Final FAA Hangar Rules

Goofy

Goofy

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
753
Display Name
Display name:
Goofy
Our field is "adopting" the FAA final rules on hangar use....
How are your fields interpreting this in regards to cars? Must be running? Even if not a hindrance to aircraft access?
Asking for an old friend not internet savvy.
Thanks.
 
I think they think they must. Wondering how it's being interpreted elsewhere.....?
 
Yes, I think storing a car, running or not, is prohibited. A car is not aeronautical contents.

Uses not permitted include:

  • use as a residence;
  • operation of a non-aeronautical business, e.g., limo service, car and motorcycle storage, storage of inventory, and non-aeronautical business office;
  • activities that impede the movement of the aircraft in and out of the hangar or other aeronautical contents of the hangar;
  • activities that displace the aeronautical contents of the hangar or impede access to aircraft or other aeronautical contents of the hangar;
  • storage of household items that could be stored in commercial storage facilities;
  • long-term storage of derelict aircraft and parts;
  • storage of items or activities prohibited by local or state law;
  • storage of fuel and other dangerous and Hazmat materials; or
  • storage of inventory or equipment supporting a municipal agency function unrelated to the aeronautical use.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/easter...e-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars.pdf
 
Last edited:
Ok so if I own a hangar I can't do what I want with it? What the heck is this communist garbage!?!
 
That's just cherry picking the wording. Another paragraph says they don't mind a car used to go to the airport and anything that doesn't interfere with aeronautical use. There seems to be typical bureaucratic gobbledygook writing leaving much to interpretation.
Hence the original question regarding others experience with their local applications. And, as yet, no input on that.
Also, 'why' they want to adopt the rule also has nothing to do with the original question.
 
Rebel Lord said:
Ok so if I own a hangar I can't do what I want with it? What the heck is this communist garbage!?!
Click to expand...

Nope.... Nice huh? Unless you're lucky enough to have a non fed supported field. Most have sucked off that teat and are controlled by the Feds.
 
Goofy said:
Nope.... Nice huh? Unless you're lucky enough to have a non fed supported field. Most have sucked off that teat and are controlled by the Feds.
Click to expand...

So I can't park my car inside the hangar when I go flying.
 
Your choice. Sit back or fight. Can't say that is my specific battLe but it is close.
 
Considering the new FAA rule is less restrictive than the old policy, does that mean your airport is loosening up on hangar use?
 
Goofy said:
Nope.... Nice huh? Unless you're lucky enough to have a non fed supported field. Most have sucked off that teat and are controlled by the Feds.
Click to expand...

If you own the hangar, then I don't think this applies. This is for leased hangars owned by the airport. At least that's how I read it. There are people running business out of hangars at FFZ. And they're paying subsidized rent. All the while there's a waiting list for people with airplanes. That's what this is trying to address
 
ragedracer1977 said:
If you own the hangar, then I don't think this applies. This is for leased hangars owned by the airport. At least that's how I read it. There are people running business out of hangars at FFZ. And they're paying subsidized rent. All the while there's a waiting list for people with airplanes. That's what this is trying to address
Click to expand...
It applies to both owned and leased hangars. See here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-15/pdf/2016-14133.pdf

See page 5, section II(f)
 
Technically yes, but I was referring to owned hangars. If you're on the airport property, you're leasing the land and therefore don't really own it. And you have to follow the rules. It's no different than a landlord saying you can't run a business out of your apartment or sublease it.

Eta: for example at SDL you can buy land just off the airport and build a hangar. Then you own it and those rules don't apply.
 
Goofy said:
Our field is "adopting" the FAA final rules on hangar use....
How are your fields interpreting this in regards to cars? Must be running? Even if not a hindrance to aircraft access?
Asking for an old friend not internet savvy.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "adopting?" That they are literally adopting the rules because they want to? Or because they are required to? What airport is it?
 
Put a hitch on your car or motorcycle and it becomes a motorized aircraft tug.

Here is the one I can't comprehend: The storage of aircraft parts.
If you can't store "project" aircraft in a hanger, where are you supposed to store them?
 
Shepherd said:
Put a hitch on your car or motorcycle and it becomes a motorized aircraft tug.

Here is the one I can't comprehend: The storage of aircraft parts.
If you can't store "project" aircraft in a hanger, where are you supposed to store them?
Click to expand...

My interpretation (and EAA IIRC) is that they don't want you running an aircraft parts store out of the hangar. No problem building or restoring an aircraft. Just take off or put on or polish something on the project once a week and you'll be good to go.

No flyable airplane in my hangar, just a kit being built and that's fine with the airport.

Cheers
 
Using a hangar for an aircraft is the point. Leaving a car behind while you are flying and then replacing the car with your aircraft when you are back violates no policy. They want to keep people from using their hangars as orange-colored self-storage units with every kind of non-aviation crud imaginable. This deprives some from being able to get a hangar for their planes.
 
