ThIs is a MUST READ!!!!!!!!

[sonex1649]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FA ... 534-1.html



Please read and respond it's very important for us homebuilders

[MichaelFarley56]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

At my local airport, the manager of the airport recently kicked out a hangar tenant who had been leasing for the last several years, all under the premise that he was "building an airplane." After two years of this excuse, he was asked what all he had actually done on his project and it was discovered that he had a total of three generic aluminum wing ribs as "proof" he was working on a project. Shortly afterwards, he was asked to forefit his hangar to others with airplanes until he actually needed a hangar, so he bought a rusted out, stripped down tublar fuselage of a Tailwind for a few hundred bucks as further proof he was actually working on an airplane.

After this fuselage sat for another two years untouched, they finally evicted him under the promise that he didn't need a hangar at that point but could lease another hangar in the future when he actually needs one.

I know this is a slippery slope and my first thought is that the FAA should leave management rights to the local airport authorities and managers as to who gets leased a hangar. I'm really sick and tired of the FAA overstepping their oversight and trying to enforce rules they simply create on a whim.

At the same time, in a (slightly twisted) way I can't help but partially agree with the intent of this idea. I had to wait on a hangar for my project for a long time because all were leased, some to people who managed to shoehorn an abandoned airplane into their hangar completly full of junk. Even now, out of the nearly 50 hangars at my home base, only around 15-20 of the airplanes actually stored there get flown with any regularity. If a local homebuilder is nearing completion on a project and needs a hangar, is it fair they don't get one because someone else is using a hangar as a storage bin?

Just for the record, my home base is very pro-experimental airplanes and has one of the only local maintenance shops that is willing to work on homebuilts. For the tenants, the rules are that each hangar must have an airplane with a current Airworthiness Certificate, or be an Experimental that's actually being assembled on a regular basis. And there are at least 4 different projects currently under construction there.

Is it any wonder why general aviation is quickly dying off? So sad... :cry:

[fastj22]

Read the following article on the link.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Ha ... 540-1.html

Seems the EAA is in favor of the ruling.

I know at my airport, my landlord charges $100 more per month if you don't have an airplane. I would say at least 40% of the hangars at KFLY don't have aircraft in them. They are stuffed with household goods and cars. Which I think actually raises the rental costs.

[Sonerai13]

Seems the EAA is in favor of the ruling.

The new verbiage is actually a step in the right direction because construction of an amateur-built aircraft was not previously mentioned at all, causing some airports to disallow ANY construction in a hangar and requiring that the airplane have a valid airworthiness certificate BEFORE renting a hangar at all. This new verbiage at least gives the homebuilder some leverage when trying to rent a hangar for final assembly, rigging, and ground testing before flight. It's a net gain, even though some media are trying to paint it as a bad thing.

[sonex1649]

I understand the new verbiage, how will this affect kit companies will they stop them selling and doing business at airports , if you read it it says kit building is not aeronautical until your ready for assembly, the companies can store finished planes in there hangars but should not be allowed to conduct business with kits at airports there us no airworthiness certificate for a kit for sale, just playing devils advocate it could happen the way it's written. For the record I just rented my first hangar and proudly building my sonex which I'm very proud of

[Sonex1414]

I can empathize with both points of view ond this issue. Having said that, let me put in a shameless plug. I am planning on selling my hangar/house at 59 Old MIll Road, West Ossipee, NH. I live on a manicured taxiway to an equally manicured 4,000 foot grass runway with lights and vasi. You can build/store whatever you want in your own hangar! You also have an equal say in how the airpark is run. You an even be president! But back to the issue at hand. It seems that communications is the root problem. What were the rules and conditions when the lease was established? Were the rules changed unilaterally? Generally the ruling body can change things when they want, but they have to compensate people if they have "damaged" them. For example, the government can take your property for a road, but they must compensate you for doing so. Keep us informed.

Tom

[fastj22]

I believe this ruling applies only to hangars that reside on airport property (owned by the airport) that receive FAA funding. It does not apply to private airports or private hangars that have through the fence access to FAA funded airports. My airport is a private airport authority (public access) that receives FAA money. However, all the hangars are privately owned, the land not owned by the airport authority and access is "thru the fence". The FAA only provides funds to help maintain the ramp, runway and equipment. Nothing for the roads/taxiways to the hangar condos. That is funded through a landowners condo association.

I've heard of a similar problem with FBOs claiming no aircraft maintenance can occur unless done at the FBO. The FAA came down on them if they accept FAA dollars. Now of course a totally private airport can make any rules they want.

[maishathelion]

The FAA's sole reason for existence is SAFETY! How does this fall under that mandate??? and i have asked them that in my official comment.

[Rynoth]

The way I'm reading this is that the previous FAA policy was zero-tolerance for anything in hangars not directly related to keeping a flying aircraft flying. This new policy now allows completion of homebuilts that in final stages of completion. Thus, it's less restrictive.

I think what makes this a bit confusing is the fact that they weren't previously enforcing the policy very strictly. Who knows how strictly the new policy will be enforced.

As stated by the FAA proposed policy:

"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."

Here is the EAA's take on the new policy proposal:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and- ... %3A+140724

[sonex1649]

There should be no restriction if you want to build a airplane at airport , you get assistance from fellow builders and pilots.