Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Got ski's,,will fly
Hangar used for storage not aircraft
- Thread starter brien23
- Start date
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
You should read farther it doesn't come into effect until some time after the comment period ending Feb-19
Order 5100.39A, Airports Capital Improvement Plan
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides grants to public agencies — and, in some cases, to private owners and entities — for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). See the AIP Glossary for a description of AIP-related terms.
The FAA is accepting public comments on Draft Order 5090.5, Formulation of the NPIAS-ACIP, through February 15, 2019. When finalized, this new Order will replace both
That's a renewal or update of the existing AIG program. You quoted the part I was trying to point out to you- privately owned with public access can get AIG grants.
Private airports have been able to get these grants for some time.
Note the list of public use airports in NJ that have received grants in prior years. I chose NJ since I know that area fairly well; I know Princeton(1), Solberg, Somerset(2), Trenton-Robbinsville, and perhaps others, are privately owned, public use airports.
This link shows NJ airports which received AIP grants from 2007 through 2016: https://www.artba.org/wp-content/uploads/aip_state_profiles/ARTBA_AIP_NJ_report.pdf
Princeton & Somerset both received FAA AIP grants during that period. Solberg applied for AIP grants prior to this time period which triggered a NIMBY battle which continued into at least 2017; Readington Township attempted to eminent domain the airport so they could sell it to a developer.
Anyway- the privately owned airports were (and are) receiving grants, in contradiction to your comment quoted below:
(1) https://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=39N
(2) https://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=SMQ
Lindberg
Final Approach
If there's a waiting list and hangars filled with derilicts, then the rent is too low.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
show us where when they received money?
Tom- how about you look at the other link in the post?
How is it that you need citations, but you never provide them?
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I See one airport got $133.0 the other got $2120.00
Point taken, 3 airports here in Wa. were refused, OKH, Whidbey airpark, and Diamond point, all for private ownership.
They may have been refused for other reasons, but probably not "for private ownership".
The grants in the citation were 1000x the numbers listed in your reply.
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,095
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
I can't imagine why anyone would pay over $300/month to store stuff in a T hanger, when comparable square foot "U-Store it" around here is $150/month.
Eric Brunelle
Pre-takeoff checklist
They probably own them - had one like that next to me.
tawood
En-Route
In my area, those prices are reversed.
SoCal RV Flyer
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2016
- Messages
- 3,037
- Display Name
Display name:
SoCal RV Flyer
Location, location, location. 15 x 20 storage unit goes for about $500/mo. in SoCal. My hangar's easily twice that big at $348/mo.
Ryan Harris
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2017
- Messages
- 18
- Display Name
Display name:
rcharris
Subletting and non-aircraft related storage is pretty rampant at my home-drome, which is FAA funded. Any suggestions on lobbying with the local airport? or FAA?
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Yeah, but is your lake publicly funded?
midwestpa24
Final Approach
Wow, lots of misinformation here.
A. Privately owned/public use airports can receive federal funds, but they must be part of the NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems).
B. It doesn't matter if the federal dollars were used to build the hangar, the FAA grant assurances apply to the entire facility. By accepting a federal grant the airport agreed to abide by the FAA Grant Assurances. That money comes with strings, and yes its legal.
C. The FAA will initiate investigation and enforcement actions if they receive a complaint that an airport is in violation. The enforcement actions can include requiring the airport sponsor to repay any previous grants and prohibition from receiving future grants. In short, you may be jeopardizing the future of the airport financially. Most airports cannot afford to upkeep their infrastructure without the FAA's assistance. Airports have been violated for improper use of airport funds, non-aeronautical use including RC operations, drag racing, storage of non-aeronautical items on the airport, and outright theft of federally funded equipment. This isn't theoretical, it has happened and will happen in the future.
You can scream freedom and privacy all you want, but the truth is if you are operating from an airport that has received federal funding, and most public use have, you are subject to the FAA's policies.
A. Privately owned/public use airports can receive federal funds, but they must be part of the NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems).
B. It doesn't matter if the federal dollars were used to build the hangar, the FAA grant assurances apply to the entire facility. By accepting a federal grant the airport agreed to abide by the FAA Grant Assurances. That money comes with strings, and yes its legal.
C. The FAA will initiate investigation and enforcement actions if they receive a complaint that an airport is in violation. The enforcement actions can include requiring the airport sponsor to repay any previous grants and prohibition from receiving future grants. In short, you may be jeopardizing the future of the airport financially. Most airports cannot afford to upkeep their infrastructure without the FAA's assistance. Airports have been violated for improper use of airport funds, non-aeronautical use including RC operations, drag racing, storage of non-aeronautical items on the airport, and outright theft of federally funded equipment. This isn't theoretical, it has happened and will happen in the future.
You can scream freedom and privacy all you want, but the truth is if you are operating from an airport that has received federal funding, and most public use have, you are subject to the FAA's policies.
About ten years ago, CJR decided to put an end to various abuses which included no airplane in the hangar and the fact that the waiting list hadn't really moved in years because many of the lease holders were subletting rather than turning the hangars in when they had no use for them. They put an end to that one year (I was nervous as I was one of the subletters, renting from a friend whose deceased husband had a Stinson 108 project stored there). Since they open up the hangars to inventory the aircraft for tax billing purposes they knew who was actually IN the hangars. The lease renewals went out to those people. The new leases bar subletting and give you only 30 days from selling the aircraft to acquire another one or release the hangar back into the pool. The waiting list is much more manageable.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
It’s funded off...nature, been here since before government existed.
