New FAA policy on use of hangars

In a very surprising reversal of proposed policy, the FAA issued a new policy that working in aircraft hangars and homebuilding in hangars at federally-assisted airports ARE aeronautical activities and must be reasonably accommodated by airport sponsors.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2014-0463-2466

By way of background, some 10 years ago I filed a 14 CFR ? 16 complaint against the Concord Regional Airport over this. The FAA ruled in my case that such activities, including testing homebuilt aircraft, were not aeronautical activities and did not have to be accommodated. Concord booted me out of my hangar for complaining about it and the FAA cited my case as settled precedent for the proposed (restrictive) rule. I figured there was no reversing this.

I can only think it came from the hundreds of comments that pilots and homebuilders left at the rule docket. Good work guys.
-Kent

I wonder what will happen in practice here. There seem to be a fair number of hangars at our airport that seem to be filled with campers, boats, cars, and anything but aircraft.

I think it is a good idea to enforce a requirement that hangars be used for aeronautical uses if and only if the hangars receive a government subsidy. Folks that are just looking for a cheap place to store stuff ought to be using commercial storage facilites, not my tax-subsidized hangar space.

I'm really curious as to what "expletive" was removed from my original post. I don't remember using any foul language.

1001001 said:

I wonder what will happen in practice here. There seem to be a fair number of hangars at our airport that seem to be filled with campers, boats, cars, and anything but aircraft.

I think it is a good idea to enforce a requirement that hangars be used for aeronautical uses if and only if the hangars receive a government subsidy. Folks that are just looking for a cheap place to store their stuff ought to be using commercial storage facilites, not my tax-subsidized hangar space.

Click to expand...

I struggle to see how this practice continues. If I own an FBO, I am going to complain to the airport authority on a daily basis about this. Every hanger that doesn't have a plane reduces my already small population of potential customers (FBO revenue relates directly to taxes as well). If the airport authority is selling gas, they are not maximizing their revenue opportunity. I suspect there may be more to it, but even Government employees can be moved to action if shown to better meet their measured objectives.

Larry

Chino Hangar Use and Rent

At Chino (KCNO), it seems that virtually all the county-owned and leased hangars have aircraft, or aircraft projects, in them. The larger commercial (privately-owned) hangars (leasing county land) seem to have about 2/3 aircraft and 1/3 recreational junk (anything but aircraft!). Despite receiving complaints from aircraft owners and builders, the airport manager seems to turn a blind eye to 1/3 of the commercial hangars being leased mainly* for motorhomes, boats, cars, etc.

* There might be an old fuselage hiding in there somewhere?!

Non-aviation rental of the commercial hangars drives up the overall average hangar cost at Chino, because aircraft owners and builders must compete for the space. The commercial space goes to the highest bidder; it is not rate-controlled as the county hangars are. A one-aircraft space in the commercial hangars goes for about $350 a month, or so. The county’s T-hangars average about $290 per month. The county has a 4-page, about 2-year, waiting list for its hangars.

Depending on the definition of commercial hangar, it may be OK or not OK. If an individual or business owns outright the hangar and the land, and receives no subsidy, I don't care if they fill the thing with ping pong balls. If they pay a rent that is unsubsidized, i also have little problem with it.

If their rent is subsidized by my tax dollars then that is a different matter.

Whether or not the very presence of the building on government property (in the case of a public airpprt) is a factor is a slightly different question, however.

The new FAA guidance is clear on this. If the hangar is on public airport property where FAA grant money has been accepted, and in an area that is dedicated to aeronautical use, it must be primarily used for aeronautical purposes unless it would otherwise sit empty due to lack of demand. It doesn't matter whether the hangar is leased, owned, or rented.

erich weaver said:

The new FAA guidance is clear on this. If the hangar is on public airport property where FAA grant money has been accepted, and in an area that is dedicated to aeronautical use, it must be primarily used for aeronautical purposes unless it would otherwise sit empty due to lack of demand. It doesn't matter whether the hangar is leased, owned, or rented.

Click to expand...

I wonder how this is going to play with those persons that have built huge, and I mean HUGE, hangar/home with their own money on FAA grant airports in areas dedicated to aeronautical use. I know of several that fall into this category. The owners are very, very affluent and have a LOT of political contacts.

