|
|
Un-bloody-believable!
Dominic V. Crain Phone 03-94161881 Mobile 0412-359320
I just posted this on the site (hopefully in the correct location): So the FAA would rather have the initial construction process done without the benefit of experienced builders and fliers who are always on the airport? That is counter to safety. I am somewhat stunned this proposed requirement has seen the light of day, considering that the FAA is constantly trying to find ways to make experimental airplanes safer. I believe the proposal should be changed to encourage builders to start and end their projects at the airport. It should acknowledge that airports are the geographic center of most safety activities. Airports are where hundreds of years of expertise in the form of A&P's, IA's and serial kit builders can be accessed almost instantaneously. Would it not be better for a new builder to be near all this expertise rather than in their garage at home without any on site immediate counsel? The FAA knows how important airports are as evidence by the money that flows to their capital improvement programs. Do they not see that airport quality and longevity will not work with money alone? And the greatest supporters of airports are people who just invested thousands of dollars in a kit. Steve Richard 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 on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport Hangars (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13) 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 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!home) citing docket number FAA-2014-0463. 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. |
With respect to experimental aircraft building, this is stupid on the face of it. The FAA is supposedly concerned about aviation safety yet, they will force builders to work in their mushroom cellar without any immediately available advice of other builders, pilots or aircraft shops located at their airport. The FAA apparently no longer has objectives of promoting GA or safety. PS Please consider making comments to FAA as outlined above. Do not mention your own airport because the data might be used by FA enforcement. PPS Uh, Final Assembly starts when first part is built/assembled.
|
|