A thought for you guys chaffing about hangers with derelicts as space holders. Offer to pay rent to swap it out for your plane. (Assuming it’s not so junky you can’t get the plane in and out)
midwestpa24
Final Approach
Probably wouldn't work. The reason those people keep paying rent is because they still value (usually over value) their aircraft. It is often a dream they always thought they would return to, and they don't see it as the derelict others do. Usually its because someone got busy, lost their medical, or ran into a financial problem, but can't come to terms to giving up their dream.
Ryan Harris
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2017
- Messages
- 18
- Display Name
Display name:
rcharris
OK, so how does one go about filing a formal complaint or request for investigation?
midwestpa24
Final Approach
Lachlan
En-Route
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Kinda like how I don’t really value 172s, PA28s, 182s, etc?
Maybe government should kick planes I personally don’t value out of their paid for hangers?
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,219
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
I'm an advocate for less governmental intrusion into my life and yours. However, I think there should be a policy and mechanism which gives non-aviation users of hangars the boot if there is an aircraft owner that wants to lease the hangar to house his airplane.
That shouldn't be a great leap...reserving hangar space for aircraft at an airport makes sense, doesn't it? The concept of zoning to limit improper usage of real estate is well established, and I like to think most people support the idea.
There's always an outlier that shouts about governmental abuse...when in fact the opposite is true.
texasclouds
En-Route
I advocate that conventional gear planes get preference to trikes. That is all.
Stewartb
Final Approach
Hangar use policy and enforcement should be handled locally.
midwestpa24
Final Approach
The only reason it becomes a federal matter is because federal funds are at stake. Those federal funds were passed by law to fund aviation facilities. They weren't provided to provide cheap mini-storages, or drag strips, or whatever else can be thought of. It is just a mechanism to ensure that the money intended for aviation, remains for aviation. Isn't that what we want?
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
^^^^^^
This. If you want flying planes in the hangars, raise the rent and offer offsetting aviation fuel purchase discounts. If no one is leaving, the rent may be too low. You want to incentivize flying planes, though.
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
It's our tax dollars being used for a specific purpose: Aviation. Do you want earmarked aviation dollars that you have provided to be used for general purpose storage units? That's really what it's about.
If it's private funds, it's absolutely a local matter by those who own it... but if public money is subsidizing it, then it should be used as the public money stipulates.
Stewartb
Final Approach
Funding an Alaskan airport may best be used on snow removal equipment but Florida airports may not need the same. So it goes with most things. Washington is out of touch with most communities and most community needs. The Federal Government was never intended to govern communities. If you guys are fans of big government? These are the days.
I think the premise is that money earmarked for aviation and airports should be used to support that activity. Hangars certainly fit into that activity, and should be used as hangars. Beyond that, airport lighting, snow removal, and runways, taxiways, and so forth fit the needs.
My understanding is that the airport authority describes the uses for the grant money during the grant application. In the case of Solberg airport in NJ, it was an extension of the paved runway surface (the runway length was partially unpaved), and edge lighting.
So, during the grant application process, the local community does relay its needs to the federal government.
While a discussion of the role of the federal government might be worthwhile, the premise that the feds stipulate that hangars (or other items) must be built may be incorrect.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,636
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
Nope. Not a specialized building, built for a specialized purpose in a specialized place, when there's a waiting list for said specialized buildings. So you'd be OK with fifty hangars full of, say, imported trinkets, while your airplane sat in the weather?
Stewartb
Final Approach
Not my business. That's what I'm saying. Not the fed's business, either. It's the airport management's business. Literally.
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
Washington is generally out of touch, yes, but that doesn't mean you ignore funding stipulations. There are other funds available for other things. Frankly, I dislike these funds being made available. The states and municipalities could/should be doing this on their own... but the feds are, so let's maintain some oversight on the bloat and robin hood act.
If the AK airport needs to use funds for that, go for it if the money so permits for it... but the feds don't generally just hand out bags of cash for communities to use without oversight. FAA money will be used for aviation, and EPA money will be used for whatever the EPA funds these days. At no point is that money earmarked to make you a profit for other things.
It'd be unlawful (not to mention just plain unethical) to take that federal money and build a casino, right? How is taking the money and building a UHaul storage center any different? Bear in mind, I don't care what else goes in a hangar so long as its primary purpose is an airplane -- the rest is coincident... but if it's primary purpose isn't airplanes, it's not really a hangar.
Stewartb
Final Approach
Not my business. This has become tiresome. I'm out.
mkosmo
Pattern Altitude
Unfortunately, that attitude is just as bad as NIMBY. If you don't hold people accountable, fraud becomes the norm. This is tax dollars we're talking about -- Hard earned labor that all of us have earned and provided for the collective good. The collective good is not the airport owner making a killing with free money for something else... fraudulently.
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
Legally speaking, it is absolutely the feds' business if federal funds were spent. One of the conditions for being granted funding (which can be quite substantial) is ensuring that the airport is used for aviation purposes. Having said that, the FAA will allow hangars to be used for non aviation purposes if they cannot be filled with enough aircraft. Better that than forgoing income. The FAA takes a dim view of prioritizing non aviation activities in hangars, however. And recent rule changes have eliminated the rigidity of prior rules for hangar use, which were a bit overboard. This current level of compliance is no big deal for a competently managed airport. It is up to local management to ensure they are meeting grant requirements.