On 9/08/2014 5:01 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:54:17 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 8/08/2014 1:03 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=email#222534
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. Policy
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13
on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the
components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final
assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online
citing docket number FAA-2014-0463 http://www.regulations.gov/#!home. The
agency has devoted a separate section in the proposed policy to explaining its
stand. 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," the proposed
policy says. EAA is aware of the proposed policy and staff are assessing it.

The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the rules
regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past
two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but
airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses have
been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used to build and
maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses
amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or county
responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police cars and
other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed
policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in
hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the
feds.


Although of obvious concern to those who are using aircraft hangers to
build their aircraf, the FAA does appear to have a point. Demand for
hanger space for non-Aviation purposes will inevitably push up the cost
of hanger space to those who, because their use is Aviation related,
have no practical alternative.

Sylvia.

I agree.

As a side note, I've had a $150.00 deposit for a hangar at KSNA for in excess
of ten years. During that time, my position on the list has not advanced.

That's a nice little earner - $150.00 interest free for ten years -
times however long the list is.


It would seem, that the FAA mandated fee for a hangar is on the order of
$100.00 per month, and this prompts those that hold a hangar there are induced
to "sublet" their hangars for the going rate of $500.00 per month.

I have also been told by airport officials, that the county is manipulating the
assignment of hangars.

If the county is also running the waiting list, then that looks like fraud.


I'm wondering if contacting a FSDO inspector regarding these unfair practices
might be productive. Or is it likely to be another case of, "We're the FAA and
we're not happy until you're unhappy." :-)


Sounds like a little (more!) patience would be in order, given that a
policy change appears to be afoot (mind you, I'm not in the USA, and
have no idea how long the FAA takes to implement a change of policy).

Sylvia.