FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

As for the build more hangars argument...

I was shopping for a hangar at my local uncontrolled field. Two year wait. Just for the hell of it, I asked what the rent was. "$200". Ooookaaaay. Why don't you build more hangars? "Oh, we couldn't it's too expensive and there's no money in the budget for it right now."

So I ask, 'cause that's what I do... "Wait. You're practically giving the hangars away, you have a two year wait, but you won't build more. You realize, right, you could keep raising the rent until the wait list goes away and that'd more than fund the new hangars?"

"oh no... we couldn't do that. No one could afford that."
 
JHW said:
like I said, if the current prohibition isn't affecting them, why so gloom and doom now ?
Click to expand...

Well for one thing, despite the existing rules and however long they have been on the books, it wasn't until very recently that we heard much mention of it or witnessed any enforcement of it. In fact last year the county did inspections of the private hangars at my airport for the first time EVER.

The second point is that rules such as this can be subjected by certain individuals to the strictest of interpretations and if you want to read them that way they really do say that when you go to your hangar at the airport it must be for the express purpose of flying your airplane. You mustn't dally around or conduct ANY other activity not directly associated with the preparation and execution of the flight. This was why there were active discussions last year about how you really aren't allowed to have an old sofa or refrigerator in the hangar.

There are people out there and some right here in these forums who could make it real ugly if they start parsing the regulations and analyzing every line as they are prone to do.

At my airport the County did the inspections, there were no FAA people involved and they pretty much put everyone at ease and said look, if you've got an airplane in there you're okay and that's the way I see it as how it should be. If you are there working on an airplane or flying one, it's all clearly aeronautical in nature and should be left alone. The notion that if you want to do some extensive work on your airplane you have to truck it off the airport is absurd.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
How could it possibly not be more profitable to build more hangars in places with 3 year wait lists instead of accepting 3 year wait lists? (A mere euphemism for no hangar available mind you)... Unless you're telling me there's huge barriers to entry regarding the building of a simpleton row of T-hangars, at which point I suppose our anger should be directed to those responsible for that.

Cronyism.. screwing it up for the rest of us since 3000BC.
Click to expand...

JeffDG said:
Actually, I would attribute it to the fact that the hangars are being rented out at below-market rental rates. This is pretty clear from the 3 year wait, as this is a pretty strong indication of demand that lacks supply.

Rent floats up, money comes in, capital projects like construction happen. However, with artificially depressed rental rates, it may well be that the depressed rental rate will not make up the cost of construction in an acceptable time-frame.
Click to expand...
This is pretty obviously the correct answer. Hangers are a scarce resource. Holding the prices artificially low leads to overconsumption and rationing. Storage space is cheap. If people are using hangars as a substitute, the hangars are under priced.
 
Ok I'll admit it. My hangar is used for boat storage. It costs me $200/month to store the wife's boat, something I remind her of every month. That boat is a money pit. My airplane, otoh, sits nicely in a corner of the boat storage building not costing anything.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • hangar photo.jpg
    hangar photo.jpg
    106.2 KB · Views: 185
DJTorrente said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suspect if you were leasing an aircraft, it would qualify. What they want to avoid is people subletting to others.
 
flyingron said:
I suspect if you were leasing an aircraft, it would qualify. What they want to avoid is people subletting to others.
Click to expand...

I've been on a waiting list for 2 years. I'm aware of 2 people who slid in ahead of me because they had a buddy who sold but continues to keep the lease so they can park their rig there.
 
As long as you have an airworthy plane in there...it shouldn't matter what else you can cram in there!

At my home field there is probably a 4-5 year wait list currently so I kinda agree with the FAA on this one. They are pretty good about inspecting hangars, but if there is a wait list for hangers, they should not be rented out and held up for someone's workshop.

They have plans for additional hangers but will get built probably about the same time that the pigs get certified by the FAA to fly. Mostly due to the tree huggers wanting to protect some wild spotted weed thing a ma jig. Get me some Round Up!

Now if there are open hangers and no one wants them...rent away to non aviation uses, but on a month to month till someone has a plane for one.

I can see the argument of how active aircraft generate revenue through fuel and on field business plus create more usage of the facilities over non aviation use or a long term workshop. If the FAA is gonna pump money into airport improvements and expansions...that wanna be sure that there are aircraft on the field to use them. Protecting their investment as I see it!
 
