X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:21:02 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman1@gmail.com> Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 7062370 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 06:25:28 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.192.169; envelope-from=2thman1@gmail.com Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y10so9431023pdj.28 for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 03:24:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.70.62.97 with SMTP id x1mr23134340pdr.86.1407147893279; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 03:24:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman1@gmail.com> Received: from [192.168.1.123] (c-208-53-115-208.customer.broadstripe.net. [208.53.115.208]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bl12sm61828787pac.44.2014.08.04.03.24.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Aug 2014 03:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-E3AEF711-F8EF-4FAE-895D-E35F0B94790B Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [LML] FAA says hangars no place for homebuilders From: John B <2thman1@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11D257) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 03:24:51 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Original-Message-Id: References: X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-E3AEF711-F8EF-4FAE-895D-E35F0B94790B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This one has me totally perplexed. Doesn't the FAA have enough to do? Seem= s like they have no business telling folks what to do with their hangars. T= he opinion expressed by Greyhawk and others about safety is a no brainer. W= hat's wrong with these people? John Barrett Sent from my iPad > On Aug 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: >=20 > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders >=20 >=20 > The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a "non-a= eronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed polic= y statement issued July 22. Policy on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport Ha= ngars (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 t= o a hangar for final assembly. Comments are being accepted until Sept. 5 and= can be submitted online (http://www.regulations.gov/#!home) citing docket n= umber FAA-2014-0463. The agency has devoted a separate section in the propos= ed 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 req= uire a runway so it's not an aeronautical use. It also says the policy has a= lways 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 co= mpletion of the aircraft to a point where it can be taxied, will be consider= ed an aeronautical use," the proposed policy says. EAA is aware of the propo= sed policy and staff are assessing it. >=20 > The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of the ru= les regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over th= e past two years, the agency has found hangars crammed with just about every= thing but airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related busine= sses have been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used t= o build and maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for non-aeronau= tical uses amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases the city or co= unty responsible for the airport was the violator. Auditors found police car= s and other municipal assets tucked safely away in airport hangars. The pro= posed policy will also clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical it= ems in hangars, meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe= from the feds. >=20 > =20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > =20 > With respect to experimental aircraft building, this is stupid on the face= of it. The FAA is supposedly concerned about aviation safety yet, they wil= l force builders to work in their mushroom cellar without any immediately av= ailable advice of other builders, pilots or aircraft shops located at their a= irport. The FAA apparently no longer has objectives of promoting GA or safe= ty. > =20 > Scott Krueger=20 > =20 > PS Please consider making comments to FAA as outlined above. Do not menti= on your own airport because the data might be used by FA enforcement. > =20 > PPS Uh, Final Assembly starts when first part is built/assembled. --Apple-Mail-E3AEF711-F8EF-4FAE-895D-E35F0B94790B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This one has me totally perplexed.  Doesn't the FAA have enough to do?  Seems like they have no business telling folks what to do with their hangars.  The opinion expressed by Greyhawk and others about safety is a no brainer.  What's wrong with these people?

John Barrett

Sent from my iPad


On Aug 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

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-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.
 
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.
--Apple-Mail-E3AEF711-F8EF-4FAE-895D-E35F0B94790B--