GalinHdz said:

I wonder how this is going to play with those persons that have built huge, and I mean HUGE, hangar/home with their own money on FAA grant airports in areas dedicated to aeronautical use. I know of several that fall into this category. The owners are very, very affluent and have a LOT of political contacts.

Click to expand...

Well I'm sure they are good to go then, isn't that how it works?.

With my experience in Florida, they require a N number.
But, they are usually ok with a kit in its final stages, as most, by that time , have reserved a N number.

Whether it was all comments, or comments combined with EAA influence, it is good to know that the FAA seems to have done the right thing in the end.

Thanks to the EAA Board members that advocated for us little guys.

erich weaver said:

...it must be primarily used for aeronautical purposes unless it would otherwise sit empty due to lack of demand.

Click to expand...

And that's something that I don't quite get: If either the rental or purchase price of the hangar is elevated to the point that aircraft owners aren't using it for aeronautical purposes, then it shouldn't be "OK" to rent it out to the motor-home boat crowd. Drop the price and the hangars will be full of aircraft!

We definitely have that problem at KLGB.

-Marc

I own a "T" hangar. I am finishing up my plane - not as fast as I would like, but finishing. I have a bunch of other **** in there from Christmas tree to snow tires. A "T" hangar fits one plane. What difference does it make what else I have in there? I guess I am ok now.

if you are actually building an airplane in your T hangar then it is no big deal what else you have in there. Where I am (kmyf) hangars are in short supply and I can think of quite a few that have...a woodshop, an electric car, a business, a man cave, another man cave, a bunch of krap, the list goes on. And I have to pay 400/month for a crappy T with no electric. I can see both both sides of the coin, but in the end, it's an airfield and it should be for airplanes.

1001001 said:

If an individual or business owns outright the hangar and the land, and receives no subsidy, I don't care if they fill the thing with ping pong balls. If they pay a rent that is unsubsidized, i also have little problem with it.

Click to expand...

Ping pong balls ok. Other stuff maybe not.

We have a little more complicated situation at my airport as it is privately owned but public use. We all own our hangers but lease the ground. To make it confusing, the airport has received government $$$ because it is a reliever for STL. Several non-aviation businesses in hangers but the airport owners (along with other hanger owner complaints) has drawn the line on activities in other hangers that cause risk to ours. One such company that made charcoal and had the hanger full, floor to ceiling of charcoal, was driven from the airport.

Plummit said:

And that's something that I don't quite get: If either the rental or purchase price of the hangar is elevated to the point that aircraft owners aren't using it for aeronautical purposes, then it shouldn't be "OK" to rent it out to the motor-home boat crowd. Drop the price and the hangars will be full of aircraft!

Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem.

Near me up here in the snowy north, hangars rent for 1/2 to 1/4 the price of storage lockers. The hangars are larger, slightly less secure (the buildings aren't the concrete block with steel shutter doors arrangement of most storage locker sites), but the property is perceived as being *more* secure as it's behind fences with gates marked with federal signage, etc.

At that price differential, the word has got around to people with motorhomes, boats, race cars, etc. that cheap storage may be had if you keep your eye open at the local airport. What this means for aircraft owners is that you're competing with people who are willing to pay anywhere from 2x to 4x what you are for the space. That's a lot of money to turn down for someone who owns a hangar and rents it out.

CATPart said:

if you are actually building an airplane in your T hangar then it is no big deal what else you have in there. Where I am (kmyf) hangars are in short supply and I can think of quite a few that have...a woodshop, an electric car, a business, a man cave, another man cave, a bunch of krap, the list goes on. And I have to pay 400/month for a crappy T with no electric. I can see both both sides of the coin, but in the end, it's an airfield and it should be for airplanes.

Click to expand...

I too just scored a hanger at KMYF... There are multiple wait lists. It took me a year to secure a hangar. Luckily it happened just in time. I wanted to be at Gibbs, but it didn't happen, ended up subleasing a hanger over by Crown Air. On that note I'm getting a great deal and can't complain. BUT, in walking around and peeking through some cracks, it seems that 50% of the hangars have machine shops, storage, or other businesses in them. This is definitely a subsidized airport. Considering how many people are looking for hangars, and how inflated the prizes are, that this just isn't right. I don't want to be that guy, but it seems as though "someone" should.

Hangers used for auto use only

At Lampson field in Lake County Ca. there are several hangers used for auto only maintance and repair. Hangers for aircraft storage are not available. Would like to move my A/C to the airport.

redbaron said:

At Lampson field in Lake County Ca. there are several hangers used for auto only maintance and repair. Hangers for aircraft storage are not available. Would like to move my A/C to the airport.

