At what point is it no longer a plane?

Stingray Don

Stingray Don

En-Route
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
2,964
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Display Name
Display name:
Stingray Don
So the other day I am walking to my hangar and notice three hangars in my row are open. None of them had flyable planes in them. One had several cars including a car lift to stack cars. I had to look close to see a fuselage with no prop, no engine, and no wings. The airport authority requires a plane to be in the hangar but at what point is it no longer a plane? There is a long waiting list for hangars and we have squatters storing aircraft parts. I think I may have the only flyable plane in my row.
 
I'd say when it is no longer airworthy (given an appropriate amount of time to bring it to airworthy condition.)
 
Hmm. I got a busted fuselage. Maybe there is a market for me to sell it. I guess I'd advertise in the Car and Boat mags.
 
luvflyin said:
Have ya tried rattin em out to the Airport management?
Click to expand...

Good point. I haven't said anything. I may ask if they ever inspect the hangars to see if there is plane that has even a chance of flying again. there is a provision in the rental contract that allows them to inspect the hangars at any time.
 
I would bring this up with airport management. A lot of times airports will put a minimum fuel purchase quantity requirement in effect to help curb the list of non-flying airplanes. The last airport we were based at did this to help free up hangars for people with flying airplanes. It worked and helped get some fresh (and flying) blood in. My current airport requires that airplanes be in annual, or have an explanation of why it's out of annual and when it will be back in annual again. They've never asked to see the logbook entries, but I think if you had a plane that was unairworthy for an extended period of time then that would be easier to push.

One thing with aviation is that it's not uncommon for planes to be down for months, especially if you're doing owner-assisted (or just non-shop performed) work. A lot of A&Ps may work on the side and things may take a long time to get done, so you can have projects that go on for extended periods. Personally, my real question is the plane has any chance of flying or if it's just a hangar queen. This line requires a judgement call. The 414 was down for a 3 month period last year waiting on the new propellers. We did other work in that time frame, but if you looked at its takeoffs and landings (0) it looked like it was very dormant.
 
@whifferdill and I used to share a hangar with this halfway constructed experimental airplane that he described to me as "scary". It looked like a flying saucer with a toyota camry engine and was like 10 years into construction. That was not a real airplane.
 
A side effect of the wind damage we had to the hangars at our local drome is that the airport authority and insurance companies had a chance to find out just which hangars were not being used for aircraft.
 
Stingray Don said:
There is a long waiting list for hangars and we have squatters storing aircraft parts. I think I may have the only flyable plane in my row.
Click to expand...

If they are paying their rent and adhering to the requirements of the lease to the satisfaction of the lessor, how are they "squatters"?
 
Hacker said:
If they are paying their rent and adhering to the requirements of the lease to the satisfaction of the lessor, how are they "squatters"?
Click to expand...

You are correct. Squatters would not be the correct term. The point is they are taking up a hangar with a plane that will never fly again. They are just using it for storage when there is a waiting list that would use it for its intended purpose. Kind of like the guy that thinks his car is soooo special that he needs to take up 2 parking spots in a full parking lot.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The last airport we were based at did this to help free up hangars for people with flying airplanes. It worked and helped get some fresh (and flying) blood in.
Click to expand...
Did they sell no-lead auto fuel for those of us who don't do lead (if at all possible).
 
Stingray Don said:
There is a long waiting list for hangars and we have squatters storing aircraft parts...
Click to expand...

Many own hangars in more than one airport with no plane in them for much of the year. They may often store RVs or travel trailers in them while they are not parking their plane in them. They fly to one of them, remove the RV or travel trailer and park their plane.
 
Stingray Don said:
You are correct. Squatters would not be the correct term. The point is they are taking up a hangar with a plane that will never fly again. They are just using it for storage when there is a waiting list that would use it for its intended purpose. Kind of like the guy that thinks his car is soooo special that he needs to take up 2 parking spots in a full parking lot.
Click to expand...
"intended purpose" I think is the key point. Someone who had an airplane, or an airplane project, and it has been given up on I think should go IF there is a waiting list of viable airplanes and airplane projects wanting hangar space. Is your airport private? public? accepted Federal money?
 
Stingray Don said:
You are correct. Squatters would not be the correct term. The point is they are taking up a hangar with a plane that will never fly again. They are just using it for storage when there is a waiting list that would use it for its intended purpose. Kind of like the guy that thinks his car is soooo special that he needs to take up 2 parking spots in a full parking lot.
Click to expand...
Just what is said in the Lease at your airport? "The airport authority requires a plane to be in the hangar." Does it say anything more about that? Any "definition" of 'plane'
 
luvflyin said:
Just what is said in the Lease at your airport? "The airport authority requires a plane to be in the hangar." Does it say anything more about that? Any "definition" of 'plane'
Click to expand...

