revised FAA Order 5190.6B

In article ,
Bug Dout wrote:

cavelamb writes:

This came in by email this evening.
Anybody heard anything about it?

Sounds like an alphabet aviation group trying to scare its members for
more dollars. The federal bogeyman has replaced the commies under the
bed and the monsters in the closet.

The threat on through-the-fence operations is quite serious! The new reg
attempts to do away with taxiway access from off-airport property
residences and businesses. There are some airports that have adjacent
hangar homes or businesses that have airport access and are in danger of
having their access denied.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

"

The threat on through-the-fence operations is quite serious! The new reg
attempts to do away with taxiway access from off-airport property
residences and businesses. There are some airports that have adjacent
hangar homes or businesses that have airport access and are in danger of
having their access denied.



When shopping for an airpark home we looked at Independence Oregon which is
a county owned airport with homes adjacent to the airport.

I'm real glad we wound up on a private airpark and don't have to worry about
a gate being shut and locked.

Paul
N1431A
2AZ1
www.indianhillsairpark.com

In article ,
"Tri-Pacer" wrote:

"

The threat on through-the-fence operations is quite serious! The new reg
attempts to do away with taxiway access from off-airport property
residences and businesses. There are some airports that have adjacent
hangar homes or businesses that have airport access and are in danger of
having their access denied.



When shopping for an airpark home we looked at Independence Oregon which is
a county owned airport with homes adjacent to the airport.

I'm real glad we wound up on a private airpark and don't have to worry about
a gate being shut and locked.

Paul
N1431A
2AZ1
www.indianhillsairpark.com

I concur. Eleven years ago, I retired and wanted to move to an airpark
with a hangar home. I bought the books and found it easy to separate the
wheat from the chaff.

One requirement was that the homeowners' Assn. own the airport. We
settled on Spruce Creek and have never been sorry.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Bug Dout wrote:

cavelamb writes:

This came in by email this evening.
Anybody heard anything about it?
Sounds like an alphabet aviation group trying to scare its members for
more dollars. The federal bogeyman has replaced the commies under the
bed and the monsters in the closet.

The threat on through-the-fence operations is quite serious! The new reg
attempts to do away with taxiway access from off-airport property
residences and businesses. There are some airports that have adjacent
hangar homes or businesses that have airport access and are in danger of
having their access denied.


I concur...I read that section very close.

Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
"inconsistent" use of land on airport property...

Scott

Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
"inconsistent" use of land on airport property...

Scott

Now THAT is good news. My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
for $500/Mo T-hangars. 75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.

"bildan" wrote in message
...

Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
"inconsistent" use of land on airport property...

Scott

Now THAT is good news. My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
for $500/Mo T-hangars. 75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.

This is a real ongoing debate, and on the surface it's easy to be on both
sides of it.

However, the current and growing interpretation seems to be that you can not
have other personal property, in addition to your aircraft, in your
hangar--and that is just plain unreasonable!

Therefore, I have to come down on the side opposing this rule--as well as
opposing the denials of TTF access.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
"bildan" wrote in message
...
Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
"inconsistent" use of land on airport property...

Scott
Now THAT is good news. My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
for $500/Mo T-hangars. 75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.

This is a real ongoing debate, and on the surface it's easy to be on both
sides of it.

However, the current and growing interpretation seems to be that you can not
have other personal property, in addition to your aircraft, in your
hangar--and that is just plain unreasonable!

Therefore, I have to come down on the side opposing this rule--as well as
opposing the denials of TTF access.

Peter


However, in my case as a renter, it would be good for me. The hangar
owner stores 5 to 6 cars during the winter along with my Corben and his
206. There have been times I have gone out during the winter on a nice
day to fly (yes, open cockpit) and I cannot get my plane out because he
has moved my plane and wrestled all the cars in there. Yes, I know,
it's his hangar, but I get burned paying $145/month and then can't
always use my plane when I want...

Scott wrote:
However, in my case as a renter, it would be good for me. The hangar
owner stores 5 to 6 cars during the winter along with my Corben and
his 206. There have been times I have gone out during the winter on a
nice day to fly (yes, open cockpit) and I cannot get my plane out
because he has moved my plane and wrestled all the cars in there.
Yes, I know, it's his hangar, but I get burned paying $145/month and
then can't always use my plane when I want...

I'll take it as a given that your complaint is valid, but even then I'm not
sure why such contractual conflicts have to literally become a federal
issue for you to get them resolved.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Scott wrote:
However, in my case as a renter, it would be good for me. The hangar
owner stores 5 to 6 cars during the winter along with my Corben and
his 206. There have been times I have gone out during the winter on a
nice day to fly (yes, open cockpit) and I cannot get my plane out
because he has moved my plane and wrestled all the cars in there.
Yes, I know, it's his hangar, but I get burned paying $145/month and
then can't always use my plane when I want...

I'll take it as a given that your complaint is valid, but even then I'm not
sure why such contractual conflicts have to literally become a federal
issue for you to get them resolved.

Oh...I'm not saying that that the Feds need to or necessarily should
"resolve" conflicts like mine (which really is minor and after this
happened to me once, I let the owner know that I do fly in the winter...
he assumed I didn't since it is an open cockpit plane). I "think" where
the issue stems from is that some folks (like my hangar owner) lets
non-aviaiton folks store their cars in his hangar and they come out and
move their cars in and out and have to drive down the taxiway to get to
our row of hangars. The Feds probably get uptight about security
(which, again, isn't the only way this issue gets their undies in a
bunch, I'm sure.) We do not (yet, and hopefully NEVER) have a "real"
fence around the airport...just a barb-wire fence and a non-locked
cattle gate across the driveway....

Scott

On Jan 14, 8:30*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"bildan" wrote in message

...



Another section I found interesting (if I read it correctly as I breezed
through it)...storing cars, lumber, etc. in a hangar is an
"inconsistent" use of land on airport property...

Scott

Now THAT is good news. *My local GA airport has a 5 year waiting list
for $500/Mo T-hangars. *75% of them are full of old cars and boats.
If the hangar lessee's are forced to clear out their junk, it means
more room for airplanes - possibly at a lower price.

This is a real ongoing debate, and on the surface it's easy to be on both
sides of it.

However, the current and growing interpretation seems to be that you can not
have other personal property, in addition to your aircraft, in your
hangar--and that is just plain unreasonable!

Therefore, I have to come down on the side opposing this rule--as well as
opposing the denials of TTF access.

Peter

May of the hangars are leased by people who hate airplanes and would
like the airport closed so they wouldn't have to deal with security
hassles - if they can keep their cheap storage space for old cars.
Meanwhile, hundreds of airplanes sit out in the weather

No doubt an "airplanes only" rule would inconvenience some but the
majority of airplanes owners would benefit from the sudden
availability of hangars.

Maybe a compromise is any hangar containing an airplane could also
house "parts and equipment necessary for it's maintenance".

BTW, I used to know an FBO who had an interesting spin on hangar
rent. The amount of rent you paid depended on how much you flew -
frequent fliers paid much less than those who never flew their
airplanes. The rent to hangar non-flying airplanes escalated until
the "hangar queens" were driven off. His fuel sales were very good
and his service shop was always busy.