FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

[N801BH]

I'm mixed on this one. Our local airport has a 3-4 year waiting list for a hangar, and there are several project planes in some of the hangars.

My local airport has been buckling down and telling people they need airworthy planes in the hangars. It's not only directed at people working on planes, but also those that are sitting on planes that haven't flown in many years. I don't know how much of an impact fuel sales make, but they did mention that non flying planes don't buy fuel.

It would be nice if all the hangars were filled with routine flyers, but I don't know where I would personally build a plane if I couldn't rent a hangar. I guess I could empty my garage, but not everyone has that luxury.

That happened here a few years back... Over the last 7 years the feds have given Jackson Hole Airport 50+ million for runway, terminal and other improvements and on one occasion, the feds went hangar to hangar and looked in....

That pretty much cleared out the non flying planes, boats, snowmobiles, household furniture etc, etc,etc....

Now the local airport board inspects hangars yearly for aircraft only storage, to log N numbers and check on fire extinguishers being up to date.. I commend them for their actions as the waiting list is now NOT 12 years...

A couple of years ago my buddy and I stuffed both our planes in one T hangar to free up space in other hangars and you should have seen the look on their face when they opened the hangar door...

Their first thought was... 2 planes in one hangar can't be legal, but then after a few minutes they realized we are helping the situation..

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

But an airworthy Flybaby for ten grand and keep it in annual. Fold the wings and park it in the back of your hangar. When you finish building your new plane sell the Flybaby for ten grand.

Fly Baby, MiniMax, or what ever!
Heck, while building I bet you would not even need to fold the wings. There is plenty of room until you start final assembly.

Jim

 

[timwinters]

HOWEVER, I would still love to see something that would allow final assembly of homebuilt aircraft assembled mostly off site. Maybe something like a 6 month grace period to get it from complete sub assemblies to fully built.

That is specifically allowed according to the article. Apparently, they don't expect you to transport an aircraft, wings on, to your hangar.

It all seems pretty common sense to me but people just love to ***** don't they?

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

That is specifically allowed according to the article. Apparently, they don't expect you to transport an aircraft, wings on, to your hangar.

It all seems pretty common sense to me but people just love to ***** don't they?

Well that just proves that I like to throw out my opinion without bothering to read the article!

 

[bnt83]

But an airworthy Flybaby for ten grand and keep it in annual. Fold the wings and park it in the back of your hangar. When you finish building your new plane sell the Flybaby for ten grand.

I hear powered parachutes are compact.

 

[CTLSi]

Do you own the land under your hangar?

No. The land is leased. Hence all hangar owners pay a land lease, and own the structure. Some also charge for electricity and water.

If the FAA makes this a rule then it's over. All fields will force homebuilders to clear out their equipment and tools. And it will be chaos.

 

[Badger]

I know of a local private airstrip that is probably 70% campers/storage.

That income is likely the only reason they are able to stay in operation.
I know it's private and a different situation, just saying.

 

[docmirror]

Is the route around this to buy an assembled and airworthy miniMax http://www.teammini-max.com/ and park it in the corner, then use the rest of the hangar to build your plane?

Jim

Good plan. One could get a Backyard Flyer. It folds the wing and takes up 38 x 6.5 feet. Park it in the corner, and the rest is for building.

As for the hanger situation, I've always been at private fields so I don't have any issue, but I can see the problem from a larger perspective. It's a sticky wicket. Guess I would prefer the FAA keep their nose out, but then rely on the local pols to handle it, which is fraught with peril as has been shown. Face it, GA pilots and owners just don't get much traction anywhere.

 

[Fearless Tower]

what are you guys complaining about ? isn't this the same crowd who wanted to figure out how to get the RV's out of their local hangars so they could have airplanes? Here ya go

Problem is the idea of including non-airworthy, but legit project airplanes in the ban.

The CAF B-25 'Maid in the Shade' sat in a hangar at FFZ for well over 10 years while volunteers came out here and there and slowly brought the old girl back to life. Under the FAAs line of thinking, those kinds of restoration projects would be banned.

 

[CTLSi]

Student Pilot here...

A. Are there restrictions in hangar leases that hamper the "abuse" by non-Aviators?

B. Are you, or rather should you be required to own a plane in order to lease a hangar?

C. If you're keeping the terms of your lease, how can the FAA "govern" a hangar's use from DC? How can they dictate how you use space that you pay for?

