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

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.

On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, 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.


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.

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/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.


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." :-)

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/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.


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.

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.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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.

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

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.

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/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.

--
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

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/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.





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 ??

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/archive...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/arti...031/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?