New Regulation?

[triple8s]

I was visiting a friend/my mechanic recently and he said there was a new regulation governing hangar use on airport property where the airport receives federal money. From what I was told if an airport receives federal money then the hangars on that airport may only be used in aviation activities and nothing can be stored in the hangars but aviation items. No cars, trucks, boats, furniture, refrigerator, no desk, or TV. I guess it really means No whatever an authority of the airport decides is non aviation equipment. Has anyone else heard this? I have been dreaming of building a hangar but the city has a horizontal tax and forgot to levy tax against the property at my airport, so if I were to build a hangar I would be saddled with a portion of the taxes from today till 2008 because I'd be required to join the hangar owners association and by doing that I assume a percentage of the tax liability. Seems like every time you turn around it's another hand going in your pocket.

[Fly By Night]

The proposed policy has been getting some coverage lately, the latest issue of the EAA magazine, Sport Aviation, covered it pretty well. The FAA is simply trying to consolidate rules at Federal funded airports to protect those of us who are actually involved in aviation and use hangars for their intended purposes.

[ArtVandelay]

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/July/24/faa-drafts-new-hangar-policy

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars

 

Hangars are subsidized to promote aviation...I've seen plenty of hangars used for anything but...which results in a 5+ year waiting list for those who actually have planes they need to store a plane, personally I'm for it,

 

Your local tax issue is a separate issue.

[rbridges]

our airport doesn't seem to care what you have in the hangar as long as an airworthy plane is in there somewhere.

[John Pleisse]

We got a long e-mail from the airport manager at KFDK this week. It was a lot of neglected house keeping airport crack down type stuff, thinly veiled in federal compliance.

[bonal]

I think as long as the hangar is used for an aircraft you should be able to have aviation support items in there as well. Items that come to mind tools and equipment and you need a big screen so you can check the weather and a couple of nice chairs to sit and a fridge for storing important liquids etc. there are a lot that have no aviation related things in them and it lowers supply and keeps the prices high.

[DonMuncy]

I think all of us agree that "non aviation" junk shouldn't tie up a hangar that could be used by someone on a waiting list. I think most of us would think it was good (or at least OK) to allow you to build your plane there.

But what if a guy gets the first package of parts to build a plane and 4 years later that is all in the hangar.

Is that lot worse than a guy putting his plane in a hangar and not take it out for 10 years.

I doubt anyone could write a set of rules that would satisfy all of us.

I know I couldn't. 

[bonal]

Regulation, can't live with it can't live without it.

[Mooneymite]

I think all of us agree that "non aviation" junk shouldn't tie up a hangar that could be used by someone on a waiting list. I think most of us would think it was good (or at least OK) to allow you to build your plane there.

But what if a guy gets the first package of parts to build a plane and 4 years later that is all in the hangar.

Is that lot worse than a guy putting his plane in a hangar and not take it out for 10 years.

I doubt anyone could write a set of rules that would satisfy all of us.

I know I couldn't.

+1

This issue gets at the heart of the concept of "ownership". I can see all sides, but the simple solution is to own your hangar on land you own. You alone decide what the rules are.....oh, you and the property owners association!

[stevesm20b]

I think if you have an airplane in a hangar, what does it matter what else you have in the hangar? I don't think the government should have anything to do with what people have in hangars. When I take my airplane out of the hangar to fly someplace I put my car in the hangar until I get back.  

[David Mazer]

I believe this is being interpreted differently at different airports.  There was an article in some magazine, I can't remember which, about the FAA demanding all the tools be removed too.  You could put a plane in the hangar and nothing more and nothing less.

 

I tend to agree that a hangar at an airport should be used for aviation if someone wants to use it for aviation but, at my airport, there are unused hangars and leasing them for other uses makes sense to defray costs and keep the rent down. I'm for reasonableness.  Something that is generally impossible when the government is involved.

[rbridges]

+1

This issue gets at the heart of the concept of "ownership". I can see all sides, but the simple solution is to own your hangar on land you own. You alone decide what the rules are.....oh, you and the property owners association!

 

haha, not everyone is fortunate enough to have a hangar attached to their house.  

[cliffy]

The AOPA has posted what the new rules could be if enacted by the Feds. Looks like they are trying a reasonable effort to allow "incidental" items in a hangar but get rid of hangars rented for everything BUT airplanes. I have a couple of questions on it but over all its not too bad. Airports that have used Feds funds to improve the airport will fall under this rule. There should be a differentiation between publicly built and rented hangars (city owned) with waiting lists and those built on leased airport land but built and owned by private individuals.

A lot also depends on how each city/county interprets the National Fire Code as it pertains to aircraft hangars. It's complex and very restrictive.