X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:20:22 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTP id 7062105 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Aug 2014 20:12:28 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=panelmaker@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=OeMb1fVVXWRlUgZ24vxqJCeu/ABzLDQn1Gj6usMUJoRyuz3dM4ICWUWiEfXTlmYV; h=Received:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [64.91.142.19] (helo=COMPUTER1) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1XE5sY-0001ue-TW for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Aug 2014 20:11:55 -0400 From: "Jim Nordin" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: Subject: FAA says hangars no place for homebuilders X-Original-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 19:11:56 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <3BEA67DEA9CA45F1A0BB738C8091A36A@COMPUTER1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0026_01CFAF4E.CB2456E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Ac+vODKpGsXhtfnjTdKbWjcOlDBAbAABnv/w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 In-Reply-To: X-ELNK-Trace: bdfc62829fd2a80cc8ad50643b1069f8239a348a220c26099513da81c07aefb1223d359da849304f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 64.91.142.19 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01CFAF4E.CB2456E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Before you comment, and I suggest every one does, read http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463-0001 the crux being: "Use of Hangars for Fabrication and Assembly of Aircraft While building an aircraft results in an aeronautical product, the FAA has not found all stages of the building process to be aeronautical for purposes of hangar use. A large part of the construction process can be and often is conducted off-airport. Only when the various components are assembled into a final functioning aircraft is access to the airfield necessary. In Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, (3) the complainant objected to the airport sponsor's prohibition of construction of a homebuilt aircraft in an airport T-hangar. The decision was based on a FAA determination that aircraft construction is not per se an aeronautical activity. While final stages of aircraft construction can be considered aeronautical, the airport sponsor prohibited this level of maintenance and repair in T-hangars but provided an alternate location on the airport. The FAA found that the airport sponsor's rules prohibiting maintenance and repair in a T-hangar, including construction of a homebuilt aircraft, did not violate the sponsor's grant assurances. There have been industry objections to the FAA's designation of any aircraft construction stages as non-aeronautical. While the same principles apply generally to large aircraft manufacturing, compliance issues involving aircraft construction have typically been limited to homebuilt aircraft construction at general aviation airports. Commercial aircraft manufacturers use dedicated, purpose-built manufacturing facilities, and questions of aeronautical use for these facilities are generally resolved at the time of the initial lease. In contrast, persons constructing homebuilt aircraft sometimes seek to rent airport hangars designed for storage of operating aircraft and easy access to a taxiway, even though it may be years before a homebuilt aircraft kit will be able to take advantage of the convenient access to the airfield. 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." I can well understand this problem. My airport has several totally non-aeronautical businesses on airport. But to tell me building an experimental airplane is not aeronautical - is absurd. So this policy must be addressed so everyone can understand what is meant by aeronautical as my homebuilt can not be used for anything other than aeronautical functions even if it isn't flying. I'm amazed at the ignorance of our politicians and bureaucrats. Let me say that another way. Politicians and bureaucrats are citizens without specific knowledge and skills. Saying all this, I realize GA airports are not for (designed to be used for) non-aviation activities. So the problem. Surely our rulemakers can be more intelligent in getting these issues addressed. It is good that we have the opportunity to have a say. BTW, if my airplane is in non-operational condition, should I move it from the hangar to . where? The best place in many places to get aeronautical knowledge is around airports. Jim _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Sky2high@aol.com Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 11:30 AM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] FAA says hangars no place for homebuilders FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders 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-th e-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. Scott Krueger 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. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01CFAF4E.CB2456E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Before you comment, and I suggest = every one does, read http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=3DFAA-2014-0463-0001= the crux being:

“Use of Hangars for Fabrication and Assembly of Aircraft

While building an aircraft results in an aeronautical product, the FAA has not = found all stages of the building process to be aeronautical for purposes of = hangar use. A large part of the construction process can be and often is = conducted off-airport. Only when the various components are assembled into a final functioning aircraft is access to the airfield = necessary.

In Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, (3) = the complainant objected to the airport sponsor's prohibition of = construction of a homebuilt aircraft in an airport T-hangar. The decision was based on a = FAA determination that aircraft construction is not per se an aeronautical activity. While final stages = of aircraft construction can be considered aeronautical, the airport = sponsor prohibited this level of maintenance and repair in T-hangars but = provided an alternate location on the airport. The FAA found that the airport = sponsor's rules prohibiting maintenance and repair in a T-hangar, including = construction of a homebuilt aircraft, did not violate the sponsor's grant = assurances.

There have been industry objections to the FAA's designation of any aircraft construction stages as non-aeronautical. While the same principles apply generally to large aircraft manufacturing, compliance issues involving = aircraft construction have typically been limited to homebuilt aircraft = construction at general aviation airports. Commercial aircraft manufacturers use = dedicated, purpose-built manufacturing facilities, and questions of aeronautical = use for these facilities are generally resolved at the time of the initial = lease. In contrast, persons constructing homebuilt aircraft sometimes seek to rent airport hangars designed for storage of operating aircraft and easy = access to a taxiway, even though it may be years before a homebuilt aircraft kit = will be able to take advantage of the convenient access to the = airfield.

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.”

 

I can well understand this problem. = My airport has several totally non-aeronautical businesses on airport. But = to tell me building an experimental airplane is not aeronautical - is absurd. So = this policy must be addressed so everyone can understand what is meant by aeronautical as my homebuilt can not be used for anything other than aeronautical functions even if it isn’t flying.

I’m amazed at the ignorance of = our politicians and bureaucrats. Let me say that another way. Politicians = and bureaucrats are citizens without specific knowledge and skills. =

Saying all this, I realize GA = airports are not for (designed to be used for) non-aviation activities. So the = problem. Surely our rulemakers can be more intelligent in getting these issues addressed. It is good that we have the opportunity to have a = say.

BTW, if my airplane is in = non-operational condition, should I move it from the hangar to … = where?

The best place in many places to get aeronautical knowledge is around airports.

Jim =

 

From: = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Sky2high@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 03, = 2014 11:30 AM
To: Lancair Mailing = List
Subject: [LML] FAA says = hangars no place for homebuilders

 

FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders

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.fe= deralregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aerona= utical-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.

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

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.

 

Scott Krueger  =

 

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.

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01CFAF4E.CB2456E0--