As I recall, the lease just requires a plane but no definition on exactly what that means.
 
The hangar I just rented just required me to identify the aircraft make/model and N number. Nothing in the lease or regulations document says anything beyond "must be used primarily for storage of an aircraft" no restrictions on airworthiness or number of pieces the plane can be in.
 
Just hold your breath, the FAA is getting very involved in this very sort of thing as I write. There is a federal requirement that any airport that gets federal dollars will have to enforce the "no non aviation" stuff in a hanger. For awhile even an experimental under construction wasn't considered legal! This pot was stirred a couple of years ago and is now raising it ugly (or not so ugly to some) head again. I concur if you have a waiting list it should go to flying aircraft first. But if you live in a rural area like I do with empty hangers, hanger rent is hanger rent.
 
Same thing going on at local airport. There's plenty of hangers filled with cars and other junk. There's one that being used as a warehouse for some flooring company. And it took a year until one opened up so I could put an actual flying airplane in it.
 
Ours requires a aeronautical device. One guy is getting away with the fact that with all his crap he stores a parachute so they can't make him move
 
Spotter626 said:
Just hold your breath, the FAA is getting very involved in this very sort of thing as I write. There is a federal requirement that any airport that gets federal dollars will have to enforce the "no non aviation" stuff in a hanger. For awhile even an experimental under construction wasn't considered legal! This pot was stirred a couple of years ago and is now raising it ugly (or not so ugly to some) head again. I concur if you have a waiting list it should go to flying aircraft first. But if you live in a rural area like I do with empty hangers, hanger rent is hanger rent.
Click to expand...

The FAA just hashed this out allowing non aviation storage as long as it does not interfere with the aviation usage.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...n-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars
 
An aircraft is no longer an aircraft when the FAA no longer has any records for it and there is no N or/serial number to trace it. (vary rare case)

Best way to rat the perps out, is by illegal use as per the local fire codes. or the illegal use of the hangar by the airport rules. such as the renters can not use the hangar for anything but aircraft storage. most rental agreements/leases have these rules.
 
Spotter626 said:
Just hold your breath, the FAA is getting very involved in this very sort of thing as I write. There is a federal requirement that any airport that gets federal dollars will have to enforce the "no non aviation" stuff in a hanger. For awhile even an experimental under construction wasn't considered legal! This pot was stirred a couple of years ago and is now raising it ugly (or not so ugly to some) head again. I concur if you have a waiting list it should go to flying aircraft first. But if you live in a rural area like I do with empty hangers, hanger rent is hanger rent.
Click to expand...

I'm all for hangars going to aircraft uses, but to exclude experimentals under construction seems wrong to me. For many people this is the only place they can build the aircraft. Not everyone has a garage/basement/spare room, most storage units don't allow for building things, and it's next to impossible to find garages to rent. Further, building an aircraft is a legitimate aviation use for the hangar (storing a boat/RV is not). I'm not sure there should be regulations excluding certain aviation activities or regulations saying the certain aviation activities are more (or less) legitimate.

On the other hand, if there are waiting lists multiple years long there's a clear supply and demand problem. Basic Econ 101 would suggest that airport management needs to raise the rent.
 
If you rat the guy out all you are doing is making enemies. Sounds like you have a hangar and not on the waiting list so why are you even concerned? I can't stand people that worry what everyone else does!
Maybe the dude will rebuild the plane one day when he gets the time.
If you want to know his business why don't you walk your happy a$$ over and ask what he is doing instead of talk behind his back!
You probably don't have the nerve to do it!
 
pigpenracing said:
If you rat the guy out all you are doing is making enemies. Sounds like you have a hangar and not on the waiting list so why are you even concerned? I can't stand people that worry what everyone else does!
Maybe the dude will rebuild the plane one day when he gets the time.
If you want to know his business why don't you walk your happy a$$ over and ask what he is doing instead of talk behind his back!
You probably don't have the nerve to do it!
Click to expand...

Wow, if this post is all it takes to land me on your "people I can't stand" list, then I must be joining a long list!

I can't ask the hangar tenant because I have never seen him and don't know who he is. This was the first time I have ever seen the hangar open and no one was there. Had there been someone over there I would have gladly asked him about his "plane".

I do have a hangar now but I had to wait over a year on the waiting list while this hangar (and others) was not being used for the intended purpose. I also know others that are on the waiting list and are very frustrated about having to wait years to get a hangar. So that's the reason I would be concerned.
 
I'm in the camp that thinks (given an existing covenant) hangars should go to people with airplanes first. If there is no waiting list then whatever keeps it from being empty that doesn't disrupt aviation.
 
Stingray Don said:
I can't ask the hangar tenant because I have never seen him and don't know who he is. This was the first time I have ever seen the hangar open and no one was there. Had there been someone over there I would have gladly asked him about his "plane".
Click to expand...
When there is an aircraft in that hangar he is legal. If I were the airport manager, and you complained, I'd tell ya to pound sand.
 