Last edited:
We have to keep in mind how cheap pilots are. I see guys tankering in auto fuel, flying out to another airport that is a nickel cheaper, and generating lift with their lower jaws far more often than their airplane. Renting a hangar to someone with a plane, doesn't mean you'll see any fuel sales.
 
I really don't think the FAA should subsidize storage space for campers and old cars. Moreover, I would think of a hangar as the last place I'd start building an airplane. The first place would be my garage, second my basement (though I'd have to get subassemblies out before they got too big). I'd want to assemble the aircraft somewhere near where I live so I could work on it after I get home in the evening.

Were I retired or otherwise not gainfully employed I might work on an aircraft in the hangar, since I could hang out there all the time. That could be boon or an impediment to the airport though, depending on your point of view.
 
steingar said:
I really don't think the FAA should subsidize storage space for campers and old cars. Moreover, I would think of a hangar as the last place I'd start building an airplane. The first place would be my garage, second my basement (though I'd have to get subassemblies out before they got too big). I'd want to assemble the aircraft somewhere near where I live so I could work on it after I get home in the evening.

Were I retired or otherwise not gainfully employed I might work on an aircraft in the hangar, since I could hang out there all the time. That could be boon or an impediment to the airport though, depending on your point of view.
Click to expand...

Once you finish building your toy at home in your garage, how do you make the first takeoff? Disassemble, trailer to airfield, and oh yea, bring tools and 'work on your plane' in your hangar?
 
CTLSi said:
Once you finish building your toy at home in your garage, how do you make the first takeoff? Disassemble, trailer to airfield, and oh yea, bring tools and 'work on your plane' in your hangar?
Click to expand...


You assume that during your "work at home" that a hangar will be available upon your truck to the patch.

More likely, you bring your tools and 'work on your plane' on the ramp

(assuming you aren't shushed off for creating an adverse aesthetic to the airport)

:nonod:
 
steingar said:
Promoting aviation is part of it's raison d'être.
Click to expand...

As I recall, that was excised from it's mission a few decades back. They are now all about reducing accidents, enjoyment, and utility. Preferably all three at once.
 
Kelvin said:
If there are all of these three year wait lists for hangars...Why not BUILD some hangars?
Click to expand...

When I bought my first airplane and got acquainted with the hanger shortage here, I naturally thought market forces were out of whack -- there was a supply / demand mismatch. I looked to increase the supply and quickly became acquainted to the local aircraft commission board -- and learned "the rest of the story", so to speak.

I guess if I had the patience of Job, was totally fine with seemingly arbitrary lease lengths and rates for the ground beneath my proposed hangers, I maybe could have continued and rolled the dice.

But what stopped me was what the commission did to other hanger *owners* at my airport. Their leases stated the owners leased the ground and would renew every 15-30 years (no rhyhm or reason to the length that I could see). Some batch of hanger land came up for renewal and the airport decided to *not* renew the "dirt" leases. The owners complained and the airport said, "if you don't like it, you can move your hanger" -- which effectively turned out the same as the airport confiscating their hangers. Years passed and they've done absolutely nothing with the confiscated hangers except to rent them back to the people who previously owned them.

After seeing that take place, I hand no desire to continue. The value of my real estate investment could be fine and profitable, or, depending on the whim of the commission when my renewal came up, become suddenly worthless. No thanks.
 
Martymccasland said:
After seeing that take place, I hand no desire to continue. The value of my real estate investment could be fine and profitable, or, depending on the whim of the commission when my renewal came up, become suddenly worthless. No thanks.
Click to expand...

If the lease renewals were at the whim of the airport commission, then the hangar builders either had a poorly drafted lease, or they didn't understand the terms.

You can structure a lease that has lesee options to renew quite easily, and if the airport commission fails to honour the agreement, then that can be enforced under the terms of that contract.
 
JeffDG said:
If the lease renewals were at the whim of the airport commission, then the hangar builders either had a poorly drafted lease, or they didn't understand the terms.

You can structure a lease that has lesee options to renew quite easily, and if the airport commission fails to honour the agreement, then that can be enforced under the terms of that contract.
Click to expand...