A. depends on the leasing authority and airfield management policy.
B. many hangars are owned by private companies that rent or sell them, but they are governed by the airport authority and rules.
C. the FAA funds airfield maintenance, upgrades, and land development and most airfields are not private, but owned by cities and counties. Compliance with FAA regulations is standard policy for most such fields.

 

[Alexb2000]

But an airworthy Flybaby for ten grand and keep it in annual. Fold the wings and park it in the back of your hangar. When you finish building your new plane sell the Flybaby for ten grand.

Jesse-

I saw your Flybaby parked out by the fence at Osh. I tried to come by and say hi a couple of times, but you were out and about. Looks like that tarp worked out great and you definitely needed it. I had no idea those were 10 grand.

 

[Silvaire]

...the OP just chose to emphasize that small part of it in the thread title.

Perhaps you did not read the linked article from Sundays Avweb, the title of which was used to open this thread. Emphasis NOT mine.

FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

Now in today's Avweb the EAA has responded saying that, although the new policy is not everything they could hope for, it is actually an improvement over the previous policy.

Hangar Policy "Significant Win" For Homebuilders: EAA

Personally I am still appalled by the entire premise of this policy if it involves an aircraft. I'm all for cracking down on hangars being used as storage sheds for RV's and such but beyond the home builder what about major work being done to an aircraft from engine rebuilding, to fabric recovering or general restorations. Is an owner expected to completely disassemble his aircraft and cart it home to perform these functions?

 

[Geico266]

Perhaps you did not read the linked article from Sundays Avweb, the title of which was used to open this thread. Emphasis NOT mine.

FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

Now in today's Avweb the EAA has responded saying that, although the new policy is not everything they could hope for, it is actually an improvement over the previous policy.

Hangar Policy "Significant Win" For Homebuilders: EAA

Personally I am still appalled by the entire premise of this policy if it involves an aircraft. I'm all for cracking down on hangars being used as storage sheds for RV's and such but beyond the home builder what about major work being done to an aircraft from engine rebuilding, to fabric recovering or general restorations. Is an owner expected to completely disassemble his aircraft and cart it home to perform these functions?

HEY!

 

[Zeldman]

I worked at a small airport between Charleston and Huntington, WV. There was 10 to 12 hangers, don't remember the exact number. All but two had race cars in them. And we would get 1-2 calls a month from people from the above mentioned towns looking for a hanger, because the big airports didn't have hanger space.

 

[hindsight2020]

How could it possibly not be more profitable to build more hangars in places with 3 year wait lists instead of accepting 3 year wait lists? (A mere euphemism for no hangar available mind you)... Unless you're telling me there's huge barriers to entry regarding the building of a simpleton row of T-hangars, at which point I suppose our anger should be directed to those responsible for that.

Cronyism.. screwing it up for the rest of us since 3000BC.

 

[Silvaire]

How could it possibly not be more profitable to build more hangars in places with 3 year wait lists instead of accepting 3 year wait lists? ...

It's a good question and I think the answer in many cases is that the County or Municipality doesn't particularly care that there is a wait list. At my airport, which is County owned, the County has one row of T-Hangars and there are three rows of private hangars. There has always been a wait list and the County has never entertained the idea of building any more hangars despite the fact that the taxiways for them are already there.

Another aspect is the fickle nature of General Aviation. I've been at it for over 40 years and can tell you that during an economic downturn a 3 year wait list can dry up pretty much overnight.

 

[JeffDG]

How could it possibly not be more profitable to build more hangars in places with 3 year wait lists instead of accepting 3 year wait lists? (A mere euphemism for no hangar available mind you)... Unless you're telling me there's huge barriers to entry regarding the building of a simpleton row of T-hangars, at which point I suppose our anger should be directed to those responsible for that.

Cronyism.. screwing it up for the rest of us since 3000BC.

Actually, I would attribute it to the fact that the hangars are being rented out at below-market rental rates. This is pretty clear from the 3 year wait, as this is a pretty strong indication of demand that lacks supply.

Rent floats up, money comes in, capital projects like construction happen. However, with artificially depressed rental rates, it may well be that the depressed rental rate will not make up the cost of construction in an acceptable time-frame.

 

[Alexb2000]

I have built a lot of hangars. The problem is there is a waiting list because of the price (cheap). Most rental rates are not updated with changes in the dollar. Charge the amount you would need to get in order to justify the capital for new construction and the demand dries up instantly. Large FBO's can't even pay for their common hangars without fuel sales.

