rules are most probably
> unenforceable due to the airport's neglect over the last several
> years.
>
> Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
> aircraft is more of a procedural problem for us airport tenants
> attempting to regularize the various leases than a threat to
> our lifestyle -- no one in the City is prepared to consider any
> concrete proposal because they confidently expect the FAA
> to "rule" definitively on the issue. Those of us with more experience
> with the FAA think that getting anyone in the local FSDO to
> commit is likely to be as frustrating as waiting for Godot.
>
> That's why I'd like to hear from anyone who *has* managed
> to get a ruling. Failing that, "points on the graph" at FAA-funded
> airports would be very helpful.
>

I have not read all the other responses so I may duplicate some here. I
have been involved in my home airport for some time and member and
chairman of the advisory board. Early on when we really didn't have
management, people would rent hangars for local storage. When I became
chairman I worked with the city to have regulations to stop that
practice. We have limited hangars and they are not to be used for
household storage. We came up with some general guidelines and in no
particular order. Contents had to be approved by the fire marshall, had
to have a plane or *actively* working on a plane, you could have
incidental items in the hangar as long as you met the requirement on
aircraft. There were a few others but I cannot remember now. Oh, also
were insurance requirements for plane and auto if you brought it on the
ramp.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Newps]

Tony Cox wrote:

>
> But I'm not out to start a debate on what *ought* to be
> stored. Rather, it is the FAA missives that *regulate*
> what can be stored if, in fact, they actually exist.

They do not and never will. It is not a Federal issue but rather local.


>
> We are being told that *no personal items* whatever
> can be stored in hangars. This means no tables, chairs,
> sofas or fridges, as well as "arguable" items such as
> RVs and boats. Further, we're being assured that there
> is a FAA regulation that mandates this. Frankly, we don't
> believe it, but proving it is another matter.

Why do you have to prove it? You can't prove a negative. Make them
show you the documents.

[TxSrv]

Tony Cox wrote:
> What I'm hoping for is for someone to say "Yes, we had
> a similar situation at xxxxx and asked FSDO for a ruling.
> And this is what they said...".

AIP Grants are managed by a regional airport grants office. Call
them and they will explain. There was a GAA Report few years
back harshly criticizing FAA for allowing nonaviation businesses
onto subsidized airports. A rented "storage locker" for anything
is nonaviation. Taxpayer money is not to spent to develop a
field for other than aeronautical activities. Period.

Fred F.

[BT]

FAA Order 5190.6A
FAA AC 150/5190-5

Airports are to be used for aviation. A hanger without an airplane, is not
being used for aviation.
FAA Grant Assurance Dollars are in jepordy if not using an airport for
aviation.
Normal hanger stuff like work benches, tables chairs, water should be
allowed.
That's not a couch, that is a pilot resting area between flights.
That's not a couch, that is a pilot flight mission planning area. Put out a
coffee table with charts and approach plates.
Doesn't your airport have WiFi access for weather information?
That's not a fridge, that's a storage locker for inflight survival items.

BT

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
> who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
> but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
> discovered FAA support for this position during his
> "on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
> aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
> anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
> skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
> one way or another.
>
> Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
> originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
> exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
> of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
> FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
> hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
> 139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
> and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
> store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
> our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
> cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
> and comfort items along with aircraft.
>
> Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
> ruling from the local FSDO...
>

[Frank Stutzman]

BT > wrote:
>
> Airports are to be used for aviation. A hanger without an airplane, is not
> being used for aviation.

Say I pull my plane out and go around the pattern a couple of times. Is
my hangar still "being used for aviation?"

What if I take my plane on a long vacation and the hangar is empty for
several weeks? Is it still "being used for aviation?"

Maybe I spend half the year in Florida and the other half in Minnisota.
I always want my plane in a hangar, though, and can afford having two
hangars, one of which will be empty at any point in time. Is the
empty one still "used for aviation?"

Say I am that rich guy. When I'm in Minnisota, I want to put the boat I
own in Florida in storage. Could I put it in the hangar? No, that
wouldn't "be for aviation."

But, oddly enough, leaving it empty would be. Go figure.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 06:43:06 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman
> wrote:

>BT > wrote:
>>
>> Airports are to be used for aviation. A hanger without an airplane, is not
>> being used for aviation.
>
>Say I pull my plane out and go around the pattern a couple of times. Is
>my hangar still "being used for aviation?"
>
>What if I take my plane on a long vacation and the hangar is empty for
>several weeks? Is it still "being used for aviation?"
>
>Maybe I spend half the year in Florida and the other half in Minnisota.
>I always want my plane in a hangar, though, and can afford having two
>hangars, one of which will be empty at any point in time. Is the
>empty one still "used for aviation?"
>
>Say I am that rich guy. When I'm in Minnisota, I want to put the boat I
>own in Florida in storage. Could I put it in the hangar? No, that
>wouldn't "be for aviation."
>
>But, oddly enough, leaving it empty would be. Go figure.