You are of course right, and also wrong at the same time. Back when I lived in CO, quite a while back we went through this similar issue where there was a ground lease, with provisions for erecting a structure, namely a hangar and the lease was pretty specific about it. About 13 hangars were built, things went on fine for the first 5 years of the lease, then when renewal time came the county upped the ground lease by about 3x(against the terms of the contract). The lessors took the county to court, they won, the county subsequently condemned the structures, and told the hangar owners they had 30 days to remove their materials from the land. This was all in direct violation of the terms of the lease they originally signed, but since it went through condemnation for community 'improvement' the hangar owners gave up. Some of them tore down their hangars and some walked away. The county put up a few T hangars in place, and rented them out, the others were re-rented, and most contain snow removal equip or other county junk.
 
docmirror said:
You are of course right, and also wrong at the same time. Back when I lived in CO, quite a while back we went through this similar issue where there was a ground lease, with provisions for erecting a structure, namely a hangar and the lease was pretty specific about it. About 13 hangars were built, things went on fine for the first 5 years of the lease, then when renewal time came the county upped the ground lease by about 3x(against the terms of the contract). The lessors took the county to court, they won, the county subsequently condemned the structures, and told the hangar owners they had 30 days to remove their materials from the land. This was all in direct violation of the terms of the lease they originally signed, but since it went through condemnation for community 'improvement' the hangar owners gave up. Some of them tore down their hangars and some walked away. The county put up a few T hangars in place, and rented them out, the others were re-rented, and most contain snow removal equip or other county junk.
Click to expand...

What did the owners receive? They should have been compensated for their condemned property.

You can never stop a government from utilizing eminent domain power (ref. Kelo v. New London), but at least when they do that they are required under the 5th/14th Amendment to compensate the owners who they take the property from.
 
JeffDG said:
What did the owners receive? They should have been compensated for their condemned property.

You can never stop a government from utilizing eminent domain power (ref. Kelo v. New London), but at least when they do that they are required under the 5th/14th Amendment to compensate the owners who they take the property from.
Click to expand...

I think the county sent them a bill, not sure what for but it wasn't a large bill. They considered the accel depr of the structures as being worth almost nothing. Funny, it didn't stop them from renting out the same hangars after they were taken over. I was mistaken at first, it went to arbitration as per the contracts first. The county commish was really hot that the arbitrator ruled in favor of the leaseholders. They were going to go to court, but the commish group decided that condemnation was faster, and cheaper.
 
CTLSi said:
Once you finish building your toy at home in your garage, how do you make the first takeoff? Disassemble, trailer to airfield, and oh yea, bring tools and 'work on your plane' in your hangar?
Click to expand...

Kiddo's Driver said:
Like it says in the article:
Click to expand...

Reading and comprehending before commenting seems to be a rare trait around here lately. It's especially true in this case because this exact same question arose and was answered earlier in the thread. He didn't even have to read the article.

JeffDG said:
Just curious, why should the FAA subsidize storage space for airplanes?
Click to expand...

:dunno: maybe for the same reason the Feds subsidize construction of the highway system? :dunno:
 
Martymccasland said:
...But what stopped me was what the commission did to other hanger *owners* at my airport. Their leases stated the owners leased the ground and would renew every 15-30 years (no rhyhm or reason to the length that I could see). Some batch of hanger land came up for renewal and the airport decided to *not* renew the "dirt" leases. The owners complained and the airport said, "if you don't like it, you can move your hanger" -- which effectively turned out the same as the airport confiscating their hangers. Years passed and they've done absolutely nothing with the confiscated hangers except to rent them back to the people who previously owned them...
Click to expand...

When I made the investment by purchasing a private hangar at the county airport I was young and stupid (as opposed to now being old and stupid) so, despite the land lease arrangement being dicey, I went ahead with it. That agreement remains just as sketchy now as it ever was but over the past eight years I've enjoyed and benefited from this "virtual" ownership. My airport may be a little different as the majority of hangars there are private owned and there has never been any apparent animosity between the owners and the county but you're right, it's not a rock solid investment.

I've just never considered anything involving General Aviation to be a very solid investment to begin with so if I'd been a lot smarter I might have missed out on some good things. :)
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Only because I'm the guy who didn't read the article and then posted pretty much the same line about being able to do final assembly in the hangar. :redface:
Click to expand...