Radar Contact said:
I'm in the camp that thinks (given an existing covenant) hangars should go to people with airplanes first. If there is no waiting list then whatever keeps it from being empty that doesn't disrupt aviation.
Click to expand...
So there is an empty hangar, I rent it, place my boat and Motorhome in there. and now you come along with an aircraft, And I must move?? that doesn't seem fare either.
 
There are a lot of hangars at my airport being used
Tom-D said:
So there is an empty hangar, I rent it, place my boat and Motorhome in there. and now you come along with an aircraft, And I must move?? that doesn't seem fare either.
Click to expand...
Sure it is if the lease you signed clearly states that the hangar can be used for non aviation storage until a renter with an aircraft needs the space.
 
Tom-D said:
So there is an empty hangar, I rent it, place my boat and Motorhome in there. and now you come along with an aircraft, And I must move?? that doesn't seem fare either.
Click to expand...

It does, when you're asking your fellow taxpayers to help pay for that hangar.
 
skier said:
I'm all for hangars going to aircraft uses, but to exclude experimentals under construction seems wrong to me. For many people this is the only place they can build the aircraft. Not everyone has a garage/basement/spare room, most storage units don't allow for building things, and it's next to impossible to find garages to rent. Further, building an aircraft is a legitimate aviation use for the hangar (storing a boat/RV is not). I'm not sure there should be regulations excluding certain aviation activities or regulations saying the certain aviation activities are more (or less) legitimate.

On the other hand, if there are waiting lists multiple years long there's a clear supply and demand problem. Basic Econ 101 would suggest that airport management needs to raise the rent.
Click to expand...
I would agree. If you have an airplane - even one that is not airworthy, you need a suitable place to keep it out of the weather. Folding wing types and gyrocopters excluded,
you can't reasonably move one anywhere other than an airport. The owner may have valid reasons for not returning their aircraft to airworthy status - but I would venture to
guess that most would do so if they were able. IMHO if an airplane is stored in a hangar, it is nobody's business what the owner does (or doesn't do) with it. The real problem
with hangar shortages is the refusal of many jurisdictions to build more - even if there is room for them and sufficient demand.

Dave
 
skier said:
I'm all for hangars going to aircraft uses, but to exclude experimentals under construction seems wrong to me. For many people this is the only place they can build the aircraft. Not everyone has a garage/basement/spare room, most storage units don't allow for building things, and it's next to impossible to find garages to rent. Further, building an aircraft is a legitimate aviation use for the hangar (storing a boat/RV is not). I'm not sure there should be regulations excluding certain aviation activities or regulations saying the certain aviation activities are more (or less) legitimate.

On the other hand, if there are waiting lists multiple years long there's a clear supply and demand problem. Basic Econ 101 would suggest that airport management needs to raise the rent.
Click to expand...

We have a couple people at my airport that use their hangars to build experimental aircraft and/or store parts for the builds. We also have a waiting list that some people have been on for many years. So, while I agree a hangar is a great place to build it, taking up a slot like that as nothing more than a "work area" is inconveniencing those folks that have aircraft they want to house.

Use your garage, or get a storage rental someplace, it's probably cheaper than a hangar actually. The cost savings at the end you can use to transport your plane to where it needs to go.

@pigpenracing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is why violators get away with things for as long as they do. I don't know why people think that turning the other cheek is such a great idea. All it does is say you are complacent about enforcing rules and policies, which are in place for a reason. Don't like it? Change the rules or policies. I think @Stingray Don should bring it up, or at least plant the seed with management that there may be a problem without outright accusing people. There are ways to "inform" without actually being a finger pointer.
 
Tom-D said:
So there is an empty hangar, I rent it, place my boat and Motorhome in there. and now you come along with an aircraft, And I must move?? that doesn't seem fare either.
Click to expand...
I specifically said "given an existing covenant". At my airport, it specifically states must have an airplane in the hangar and then whatever else you want to put in there. So yes, if you had a plane (signed the agreement to get a hangar) and sold it, then someone comes along with a plane, you should have to take your boat and motor-home and go if there is a waiting list.

You can put your boat and motor-home in any available non-airport storage facility. That doesn't work for a plane. That is my $0.02
 
Usually the hangars with junk in them and a old plane in the back have had the same tenant for MANY years. This could be a guy that has rented that hangar for the past 40 years and used to be really active in aviation.
So now a new guy is going to come along and try to kick him out? I bet the old dude will put up more of a fight than you can imagine. The airport probably loves him because he has never been a day late on rent. So if people need a hangar SOOO bad why don't they just build one?
I don't know you personally Stingray Don so I really don't care if you can stand me or not :)
On the other hand you are going to be the guy at the airport that nobody can stand if you keep getting in peoples business. Right?
 
pigpenracing said:
So if people need a hangar SOOO bad why don't they just build one?
Click to expand...

