Leasehold hangars and content restrictions

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.