I wish the tenants that just use hangars as junk storage rentals at my home base would clear out. Then we'd get more planes in there.
 
omg - how is the county of Los Angeles going to deal with this? ABOUT 1/3 of the hangars are used for storage or operating a business at POC.

There are still open unused hangars if anyone wants one.

They will kick out a non-aviation use if an aircraft owner wants one -

but they'll lose a ton of revenue if they have to kick out non-conforming uses . . . .

I think its right for the FAA to insist that non-aviation uses yield to aircraft hangaring - there are several airports I know of where they have hangars for their friends for non-conforming uses and a long waiting list of airplane owners - maybe that can end.
 
Guy two hangars down from me at an unnamed airport seemed to be running a lift truck repair business in the hangar. I moved a year ago so no idea if he's still there.

Cheers
 
This issue becomes more important when the airport has a waiting list for hangar tenants. The policy is intended to make certain the airport is being used as an airport and not a storage facility. When FAA funds are involved they want the money to used for aviation not subsidizing unintended use.
 
Clip4 said:
The key is subsidized. If you want to be a capitalist, build your own airport.

At the end of his land lease, the hangar becomes the property of the airport in most cases.
Click to expand...

Sure thing, comrade
 
It seems this primarily affects GA. If the FAA cared about GA aviation, they'd loosen up on all the regulations killing it.
 
Ok, here is my opinion on this as a pilot and airport operator.

1. This is actually a loosening of the rules. The old grant assurance was simple, no non aeronautical activity or storage...period. Over the years over zealous airport management and the FAA themselves would use that to mean only airplanes in a hangar, no couch, fridge, anything. Now you are allowed to have other items in the hangar as long as it does not detract from aeronautical activity.

2. These rules are to protect aviation and the government's investment in airports. The intent of the rules is to prevent non aviation businesses and storage from taking up valuable space on the airport. Airports honestly could make more money renting out T-hangars as public storage units, but that is not why the government paid to build them and the infastructure of the airport.

So before anyone gets excited, and thinks the world is picking on them, these grant assurances protect the aviation community.
 
Rushie said:
It seems this primarily affects GA. If the FAA cared about GA aviation, they'd loosen up on all the regulations killing it.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the people within the FAA that write the rules don't care about general aviation? Have you considered that many of them may be active general aviation pilots who rent hangars and even participate GA web forums?
 
midwestpa24 said:
Ok, here is my opinion on this as a pilot and airport operator.

1. This is actually a loosening of the rules. The old grant assurance was simple, no non aeronautical activity or storage...period. Over the years over zealous airport management and the FAA themselves would use that to mean only airplanes in a hangar, no couch, fridge, anything. Now you are allowed to have other items in the hangar as long as it does not detract from aeronautical activity.

2. These rules are to protect aviation and the government's investment in airports. The intent of the rules is to prevent non aviation businesses and storage from taking up valuable space on the airport. Airports honestly could make more money renting out T-hangars as public storage units, but that is not why the government paid to build them and the infastructure of the airport.

So before anyone gets excited, and thinks the world is picking on them, these grant assurances protect the aviation community.
Click to expand...
100% correct. As a matter of fact, both EAA and AOPA were pushing the FAA to enact these changes, and initially heralded the effort of the agency to do. It wasn't until their members turned on them that they pushed back. Through the public comment process the FAA amended some of the provisions (construction of aircraft) in the final policy.
 
A lot of FAA are just typical bureaucrats. Particularly the Huerta types. Most ATC are different but the managers, not as much. Have met a number of the typical and they run about 50/50 decent people to pukes. And a couple great folks. It's government, what do you expect?
 
Goofy said:
Have met a number of the typical and they run about 50/50 decent people to pukes. And a couple great folks. It's government, what do you expect?
Click to expand...

Sort like every place I've ever worked, Government, Private and Charity.

Cheers
 
Brad Z said:
What makes you think the people within the FAA that write the rules don't care about general aviation? Have you considered that many of them may be active general aviation pilots who rent hangars and even participate GA web forums?
Click to expand...

Whoops sorry!
 
X3 Skier said:
Sort like every place I've ever worked, Government, Private and Charity.

Cheers
Click to expand...

It's different when there is no profit motive and/or shareholders to satisfy, the money isn't theirs and they don't face those they affect so much. Almost all the low graduates of the engineering school I graduated went government. And it shows every time I see their work.....
I did have a very pleasant experience with some local FSDO guys that, I guess, were just out driving around looking for something to get them out of the office. They asked about my plane and before I realized who they were, as they had not introduced themselves yet, I was answering questions to the feds. After inspecting my paperwork they were kind enough to update mine to the new version that minimized Phase I again for major changes. Was very helpful and they were great about it. I was lucky. Have heard some horror stories about others in that office. Fortunately, at least for this type of situation, now we have gates.....!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top