FAA Hangar Use Comments Extended

Cool, I added my comment:


I think you are on the right track, you're just taking it to an extreme position, sadly typical in American thought. There is a definite need to clear out the hangars of the boat and car collections, furniture storage, and various other junk and non aviation storage; When that is the sole use. When the hangar houses an aircraft though, there should be a limited amount of non aviation storage allowed. Also hangar offices, lounges, and apartments are valuable to many operations for both economic, safety, and security reasons.

The primary function of hangars must be aviation I agree, but there's a lot more aviation value that can be attained from a hangar than just storing an airplane. Storing, relaxing, and resting crew are just as vital to aviation as storing an airplane.
 
I agree with their position sans the aircraft construction verbiage. I just don't see how building an aircraft is NOT an aviation purpose. If it takes 6 months or 6 years, does it matter? It has plane parts that one day will be a flying aircraft.

Getting rid of the junk storage folks is an absolute must though.
 
I think part of the problem is how airports justify their existence to the FAA, and surrounding community.

Much of this justification is based on "operations" which is takeoffs and landings.

The more operational airplanes they can get on the field that actually take off and land the more funding they can attract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Is this only for airports that take airport improvement funds?

Otherwise, imagine someone like Tom who puts a runway on his own land, making an airport, which immediately forces him to restrict what he can do with the buildings on his property.
 
mikea said:
Is this only for airports that take airport improvement funds?

Otherwise, imagine someone like Tom who puts a runway on his own land, making an airport, which immediately forces him to restrict what he can do with the buildings on his property.
Click to expand...

Correct, if the take no fed funds, this doesn't apply.
 
Unit74 said:
I agree with their position sans the aircraft construction verbiage. I just don't see how building an aircraft is NOT an aviation purpose. If it takes 6 months or 6 years, does it matter? It has plane parts that one day will be a flying aircraft.

Getting rid of the junk storage folks is an absolute must though.
Click to expand...

The problem is home builders who don't finish. We have a guy tying up a hangar that has been "building" for 23 years. Its an embarrassment. He should be thrown out and the hangar rented to someone who has a plane. Yes, we have a waiting list for the hangar he is in. He simply cannot finish the plane.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
The problem is home builders who don't finish. We have a guy tying up a hangar that has been "building" for 23 years. Its an embarrassment. He should be thrown out and the hangar rented to someone who has a plane. Yes, we have a waiting list for the hangar he is in. He simply cannot finish the plane.
Click to expand...


Yes, this is the issue.
 
Stop subsidizing the hangars, and let market rates take care of the problem.

The issue is, people want hangars at below-market rates. That makes them cheap warehouses too.
 
Geico266 said:
The problem is home builders who don't finish. We have a guy tying up a hangar that has been "building" for 23 years. Its an embarrassment. He should be thrown out and the hangar rented to someone who has a plane. Yes, we have a waiting list for the hangar he is in. He simply cannot finish the plane.
Click to expand...

Very true.... On the flip side, my old neighbor built a plane in his garage from his own plans. Dude is a real life genius. One day he slipped it on a trailer and from that day on, his garage had a car in it. Every now and again it'd see it at SBA, but I think he sold it a few years after it's maiden flight.

Thee has to be compromise though. I'm not a home builder, but tossing someone out if they are actively building seems like a poor way to manage the hangars. Numb nuts with a boat and all his ex wife's furniture has got to go for sure.
 
If there is a airworthy aircraft, or an aircraft currently being worked on, who f'n cares if someone also stores some files or a sports car.

Think the Feds need to focus their efforts on bigger issues, cutting costs, promoting aviation, keeping airport from closing, and actually helping the community out.
 
Typical of the FAA to focus on everything instead of something of substance.

If people want to rent hangars, and there aren't enough tot go around, then they will inevtiably start whing like babies, because someone who paid his rent, is not using like they would IF IT WAS THERE's.

What business is it of anyone what you do with space you paid for, as long as it is legal, and not hurting anyone?
 
Florida Cracker said:
Typical of the FAA to focus on everything instead of something of substance.

If people want to rent hangars, and there aren't enough tot go around, then they will inevtiably start whing like babies, because someone who paid his rent, is not using like they would IF IT WAS THERE's.

What business is it of anyone what you do with space you paid for, as long as it is legal, and not hurting anyone?
Click to expand...

This is the problem. Businesses renting hangars to store business supplies because they are much cheaper than warehouse space, and of course people sticking cars and boats in them also. As long as there is a plane in there that is airworthy I don't care either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top