At our airport, you'd be out of the hangar and one of the guys on the
waiting list would be in it.

Don

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 15 Nov 2006 13:21:30 -0800, "Tony Cox" > wrote:

>At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
>who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
>but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
>discovered FAA support for this position during his
>"on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
>aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
>anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
>skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
>one way or another.
>

Our hangars all have these clauses in the leases and they are in the
airport rules.
>Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
>originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
>exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
>of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
>FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
>hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
>139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.
>
>Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
>and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can

Here even though they have all that in the contracts, it's never been
enforced nor has non FBO maintenance. Recently they had talked about
"protecting" the FBO from the outside maintenance. I suggested they
might want to avoid using those words as "protecting" the FBO is
frowned on by the FAA. AOPA said that's treading on very thin ice.
They've also said we can not stay overnight at our hangars, but I've
never seen that enforced either.

They also came up with a whole set of rules for the Ultra Lights, but
they expected them to belong to a specific society, had to carry
radios (good idea, but bad rule), specific traffic patterns and some
other regs. They ended up throwing the whole thing out including the
so called "through the fence" maintenance.

I expect one of these days we will end up with a powered gate and
cards, but we already have gates, chains, and locks. I have a key
which I paid for. According to existing regs the gates are supposed
to be closed and locked after either 7 or 8 PM. When I leave I lock
up. Apparently I'm one of the very few as I've locked a few inside the
fence a few times. After all they are supposed to have a key to be in
there. The biggest problem with the gates is not the tenants, but
airport personnel and snow removal equipment. Couple of times they've
moved a few concrete pads and gate posts.<:-))

If I see any one I usually check to make sure they have a key, but I'm
not going to check in the hangars. It's a big place.

>store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
>our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
>cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
>and comfort items along with aircraft.
>
>Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
>ruling from the local FSDO...

Depends more on your city's rules and their insurance carrier. There
are a lot of if's and's and but's. Rather than ask here I'd give the
AOPA a call. They are going to ask what's in the contracts, what are
the existing city regs, and what does their insurance carrier say.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[houstondan]

as a retired city manager type, i suggest you survey what other
airports in the area are doing in this regard then contact the city
manager as a group (assuming the c.m. is the airport managers boss)
with your helpful suggestions for improvment. i'll bet that if you
survey all the pilots you'll find a number who are active in the
political affairs of the community (write checks). after you give the
city manager a chance to work things out you should then go after the
mayor and council but it's not really cool to do that as a first move.
sounds like the local airport manager is just trying to do a good job
and just needs a little help understanding what that is. the city
manager, mayor and council have lots of stuff to worry about without
something like this. generally, i never liked department heads getting
groups riled-up without a darn good reason and this isn't one.

have you called a.o.p.a. to see if they have any "go by" type data you
could use as backup?

dan

[Jim Stewart]

Tony Cox wrote:

> "ktbr" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tony Cox wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
>>>ruling from the local FSDO...
>>>
>>
>>Has nothing to do with the FSDO. The airport exists for
>>aviation. The airport has a right to insure the proper
>>usage of the property will promote aviation and aircraft
>>operations. On the other hand, if they granted someone
>>a long term lease to build a hangar on the property and
>>the lease does not state that the hangar is to be used
>>for an airplane and/or aviation related activites then
>>that's a different story.
>
>
> I think we all agree that hangars are for aircraft, not
> storage. But then if one can fit a boat under the wing
> of a Cessna, why not? It's not like its taking space that
> could otherwise be used for another plane.
>
> But I'm not out to start a debate on what *ought* to be
> stored. Rather, it is the FAA missives that *regulate*
> what can be stored if, in fact, they actually exist.
>
> We are being told that *no personal items* whatever
> can be stored in hangars. This means no tables, chairs,
> sofas or fridges, as well as "arguable" items such as
> RVs and boats. Further, we're being assured that there
> is a FAA regulation that mandates this. Frankly, we don't
> believe it, but proving it is another matter. Looking at
> the various grant assurance passages reveals nothing. Checking
> the advisory circulars draws a blank too. So what is left?
> Opinions from the local FSDO is all that comes to mind.
>
> What I'm hoping for is for someone to say "Yes, we had
> a similar situation at xxxxx and asked FSDO for a ruling.
> And this is what they said...".

I guess my only question is why the burden
of proof isn't on the manager instead of you?

[Dave S]

Tony Cox wrote:
Further, we're being assured that there
> is a FAA regulation that mandates this.

The enforcing authority needs to show chapter and verse in the
applicable federal rule book. It's their burden to show it, not your
burden to find it.



Frankly, we don't
> believe it, but proving it is another matter.

I think we will find WMD's in Iraq before you find a federal rule that
prohibits what household items you can store in a hangar that you built
with your own money on a 30 year lease..

Dave