Click to expand...

So now that this policy is out, and quite clear (hangar with non-aviation stuff in it has to be vacated within 30 days if a user with an airplane requests it), who will be enforcing it?

We have waiting lists for hangars at my field, but hangars that are filled with furniture, cars, etc., and apparently an airport manager who doesn't care.

Is there an FAA office at which one could register a complaint? Just askin' ...

RV7A Flyer said:

So now that this policy is out, and quite clear (hangar with non-aviation stuff in it has to be vacated within 30 days if a user with an airplane requests it), who will be enforcing it?

We have waiting lists for hangars at my field, but hangars that are filled with furniture, cars, etc., and apparently an airport manager who doesn't care.

Is there an FAA office at which one could register a complaint? Just askin' ...

Click to expand...

I'll take a stab and guess that the Airport Certification folks under Part 139 would be a good start:

https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/part139_cert/#contacts

https://www.faa.gov/airports/news_information/contact_info/regional/

RV7A Flyer said:

So now that this policy is out, and quite clear (hangar with non-aviation stuff in it has to be vacated within 30 days if a user with an airplane requests it), who will be enforcing it?

We have waiting lists for hangars at my field, but hangars that are filled with furniture, cars, etc., and apparently an airport manager who doesn't care.

Is there an FAA office at which one could register a complaint? Just askin' ...

Click to expand...

If you want action go to the airport manager and ask him who he reports to, and tell him why.

Just my $.02

I serve on my cities airport board and have for more than 10 years. We have debated many times about this subject and are thankful that this ruling has finally come out. We feel it is the right thing and will benefit many.

At our airport we do not have any hangers that are individually owned. We have tried for many years to get folks to build hangers on property that we would lease to them, however the 30 year reversionary clause that the city insists on, as well as the low rents the city charges for their hangers has kept the development from happening. We have a long waiting list for hangers and every few years we get some state/federal money to build a few and so it goes. The city staff has been very diligent in making sure that the hangers have airplanes in them, but a couple of years ago when this "use other than aviation" came to the forfront we were informed by city staff.that there could be no couches, refrigerators, cars, boats, or anything else in the hangers except airplanes. Additionally building an airplane would not be allowed. The airport board met and passed a recommendation that reasonable non-aviation items should be allowed like a couch, chairs, refrigerator, BBQ pit, tools and other items that could be considered supportive in nature of aviation activity. Additionally aircraft construction and repair could be undertaken as long as progress could be shown and any aircraft housed must be in an airworthy condition (in annual). There were also some other recommendations concerning air ambulance and part 135 operations but they are not pertinent here.

The city took our recommendations although legal was upset that the FAA policy was not going to be strictly enforced and began administering the new rules as leases came up for renewal. There were some sad faces when some aircraft had to be removed from the hangers to the ramp because they had been "hanger queens" for years. Some folks that had been on the list for years received hangers and were happy. The rest of us sat on our couches drank cool drinks from our refrigerator and told airplane lies while we worked on our planes or projects. We still have a waiting list, and that will not change soon. City staff is now happy, as are we, with the new ruling because it pretty much ratifies what was already being done.

If your airport is county or city owned and they don't care what's in the hangers there isn't much that's going to change until there is enough political encouragement to make it happen. Problem is if you try to force the issue then you will be on their "special list" and things probably won't go well for you in the future there. If your airport has developer owned hanger space with boats, motor homes etc. in them because they are willing to pay more rent, then I guess that you might just have to spend a few more bucks to get a hanger. Even if the governmental body states "only airplanes or aviation related" does not mean they set the rental rate as well. In that case if the demand is there i would assume lease rates would go up as well. If there is no demand then what is the harm of non aviation storage activity. Somebody has to pay that building payment.

I realize this is a very complex problem and there is no one solution that covers all situations. Some locations have a very high demand with no space and others have space and no demand and there is everything in between. This problem will be debated forever, but only solved on a local level with local conditions in mind by rational people.

I'm just pleased I get to sit on my couch and look at my project while I drink a cool one and BS with my airport buddies. Life is good again.

Sounds tough out there in Babylon. Hangar wars and such. Most of the airports around here have great runways and empty hangar lots all over the place. Maybe y'all should move.