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

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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/archive...il#222678T he
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/archive...t=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.

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