FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

Silvaire

Silvaire

En-Route
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
4,612
Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
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.

Are you kidding me? What is up with these guys? They catch the County Sheriffs parking their SWAT vans in hangars and go after homebuilders? :mad2:

Avweb link
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
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.

Are you kidding me? What is up with these guys? They catch the County Sheriffs parking their SWAT vans in hangars and go after homebuilders? :mad2:

Avweb link
Click to expand...

FAA does not have a clue. But they are trying to free up hangers that have 10+ yrs of a build project??
 
Silvaire said:
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.

Are you kidding me? What is up with these guys? They catch the County Sheriffs parking their SWAT vans in hangars and go after homebuilders? :mad2:

Avweb link
Click to expand...

Next thing you know there will be a yearly requirement aircraft must fly to be considered "active".


Take your aircraft PROJECTS home and all the community hangar flying with them. :mad2:

As the waiting lists for hangars evaporates and vacant ones sit empty the gate will swing the other way?
 
Last edited:
While I think this is pretty idiotic, I at least applaud their efforts to clamp down on the folks using valuable hangar space as a cheap warehouse which we've seen a lot of around here. 1500sf for $150-200 is pretty cheap storage space and tempting to abuse.
 
While I agree with the premise, I disagree with it being regulated at a federal level. I believe the local airport authorities should keep things like this a bit tighter. When I worked for an airport, we had a wait list of over 130 people wanting hangars with calls just about daily, while many were taken by inactive aircraft or storage. While I was able to oust a few that were obviously boxes full of old clothes and stuff, I wasn't able to touch some, such as one that had a beat-up wing on a saw-horse claiming it was "actively under construction" even though it had an inch of dust on it... :mad2:
 
Do you guys know there are hangar shortages in some parts of the country? You may check with the kit people for stats on how many kit planes are started and never finished. Then there is the issue of completion times for the planes that are completed. In the mean time, a hangar that could be occupied by a flying machine is occupyed by a pile of parts. Good job FAA.
 
Clip4 said:
Do you guys know there are hangar shortages in some parts of the country? You may check with the kit people for stats on how many kit planes are started and never finished. Then there is the issue of completion times for the planes that are completed. In the mean time, a hangar that could be occupied by a flying machine is occupyed by a pile of parts. Good job FAA.
Click to expand...
So, if I own a hangar, I'm not allowed to keep aircraft parts and tools in it?
 
Oh great, the "over-worked so much that we can't get important things done" FAA can now add a Hangar Inspection Division (HID), complete with directors, associate directors, deputies, assistant deputies, specialists, specialist assistants, and all the other bureaucratic layers to fix a problem that isn't even their problem. Think of the nepotistic opportunities!
 
This is part of the issue. I know it's Federal money but there are privately owned hangars in the mix. I know because I own one and although I am not a homebuilder I think this is complete BS. There certainly are abuses and as cited in the article many of them are committed by the County itself. I've personally seen SWAT vans in County hangars. I've also seen hangars full of everything not at all associated with aviation but to go after people who are building an airplane is just completely off the tracks.

I don't care if the wing has dust on it, if it's a wing rather than a boat hull that's being built then it is definitely aeronautical in nature and there are plenty of true abusers to go after without singling out homebuilders. This is utter nonsense right up there with them getting their underpants in a wad over having a sofa or fridge in your hangar. GA is hurting enough without the active efforts of the FAA to completely kill it off.
 
There isn't much hangar space at my home field and right now there's a 3 year wait for a spot. On the row I'm on that has about 14 hangars...I know that 6 of them are guys building planes. None of them are flying and they've all been in there at least as long as I've been flying which is over a year and a half.

I don't know what the answer is - I know the suggestion is to build it at home or and then ship the parts to the t-hangar when you're ready for actually assembly. I mean, even at my field...by the time you start building a plane and put yourself on the list...your hangar is ready when you are ready to assemble the airplane.
 
kenjr said:
There isn't much hangar space at my home field and right now there's a 3 year wait for a spot...
Click to expand...

I understand that but in my case I own my hangar. Basically I am just using a tie down spot that I provided my own cover for. Granted I pay the county three times as much as a bare tie down and they even charge people more for tie downs that are between the hangars because of the wind protection we provide them but really if push comes to shove I'll leave and take the damn hangar with me.

But that's not the point of this thread. I'm just saying that, regardless of hangar shortages, you can't declare that someone building an airplane is the cause of the problem. To be honest I look at most airports and they have an enormous amount of empty space. I have never really understood why they insist on this T-Hangar setup. I mean, how much space does that really save compared to full box hangars? Considering there is all of this empty real estate. It's like they were expecting billions more of us to own private aircraft than what really happened.

And you know what? It ain't gonna happen. There aren't gonna be billions more of us so lighten up FAA. I don't think County hangars are a loss so why don't they just build more? They've got the room.
 