You two are missing the point...it's ironic to allow ANY work in the hangar if you are going to not allow ALL work in the hangar. Do you think working on the plane ends once it makes its first few flights?

Homebuilts are never finished. That's kinda the whole point of doing them. It's a hobby, not a single aircraft...guys who do them stick a tool on them almost everytime they make a flight...

And oh by the way, if you start pulling out tools on the ramp you will get shown the gate faster than you can put them back...
 
CTLSi said:
You two are missing the point...it's ironic to allow ANY work in the hangar if you are going to not allow ALL work in the hangar. Do you think working on the plane ends once it makes its first few flights?

Homebuilts are never finished. That's kinda the whole point of doing them. It's a hobby, not a single aircraft...guys who do them stick a tool on them almost everytime they make a flight...
Click to expand...

Not all that different from a certified aircraft from the FAA's point of view. According to their guidance you cannot do any work in "your" hangar. This proposal (that is open for public comment until early September) adds being able to do final assembly on an EAB.

They see the hangars as STORAGE for operating aircraft. If the aircraft need work you clearly need to pull it over to the mechanic's shop for him/her to work on it...:confused:

Go post comments on the FAA site. The probably will ignore your wishes anyway, but they will certainly ignore anything posted here!

Jim
 
The shenanigans going on at the Timberon NM airport are another great example of how not to trust anyone. The county govt being the least trustworthy of all.
 
rbridges said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was exactly the issue where I used to be based. (KPXE)
Until the local government could get Federal funding, they wern't going to build anything. The Governor of Georgia even kept his plane there and they wouldn't do anything. The airport manager eventually took the reinds and did the paperwork (grant requests, etc.) and got some T-Hangars built. They were rented months before they were even completed. The building contractor offered them a GREAT deal to build additional units, as he was already on site, and they would have been rented out before completion as well, but nooooo. No federal handout. No new hangars.
 
I tend to side with the FAA on this argument, to a degree. There has been in the past a lot of misuse of subsidized hangars intended for aircraft storage. Most hangars at most airports rent far under commercial rates and the purpose is to promote aviation and keep the airport alive as an airport.

I empathize with the builder/restorer, but there has to some guidelines on this as well. Let's face it, there are loads of unfinished kits and half restored airplanes that will never be finished. Same goes for airplanes that fall out of annual and the owner just can't let go. At this point, the half built, half restored and rotting airplanes are no different than the rusting machinery, old boats, car projects and bulk storage.

New hangars will never be built because the ROI is so poor and most municipalities don't have the money to throw away. Most airports struggle to stay afloat and there is likely not much left over for very expensive construction. In addition, they can see what's happening in GA as well as we can. It's shrinking and in decline, so why in the world make a big investment?

Private construction of hangars won't happen either due to the terrible land lease agreements. Counties and cities are likely to never give up control of the land and want to keep their options open for the future. At my airport, I was told the land leases are month to month. They could toss everybody any time they want. Fortunately, nobody appears to need or want the land for any other purpose and they do receive federal funds.

The solution to the problem is this-

  • Leave the FAA rules as they are. Aviation use only with no "forever" airplane projects.
  • Leave enforcement of the rules in local hands. Give control to the airport managers to actually manage the property with the FAA regs giving them the authority to toss people.
  • Have in place an appeals procedure at the local FSDO to keep the airport manger's power in check as well as to discourage an old boy's network.
  • Mandate that if there is a wait list at an airport, then space must be made available by throwing out non aviation storage, or aviation dead storage if it exists.
  • Create guidelines as to what constitutes reasonable progress on a kit, or restoration as well as how far out of annual a plane may be. This would help define aviation dead storage.
I believe that a structure like this would benefit everyone. It would give local control of the property to best raise revenue for the airport and keep the hangars working. It would also aid in getting people with current, functioning airplanes into hangars and reduce wait lists. I would want the EAA and AOPA to be involved in the writing of the guidelines for defining aviation dead storage vs. viable aircraft projects.
 
Hey, let's add a requirement that hangars contain only fully airworthy aircraft. If the aircraft hasn't flown in the past 30 days, get it out of the hangar.

Makes as much sense as trying to claim that repairing an aircraft is not an aeronautical use.
 
