Leasehold hangars and content restrictions

It should have been in the lease agreement. If not, you should be able
to modify the lease with certain terms. You'll need to review the
original lease and perhaps speak with a property attorney.

-Robert


Tony Cox wrote:
At my home airport, we have a new airport manager
who seems to be on a mission to eradicate anything
but aircraft from leasehold hangars. He claims to have
discovered FAA support for this position during his
"on the job" training -- he is not a pilot, and has no prior
aviation experience -- but he cannot come up with
anything written. We pilots are, naturally, rather
skeptical that the FAA has expressed an opinion
one way or another.

Hangars are all owner-financed (no FAA money), typically
originally with a 30 year lease. It's a municipal airport,
exclusively civilian use, and has in the past been the recipient
of FAA grant money and will no doubt receive additional
FAA funds in the future. There are roughly 100 "private"
hangars (not commercial) at the airport. We're not a pt
139 airport -- some pt 135 sightseeing flights & that's all.

Does anyone have any experience with airport managers,
and/or rules and regulations that restrict what one can
store in one's hangar? Our pilot community is concerned that
our lifestyle is under threat -- historically, people have stored
cars, RVs, boats, tables, chairs, sofas and all manner of toys
and comfort items along with aircraft.

Perhaps there is even someone out there who has a definitive
ruling from the local FSDO...

Robert M. Gary wrote:
It should have been in the lease agreement. If not, you should be able
to modify the lease with certain terms. You'll need to review the
original lease and perhaps speak with a property attorney.


Well, our situation is rather complex. Leases are governed
by eight different agreements (depending on when the hangars
were constructed), some of which have blanket clauses that
incorporate the general airport rules and regs, others that
don't. That's why I didn't want to get into the specifics of the
our leases and just (hopefully) trawl for what people at other
airports have experienced. We have obtained legal advice, and
the opinion, FWIW, is that the lease rules are most probably
unenforceable due to the airport's neglect over the last several
years.

Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
aircraft is more of a procedural problem for us airport tenants
attempting to regularize the various leases than a threat to
our lifestyle -- no one in the City is prepared to consider any
concrete proposal because they confidently expect the FAA
to "rule" definitively on the issue. Those of us with more experience
with the FAA think that getting anyone in the local FSDO to
commit is likely to be as frustrating as waiting for Godot.

That's why I'd like to hear from anyone who *has* managed
to get a ruling. Failing that, "points on the graph" at FAA-funded
airports would be very helpful.

Tony Cox wrote:


Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
aircraft


No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Tony Cox wrote:


Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
aircraft


No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.

That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??

I'm not exactly sure the FAA _doesn't_ have an interest here.
Airport funds are poorly spent if hangar owners (in the extreme
case) just use them for general storage because its cheaper than
the local lock-up. Not that its anything remotely like our case, but
we seem to be in danger of being swept up with the latest
"imaginary hobgoblin".

Tony Cox wrote:



No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.


That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??

No way she said that or she was taken out of context.



I'm not exactly sure the FAA _doesn't_ have an interest here.
Airport funds are poorly spent if hangar owners (in the extreme
case) just use them for general storage because its cheaper than
the local lock-up. Not that its anything remotely like our case, but
we seem to be in danger of being swept up with the latest
"imaginary hobgoblin".


Airports often have rules about what can be stored in hangars. There's
no problem with reasonable rules.

Tony Cox wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
...
No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.

That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??

They have. Every airport in my area has had to extract the non-airplane
users of hangers as part of the federal grants. However, I believe you
said the airport hasn't taken federal money. Further, if you did, the
feds would require you to kick them out so you'd need to have a lease
agreement that allowed for that. I hope your leases at least expire.
In every case here, the leases dating back to 1940 required the hanger
to be used for aircraft.

That's about the limit of what you want to feds to do. Imagine the
farmer who built a barn for his J-3 and now wants to keep hay in it as
well. You don't want the feds bothering that poor guy. Its not able
airports, its about accepting federal grant money.
-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:




They have. Every airport in my area has had to extract the non-airplane
users of hangers as part of the federal grants.

There's no federal grants that require hangar owners to take their couch
out of the hangar. Likewise storing an additional car or boat or
putting your car in the hangar while you are on a trip. No way, no how.

Newps wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:




They have. Every airport in my area has had to extract the non-airplane
users of hangers as part of the federal grants.

There's no federal grants that require hangar owners to take their couch
out of the hangar. Likewise storing an additional car or boat or
putting your car in the hangar while you are on a trip. No way, no how.

I'm not sure what your point is. The federal grant requires there be
some airport use for the hanger. non-airplane users certainly don't
qualify. You have to at least have an airplane.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Tony Cox wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
...
No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.

That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??

They have. Every airport in my area has had to extract the non-airplane
users of hangers as part of the federal grants. However, I believe you
said the airport hasn't taken federal money.

The airport *has* taken FAA money for various things (an
ASOS, runway lights, new taxiways), but the hangars themselves
were constructed (between 8 and 15 years ago) with private
funds.

Further, if you did, the
feds would require you to kick them out so you'd need to have a lease
agreement that allowed for that. I hope your leases at least expire.

Actually, we're hoping that they don't ;-)...

Tony Cox wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
...


Tony Cox wrote:


Right now, the supposed FAA edict banning anything but
aircraft


No such rule. The FAA would never get into this area.

That's what we think. But how do you prove it to a skeptical
City Council, especially when Blakely announces at Oshkosh
that the FAA is going to "crack down on hangar misuse" ??


People waiting in line for years at Santa Monica for hangars that are
being used as movie sets or storage for movie stars' classic car
collections would be grateful for this. The FAA does need to crack
down on hangar misuse, but of course will they draw the line in the
right place? Hangars should be used for aviation, not for storing
cars, RVs, etc. However putting a couch and a beer fridge in there
doesn't prevent aviation use, nor does parking your car in it while
you're out flying.

I think the idea is a good one, even if the implementation needs
tweaking.