Last edited:
There used to be a 3 year wait at Deer Valley... then they started cracking down "sub-leasers" and "hangar-loaners", and comparing N-numbers in the hangar with the rental agreements. Hmmm, the wait is now something like 3 months.
PS. Downturn in economy and GA flying helped.
 
Thats a nice move in the right direction to help homebuilders. Eaa is good about lobbying for pragmatic steps that the feds can go along with. If aopa had been pushing it would have been all or none, therefore none. Glad to see the current policy go. It prohibited everything.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
While I agree with the premise, I disagree with it being regulated at a federal level.
Click to expand...

Federal funds = federal purse strings.

From the article:

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,"
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
My home field has 129 hangars with 7 aircraft based here.

The hangars were sold as 'toyboxes in paradise' for your snowmobiles, storage, even a warehouse for your business.
 
I'm mixed on this one. Our local airport has a 3-4 year waiting list for a hangar, and there are several project planes in some of the hangars.

My local airport has been buckling down and telling people they need airworthy planes in the hangars. It's not only directed at people working on planes, but also those that are sitting on planes that haven't flown in many years. I don't know how much of an impact fuel sales make, but they did mention that non flying planes don't buy fuel.

It would be nice if all the hangars were filled with routine flyers, but I don't know where I would personally build a plane if I couldn't rent a hangar. I guess I could empty my garage, but not everyone has that luxury.
 
Hook - it is 99 and 44/100ths percent.
Majority of airports are now owned by state or local municipalities because of liability/insurance issues and it is impossible for any governmental unit to resist free cash from the feds.
Now, I'm in an enviable position in that I own my hangar unit at a county owned airport.
One time the feds came to my airport and had the manager unlock the rental hangars so they could record tail numbers. My door was open with the engine cowling off and a trouble light hanging (I was gone at the moment) He said they ran ahead of him they were so excited to see if they could violate me. He caught up as one was thumbing through the log books which were on the wing and the other was peering into the engine compartment and told them they were on private property and that I was a hard nosed sob. Said they sulked and acted like 3 year old's who had just been told they couldn't have any candy (they did march out of my hangar though)
 
hook_dupin said:
What percentage of airports actually accept federal funding anyway?
Click to expand...

Gotta be c!ose to 100%.

Being a home builder most here would think I am against the FAA even monitoring hangars, but the reality is there are many builders on the 10 year plan. We have one guy building a Pelican for the last 20 years with no end in sight. :rolleyes: Delusional comes to mind. :rolleyes: Hangars at airports should be used for flying airplanes, or airplanes in final assembly to be inspected and flown in 60 days.

Leaving it to the local airport authority won't work either. The problem is the "good ol boy" network will favor friends over people who actually need hangars. We fight this all the time at our airport. Boat storage, race cars, motor homes, furniture storage.

If you run into issues with hangars being used for storage call the EAA legal department and ask them for info on hangar enforcement. The airport management MUST move non aviation tenants out within 30 days to make room for aviation related activities.
 
Last edited:
If there are all of these three year wait lists for hangars...Why not BUILD some hangars?
 
Just when you thought the FAA couldn't be more idiotic, along comes this insane "clarification."
 
CT4ME said:
There used to be a 3 year wait at Deer Valley... then they started cracking down "sub-leasers" and "hangar-loaners", and comparing N-numbers in the hangar with the rental agreements. Hmmm, the wait is now something like 3 months.
PS. Downturn in economy and GA flying helped.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Since they already peaked in the hangars at CJR to send personal property tax bills they knew what planes were in there. One year they decided to send the hangar lease to the aircraft OWNER that was based there rather than the person who had been previously leasing the hangar. Our waiting list went from infinite to less than a year.

You have 30 days from the time you dispose of the listed aircraft to replace it with another you OWN or they cancel your lease.
 
flyingron said:
You have 30 days from the time you dispose of the listed aircraft to replace it with another you OWN or they cancel your lease.
Click to expand...

Which is completely reasonable. After all, it is so easy to buy and sell aircraft. It almost never takes months to find a suitable aircraft and buy it. From the time people decide to buy an airplane until they actually have it in their possesion is always measured in days, not weeks or months.

:mad2:
 
what are you guys complaining about ? isn't this the same crowd who wanted to figure out how to get the RV's out of their local hangars so they could have airplanes? Here ya go
 
Kelvin said:
If there are all of these three year wait lists for hangars...Why not BUILD some hangars?
Click to expand...

I've asked that, too. Unlike some areas that are busting at the seams, we actually have land available. I'm sure it's some sort of funding issue.
 
Student Pilot here...

A. Are there restrictions in hangar leases that hamper the "abuse" by non-Aviators?

B. Are you, or rather should you be required to own a plane in order to lease a hangar?

C. If you're keeping the terms of your lease, how can the FAA "govern" a hangar's use from DC? How can they dictate how you use space that you pay for?
 
valittu said:
Student Pilot here...