Bob Noel said:
Hey, let's add a requirement that hangars contain only fully airworthy aircraft. If the aircraft hasn't flown in the past 30 days, get it out of the hangar.

Makes as much sense as trying to claim that repairing an aircraft is not an aeronautical use.
Click to expand...

Not flying within 30 days has nothing to do with airworthy. That's determined each annual(or operator pre-flight, as the case may be). There's a ton of planes that are fully airworthy that haven't flown within 30 days.
 
Bob Noel said:
Hey, let's add a requirement that hangars contain only fully airworthy aircraft. If the aircraft hasn't flown in the past 30 days, get it out of the hangar.
Click to expand...
There so many things wrong with this suggestion...here is just a couple:
How are they going to know if I flew it?
What happens I take it to an avionics shop/mechanic?? So my hangar is now empty?
Without going into the logs, you can't even tell if it's passed its annual?
What is a "fully airworthy" aircraft. Is there a partial airworthy classification?
 
teejayevans said:
There so many things wrong with this suggestion...here is just a couple:
How are they going to know if I flew it?
What happens I take it to an avionics shop/mechanic?? So my hangar is now empty?
Without going into the logs, you can't even tell if it's passed its annual?
What is a "fully airworthy" aircraft. Is there a partial airworthy classification?
Click to expand...


He was joking.

But it does raise the usual question regarding government mandates.
 
CTLSi said:
He was joking.

But it does raise the usual question regarding government mandates.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you can go much beyond requiring that a plane be in annual. If you want your airworthy plane to sit and rust, that's up to you.
 
For those of you that did not comment already, please do so to this link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2014-0463-0001


Time is running out.


And I might add, that while some of us get emotional about this, just raising hell with them and not be respectful won't help out our cause. If I printed how I really feel about this, I would go to jail. If you swear or say things that could be considered hurtful, the FAA may not post or consider your comment. There is a one or two day review period before your comment is actually officially received. Lets not step on our own toes. - alan



My response to the FAA comment:

One has to ask what is gained and what is lost in this proposed rule.

Yes, there are hangars at airports that are being used for non-aviation activities. With the decline in the fleet population, one could expect that. The high cost of hangars is an issue, as people try to recoup their costs. If a hangar sits empty, it produces no revenue which further increases the cost of flying and the decline of General Aviation.

Easy to fix. If there is a waiting list for hangars, I can see a regulation that puts airplanes and aviation uses as first and foremost priority above all other uses. But that is where I think we need to end the regulation. More regulations, especially those regulations that will, typically, be misinterpreted by local airport boards and municipalities, will only discourage the growth of General Aviation.

General Aviation is the Genesis of every pilot's aviation career. Part of the magic of the aviation "experience" is providing a place where the "old hands" (pilots & mechanics) and wide-eyed youth can hang out and enjoy the sights, smells & stories of aviation. Items stored alongside an airplane, or a home built airplane being put together, or a bicycle to run around the field or even a boat against the back wall should be OK. That is the hangar and it is provided for the airplane. Even if the airplane is in parts or being worked on. Any other use of left over space should be unregulated by the Federal Government. Let's leave the hangar alone for all our sakes. If it is being used for anything related to aviation, good enough. Otherwise, the FAA and local authorities need not waste their resources looking for an invented problem caused by regulation.

If it is being used for solely for some other purpose, that should be only if there are no waiting lists for aviation use. An airplane should be able to immediately "bump" a non-aviation use. And I do think aviation is helped when an airport collects revenue from an otherwise empty hangar, but only if no one needs it for aviation. Aviation first and foremost, then others might be considered on a month by month basis - until an aircraft needs a hangar. That should be a rule. Easy to enforce on the local level and not very complicated.

Otherwise, freedom is wonderful thing. We dare not lose it.
 
I think airplane parts are fine as long as the airplane is completed in six months. :popcorn:
 
I was out at the hangar the other day and after reading this thread, I noticed the hangar I always see some nice classic cars coming in/out of. I took a peek in as I drove by.... sure enough one small wing propped up against a wall on a couple sawhorses.... and beyond that a nice auto workshop.
 
Here's an example:

We have a good ol' boy at our airport who owns a box hangar and he lives in it. In an apartment built on the back wall.

He sold his Yak about six months ago and has no airplane in his hangar since. Should he be evicted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top