Because hangars here rent for $200/month, but cost $40,000 to build, and the airport requires minimum $1,000,000 insurance on a privately owned hangar. Even then, you own the building but not the land it sits on . . .
 
Caramon13 said:
We have a couple people at my airport that use their hangars to build experimental aircraft and/or store parts for the builds. We also have a waiting list that some people have been on for many years. So, while I agree a hangar is a great place to build it, taking up a slot like that as nothing more than a "work area" is inconveniencing those folks that have aircraft they want to house.

Use your garage, or get a storage rental someplace, it's probably cheaper than a hangar actually. The cost savings at the end you can use to transport your plane to where it needs to go.
Click to expand...

As I noted in my first post, not everyone has the luxury of a garage, storage rental places won't allow you to do work in them, and you can't find garages for rent. As an apartment dweller I've spent some time researching all those options, none are feasible. So, if you want to build an experimental aircraft and don't have access to a garage/basement at your own home, the only option is a hangar. Not that I could afford a hangar around here, even if I wanted too.

Building an experimental aircraft is a legitimate aviation activity. There's no reason in my mind that it's any different than a person hangaring an aircraft in annual but never flying it. It's no different than someone who flys their plane once a year, twice a year, etc. It's no different than an A&P having a hangar on the field to do maintenance in. Then again, if you're friends with somebody at the airport, it may be possible to borrow part of their hangar to build an E-AB.

Caramon13 said:
We also have a waiting list that some people have been on for many years.
Click to expand...
Then price the hangars higher. Use the free market to see who values the hangars the most. You'll reach a point where people who don't fly their planes decide it isn't worth it to pay for the hangar. Same goes for building an E-AB. Heck, around here hangars have already reached that price for many.
 
skier said:
As I noted in my first post, not everyone has the luxury of a garage, storage rental places won't allow you to do work in them, and you can't find garages for rent. As an apartment dweller I've spent some time researching all those options, none are feasible. So, if you want to build an experimental aircraft and don't have access to a garage/basement at your own home, the only option is a hangar. Not that I could afford a hangar around here, even if I wanted too.

Building an experimental aircraft is a legitimate aviation activity. There's no reason in my mind that it's any different than a person hangaring an aircraft in annual but never flying it. It's no different than someone who flys their plane once a year, twice a year, etc. It's no different than an A&P having a hangar on the field to do maintenance in. Then again, if you're friends with somebody at the airport, it may be possible to borrow part of their hangar to build an E-AB.

Then price the hangars higher. Use the free market to see who values the hangars the most. You'll reach a point where people who don't fly their planes decide it isn't worth it to pay for the hangar. Same goes for building an E-AB. Heck, around here hangars have already reached that price for many.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, building an experimental plane is definitely a legitimate aviation activity. What I don't agree with is people renting a hangar solely for storing the parts to build that experimental, or as "overflow". Got a hangar and you are building the experimental in it, awesome. Using the hangar for parts only..uh..nope!

Hangars are for functioning, flyable aircraft. Not parts, not boats, not for storing your dead relative's un-airworthy tri-pacer..etc...There are a lot of people who want in and I think the folks that do store non-relevant "stuff" in hangars are forgetting what they are used for in the first place and need to be reminded.

Hangars around here are priced at a minimum of $500-$1000 per month, depending on what you get. We have a lot of wealthy people in Sarasota who want to store their aircraft and don't mind paying a premium to do so. It's not the price, it's the convenience. KSRQ is a very easy to get in and out of airport. I had my plane tied down when I owned it...was fine for me. But you should see some of the larger hangars..they have planes packed in there like sardines, it's no wonder people want one of their own. One hangar I remember had like five G5's in it and a cherokee...lol..
 
Radar Contact said:
I specifically said "given an existing covenant". At my airport, it specifically states must have an airplane in the hangar and then whatever else you want to put in there. So yes, if you had a plane (signed the agreement to get a hangar) and sold it, then someone comes along with a plane, you should have to take your boat and motor-home and go if there is a waiting list.

You can put your boat and motor-home in any available non-airport storage facility. That doesn't work for a plane. That is my $0.02
Click to expand...
I was replying to your post #26 Where you said

"If there is no waiting list then whatever keeps it from being empty that doesn't disrupt aviation."

Wouldn't seem fair to allow someone to move in, then kick them out because a person shows up with an aircraft.
 
Hank S said:
Because hangars here rent for $200/month, but cost $40,000 to build, and the airport requires minimum $1,000,000 insurance on a privately owned hangar. Even then, you own the building but not the land it sits on . . .
Click to expand...

So kick the old guy out that has been renting forever so he has to build one. Lol!
 
OBTW, the FAA has agreed that E/AB building is an aviation activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top