 

[timwinters]

Problem is the idea of including non-airworthy, but legit project airplanes in the ban.

The CAF B-25 'Maid in the Shade' sat in a hangar at FFZ for well over 10 years while volunteers came out here and there and slowly brought the old girl back to life. Under the FAAs line of thinking, those kinds of restoration projects would be banned.

I agree with that one and there should be an exception for situations like that ...hopefully itss buried in the fine print somewhere.

that's a far cry from the guy taking ten years to build an RV that could just as easily be built in his own garage or basement and then brought out to the airport for final assembly...if that ever actually happens...

And I'm not saying that those people don't have something to contribute to the airport's aviating community...they do...but if there's a waiting list of folks with airworthy airplanes that are actually flown, then they should be in the hangars, not Mr. Ten-Year-Project.

Besides, Mr. Ten-Year-Project buys no fuel during that time. And, for most airports, fuel is another important revenue stream helping to keep the airport open.

The project Tri-Pacer at 0T3 hasn't changed status in the 4 years it's been there. It's just stacked up in the hangar providing great nesting opportunities for the local bird population.

 

[Bob Noel]

If people want hangar to house only completed aircraft, fine. But don't try to claim buidling an aircraft isn't an aeronautical use. It just makes the FAA look foolish (to be as polite as I can be).

 

[jesse]

Jesse-

I saw your Flybaby parked out by the fence at Osh. I tried to come by and say hi a couple of times, but you were out and about. Looks like that tarp worked out great and you definitely needed it. I had no idea those were 10 grand.

Sorry I missed you. Yes, the tarp worked out perfectly, was a rather affordable way to tackle that problem.

You can in fact buy them for around that price. There are those that want more, but I suspect would let it go for that. That said it still takes "real airplane dollars" to keep the thing running. The operating costs at the end of the day really aren't more than a 172 would be given you still need a hangar and the insurance costs more, etc. Plus parts can be kind of pricey since the ones that you can buy are rare expensive Cub parts and the ones you can't have to be made.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

...that's a far cry from the guy taking ten years to build an RV that could just as easily be built in his own garage or basement and then brought out to the airport for final assembly...if that ever actually happens...

I did not personally see it happen, but I met a couple who built their RV-6 in their garage in the Country Club! The first ANYONE ever saw of it was when the pulled the completed pieces into the drive way so they could build a paint booth in the garage. They were in the driveway for a couple of hours, then right back inside. A couple of weeks later the painted assemblies went on a trailer to a hangar at the airport for final assembly.

They never asked if it was allowed by the community restrictions and by the time anyone knew about it they were DONE!

Jim

 

[JeffDG]

They never asked if it was allowed by the community restrictions and by the time anyone knew about it they were DONE!

Jim

Why is what someone does INSIDE their home, out of sight of the neighbours, any of the "community restrictions" nazi's business?

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Why is what someone does INSIDE their home, out of sight of the neighbours, any of the "community restrictions" nazi's business?

You sign the agreement when you move into the community. If it is an issue, you only have yourself to blame.

I lived in one that had some really strict rules...no livestock and no oil wells...

Jim

 

[JeffDG]

You sign the agreement when you move into the community. If it is an issue, you only have yourself to blame.

I lived in one that had some really strict rules...no livestock and no oil wells...

Jim

I've not once seen one that controls what you can do inside. If the neighbours can't even see it, it's none of their damned business.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

I've not once seen one that controls what you can do inside. If the neighbours can't even see it, it's none of their damned business.

Oh, there is a catch all in there somewhere...creating a nuisance...unauthorized fun...something...

I'm with you and apparently so were the people who built the plane! It was all done before anyone even had a chance to complain! Good on them!!! And remember, joke them if they can't take a......

 

[RotorRambler]

I hear powered parachutes are compact.

Yep, and so are gyroplanes.

 

[Clip4]

No. The land is leased. Hence all hangar owners pay a land lease, and own the structure. Some also charge for electricity and water.

If the FAA makes this a rule then it's over. All fields will force homebuilders to clear out their equipment and tools. And it will be chaos.

You also have a lease agreement with airport, might be time to read it.

 

[JHW]

If the FAA makes this a rule then it's over. All fields will force homebuilders to clear out their equipment and tools. And it will be chaos.

