FAA says homebuilders have to build the components of their projects off-airport

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.

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.

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.

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.

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." :-)

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.

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:54:17 PM UTC-5, 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.

How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis Island ??

In article ,
wrote:

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:54:17 PM UTC-5, 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...avweb:e2872:21
8609a:&st=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/arti...031/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.

How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis
Island ??

How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:28:20 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis
Island ??

How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?

Nah. There's no sense in empowering a troll to compromise our ethics. Let's
just let him reveal his ignorance and venom-filled heart publicly for the world
to see.

On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:06:29 AM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:28:20 -0400, Orval Fairbairn

wrote:



How about using the hangers to quarantine arriving Ebola patients, ala Ellis

Island ??



How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?



Nah. There's no sense in empowering a troll to compromise our ethics. Let's

just let him reveal his ignorance and venom-filled heart publicly for the world

to see.

I went hiking on Mt. Cue Ball and got numbnuts.

Orval Fairbairn writes:

How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?
How about using a good Usenet reader, and filtering his kind from your feed.
--
This is very true; for my words are my own, and my actions are my
ministers.
~ Charles II

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

In article ,
Bug Dout wrote:

Orval Fairbairn writes:

How about putting "jgrove" and others of his ilk in there with them?
How about using a good Usenet reader, and filtering his kind from your feed.

I would rather see what the Neanderthals and Philistines have in mind
(if you can call it a mind).