A. Are there restrictions in hangar leases that hamper the "abuse" by non-Aviators?

B. Are you, or rather should you be required to own a plane in order to lease a hangar?

C. If you're keeping the terms of your lease, how can the FAA "govern" a hangar's use from DC? How can they dictate how you use space that you pay for?
Click to expand...

Considering the federal government pays well over 50% (sometimes 90%) of the cost of many hangars, they not only have the right, but they have the obligation to the taxpayers to ensure that they are being used for their intended purpose...storage of airworthy airplanes that need access to the runway.

I do not agree that the Feds should govern the use of private hangars but I can also see their argument for doing so if that hangar is sitting on land bought with federal subsidies.

Note: I have no problem with a city using a hangar for storage if there are empty hangars available as that's also wise use of taxpayer Money. But if there's a waiting list? No. That said, I've lived in a lot of places across the US and can tell you that many local governing bodies make the Feds look honest by comparison.
 
Last edited:
They got way bigger fish to fry then home builders. This is about the dumbest move the Feds have made in quite a while. Crack down on the landscapers and plumbing companies using hangars as well as the car collectors and rv storage people - then you'll see a much bigger availability of hangar space.

Do the Feds REALLY think having people out on the highways with airplane parts strapped to the vehicles is any better ?
 
They're cracking down on it all...the OP just chose to emphasize that small part of it in the thread title.
 
My previous home base already required these terms. There had to be an airworthy aircraft in the hangar and the N number had to match the one on the lease. They are full & have a waiting list, plus they just built 10 new T hangars. They are doing a great job at managing this scarce resource.

HOWEVER, I would still love to see something that would allow final assembly of homebuilt aircraft assembled mostly off site. Maybe something like a 6 month grace period to get it from complete sub assemblies to fully built.

I would also love to see a back corner or an area devoted to homebuilding and restoration efforts.

Is the route around this to buy an assembled and airworthy miniMax http://www.teammini-max.com/ and park it in the corner, then use the rest of the hangar to build your plane?

Jim
 
Kelvin said:
If there are all of these three year wait lists for hangars...Why not BUILD some hangars?
Click to expand...

Or...raise rental rates on the existing ones, as demand is outstripping supply.

If the issue is people using hangars for cheap warehouse space, again, the issue is that they are being under-charged in terms of rent.
 
The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a "non-aeronautical use"

I'm waiting to see the result when they hand Boeing an eviction notice for using their hangar to build airplanes. :rolleyes:
 
Norman said:
The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a "non-aeronautical use"

I'm waiting to see the result when they hand Boeing an eviction notice for using their hangar to build airplanes. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But those manufacturing facilities are on land owned by Boeing or a Boeing real estate subsidiary, IIRC.
 
We like the homebuilders in their 'man caves' who are always generous with their time and their goodies when we need little tweeks to our aircraft.

Many of the guys are there a lot giving the place life. It's wrong to go after them.
 
More government stupidity.
At our local airport there is a guy who uses a hanger to store the contents of his mother-in-laws house, and her car. She's been dead 15 years, but the monthly on the hanger is less than the cost of storage units.
How about going after people like him?
 
When the gov't pays for your sandbox sometimes you get to play in kittylitter.
 
flyingron said:
Exactly. Since they already peaked in the hangars at CJR to send personal property tax bills they knew what planes were in there. One year they decided to send the hangar lease to the aircraft OWNER that was based there rather than the person who had been previously leasing the hangar. Our waiting list went from infinite to less than a year.

You have 30 days from the time you dispose of the listed aircraft to replace it with another you OWN or they cancel your lease.
Click to expand...

That doen't make any sense. When can't I lease an aircraft and pay for its storage? That would make me the hangar leasee, but not the aircraft owner. What about club aircraft? Suppose the hangar leasee is a memebr of the club that owns the aircraft?

The focus should be on providing hangars to aircraft in use, as opposed to RV storage, etc. Nothing doing to go overboard and harrass non-owners who actualy have an aircraft in the hangar.
 
Silvaire said:
I understand that but in my case I own my hangar. Basically I am just using a tie down spot that I provided my own cover for. Granted I pay the county three times as much as a bare tie down and they even charge people more for tie downs that are between the hangars because of the wind protection we provide them but really if push comes to shove I'll leave and take the damn hangar with me.

But that's not the point of this thread. I'm just saying that, regardless of hangar shortages, you can't declare that someone building an airplane is the cause of the problem. To be honest I look at most airports and they have an enormous amount of empty space. I have never really understood why they insist on this T-Hangar setup. I mean, how much space does that really save compared to full box hangars? Considering there is all of this empty real estate. It's like they were expecting billions more of us to own private aircraft than what really happened.

And you know what? It ain't gonna happen. There aren't gonna be billions more of us so lighten up FAA. I don't think County hangars are a loss so why don't they just build more? They've got the room.
Click to expand...


Do you own the land under your hangar?
 
But an airworthy Flybaby for ten grand and keep it in annual. Fold the wings and park it in the back of your hangar. When you finish building your new plane sell the Flybaby for ten grand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top