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