You have it backwards. The CURRENT rule says you cant do anything at all in your hangar. The proposed change is to ALLOW some phase of construction in your hangar. So if the the current situation hasn't cramped your style, why are you worried about the new liberalized version ?

 

[CTLSi]

You have it backwards. The CURRENT rule says you cant do anything at all in your hangar. The proposed change is to ALLOW some phase of construction in your hangar. So if the the current situation hasn't cramped your style, why are you worried about the new liberalized version ?

It won't affect me at all. I only do oil changes in my hangar... But every other hangar at the field has guys doing builds, or restorations...

Odd if it is against the rules, there must be 50 guys doing major builds on the field, even big planes like Lancaire with a Turbine engine.

 

[poadeleted21]

There's a gut building a Christian eagle at my airport. He's got the wing tips done, only took him 25 years. His grill usually has something good on it though.

 

[petrolero]

in on page 2 of...

 

[Old Geek]

There's an EAA chapter hanger/workshop/Sunday pancake restaurant at my field. I suspect it isn't the only one. What's going to happen to them?

 

[cowman]

My airport had a great way of dealing with this problem IMO.

In the lease it states that you must keep an airplane in the hangar or you will get evicted. In practice(and this is straight from the airport manager) they do not enforce this unless someone comes along who does have an airplane and wants a hangar.

I was actually shown 2 occupied hangars and given the option to take either one... after a 30 day period for the tenant to vacate it. I ended up taking an empty one as it was cheaper and I didn't really need the extra space.

That seems like a fair way to do it IMO. That way the airport doesn't lose money from unoccupied hangars but aircraft still get the priority.

 

[CTLSi]

My airport had a great way of dealing with this problem IMO.

In the lease it states that you must keep an airplane in the hangar or you will get evicted. In practice(and this is straight from the airport manager) they do not enforce this unless someone comes along who does have an airplane and wants a hangar.

I was actually shown 2 occupied hangars and given the option to take either one... after a 30 day period for the tenant to vacate it. I ended up taking an empty one as it was cheaper and I didn't really need the extra space.

That seems like a fair way to do it IMO. That way the airport doesn't lose money from unoccupied hangars but aircraft still get the priority.

Keep a plane in the hangar? That's bogus. We own three hangars in places we also own homes. We have two empty hangars at any given time because we are traveling. We leave a car behind to drive when we arrive at those places.

 

[cowman]

I doubt they'd boot someone out in that situation. If they did, fly in for a couple of days and park an airplane in the hangar.

I see plenty of boats, airboats, collectable cars, etc running in and out of the hangar area so my guess is they don't enforce it much.

 

[txflyer]

If it isn't flying, or being actively worked on, they should get out and someone should have the power to get them out.

 

[JHW]

It won't affect me at all. I only do oil changes in my hangar... But every other hangar at the field has guys doing builds, or restorations...

Odd if it is against the rules, there must be 50 guys doing major builds on the field, even big planes like Lancaire with a Turbine engine.

like I said, if the current prohibition isn't affecting them, why so gloom and doom now ?

 

[RogerT]

Gotta be c!ose to 100%.

Being a home builder most here would think I am against the FAA even monitoring hangars, but the reality is there are many builders on the 10 year plan. We have one guy building a Pelican for the last 20 years with no end in sight. Delusional comes to mind. Hangars at airports should be used for flying airplanes, or airplanes in final assembly to be inspected and flown in 60 days.

Leaving it to the local airport authority won't work either. The problem is the "good ol boy" network will favor friends over people who actually need hangars. We fight this all the time at our airport. Boat storage, race cars, motor homes, furniture storage.

If you run into issues with hangars being used for storage call the EAA legal department and ask them for info on hangar enforcement. The airport management MUST move non aviation tenants out within 30 days to make room for aviation related activities.

None aviation use was a big reason I moved from LNK to CEK. I couldn't get a south facing hangar up there and when you drove around you'd see hangar after hangar full of all sorts of crap from a certain large aircraft service center at the south end of the airport.

RT

 

[timwinters]

BTW...

You'll never convince me that if the FAA didn't require hangars to be used only for storing airplanes (and ancillary equipment) that there wouldn't be hundreds of small towns across the nation who would build a row of T-hangars with 75% matching federal funds, not install interior walls, and have a great storage facility for their roads and parks department.

Hell I've seen them out there even with the purse strings.