GA Hangar Owners against the FAA

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
canav8
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:34 pm

GA Hangar Owners against the FAA

Post by canav8 »

If you enjoy aviation in any form, this will scare the ^*#& out of you. GA as we know it is about to explode. There is a NPRM to change the way hangar occupants use their hangars if the FAA has it their way and we need to help.

Please read this comment to the FAA about hangar usage. This policy from the FAA has much wider ranging negative effects than you could ever imagine. I urge all of you to read this PDF from Boulder CIty and then provide your own comments prior to Sept 5th at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComm ... -0463-0538

Here is the letter from Boulder City, please take the time to read it then click on the link to comment:

From the Boulder City Airport Association, Boulder City, Nevada.
The Boulder City Airport Association (BCAA) represents the interests of the users of Boulder City Municipal Airport (KBVU) to the Sponsor and to government entities in general. We have members who are aircraft owners, private and commercial pilots, hangar renters, hangar lease owners, as well as the aircraft mechanics and businesses that depend upon them. By tradition, and by our articles of association, these diverse groups are all represented on our board of directors. We write to you with the full authority of our membership, and the unanimous support of all board members, both current and ex-officio.
General Observations
We are generally supportive of the goals described in this document. We believe that a definition of what is appropriate “non-aeronautical” use in hangars otherwise dedicated to aeronautical is necessary and welcome. However, we strongly believe that this proposal as written has very serious flaws, that it will not achieve the goals that are the reason for this policy clarification, and further, will have a serious negative impact on airport security, air safety and tenant-sponsor relations.
We note that the proposal’s author appears to have included owner-constructed hangars as an afterthought. Several times within the text – such as when noting that commercial aircraft manufacturers uniquely are covered by their initial lease agreements, or that non-aviation use requests are to be an exclusive prerogative of the sponsor, and in the criteria for the setting of rents – the writer appears unaware that the owner-constructed hangar tenants have similar existing agreements and comparable concerns as commercial tenants and sponsor/landlords. The document seems to picture an airport where sponsor-pilot leases are the only tenants. We have both types of leaseholder at Boulder City (KBVU) each with different characteristics. Any equitable policy needs to distinguish between them
Owner constructed hangars at Boulder City are on 30 year leases – many built with less restrictively assurances as to hangar contents which, although consistent with FAA policy at the time, would be in conflict with this new directive. Owners have made substantial financial investments at the airport, and cannot simply abandon their property and leave. It would seem that they have a number of legal remedies available to them should the terms of the enjoyment of their property change. Sponsor-pilot leases are typically month-to-month, and the tenant has nothing to lose except the bother of moving hangars should he or she be caught storing non-aviation items. At Boulder City, there are six times as many owner constructed hangar leases as sponsor-pilot ones.
Finally, we note that the distinction between “aeronautical” and “non-aeronautical” is by no means cut and dried. The Willis letter of July 12th 2012 illustrates this point. Referring to the Glendale decision, storage of “police cars” in hangars is an unacceptable “non-aeronautical” use. However, storage of tenant cars in private hangars is “aeronautical” and acceptable. The FAA has, therefore, already acknowledged that legality or otherwise is determined not only by what something is, but also the purpose for which it is being stored. It is not crossing the Rubicon if, for example, the FAA tolerates the presence of a couch in a private hanger, but balks at a hangar full of couches being stored for resale.. Pronouncing on the legality of an item as one of its immutable characteristics is entirely artificial; it serves little purpose, and does not establish any precedent.
“ Proposed Policy and Request for Comments”
II – Standards for Aeronautical Use of Hangars
Although the policy refers earlier to the agency’s July 12th 2012 letter on hangar contents, and claims that that letter “does not represent general agency policy”, this was exactly how it was interpreted by our airport management. Boulder City’s subsequent enforcement actions give us a very clear projection as to how this policy, if adopted, would play out nationwide.

The proposed policy is not identical to the earlier agency missive. Many considered the July 12th 2012 letter – which included such extraordinary directives as requiring pilots to choose, in their own hangars, between “A small refrigerator or coffee pot”– to have seriously weakened the FAAs credibility a an impartial and incorruptible auditor. In the context of the bitter fight at Glendale, this letter appears to have been dictated by a vindictive management, with the transcriber subsequently adding the relevant AIG justification and then appending the FAA stamp of approval. Only three months earlier, the FAA document “How Airports Make Money and What’s new in Compliance” was offering guidance which showed tools and other items as quite acceptable in private hangars, highlighting the incongruity of the new policy.
This NPRM avoids the specifics of the earlier letter, but the spirit of that “non-policy” letter remains in this proposal, with the requirement that non-aviation items shall “occupy an insignificant amount of hangar space”. The “small refrigerator” remains as an iconic example leading to the conclusion that the author’s idea of “insignificant” can mean 10 sq ft of floor space at most. In all meaningful ways, then, this is an identical policy to the punitive régime. Any sponsor would be forced to enact similar draconian restrictions to assure AIG compliance. Hence, we can confidently predict that this policy
1. will poison the atmosphere between airport tenants and sponsor by mandating an intrusive inspection régime and demanding a “sterile hangar” devoid of any comfort save the iconic “small refrigerator”.
2. will seriously cripple airport security, especially in small airports like Boulder City. Treating the airport users as suspects, not partners, will alienate the very people who are the “eyes and ears” on the lookout for suspicious behavior. Effective programs like “Airport Watch” will suffer, as no airport user will care to spend time in the Spartan hangars envisioned by the proponents.
3. will virtually guarantee law suits against sponsors for breach of contract and the FAA on 5th amendment grounds, since no distinction is made between month-to-month tenants of the sponsor, and owners who made substantial investments when FAA interpretation of ‘aviation activities’ was supportive of general aviation.
4. will negatively affect air safety. “Hangar talk” is an important part of the aviation milieu, where techniques get discussed and criticized, and unsafe practices identified and corrected. Similarly, not designating early-stage kit building as a protected activity risks denying the benefits of peer review. These activities occur in an informal – and comfortable – environment which now will be denied the user community.
5. will significantly reduce, if not stop completely, the flow of private development money into small airports. Few people are prepared to construct a hangar where even the presence of comfortable sofa might be grounds for eviction.
6. will encourage airport tenants with no connection to aviation and who ignore the rules to gravitate to airports with lax enforcement regimes. A financial windfall for bad management. A burden for airports like Boulder City where management attempt to take these things seriously.
Enforcement by the sponsor of KBVU – entirely consistent with this proposal’s “Policy item 7” – saw airport management tricking their way into private hangers, taking photographs without permission, and then publishing these pictures on the internet. This outrage – justified to the Boulder City Council as being necessary for the continue receipt of AIP funds – resulted in just ONE owner of a hangar used for non-aviation purposes being ousted, and ONE business owner asked to modify his behavior. The number of hangars for sale climbed rapidly from about 6 to 24 and continues to rise – over 20% of the stock is now on the market – with many more owners planning to do the same when prices recover. Most of the additional sellers site the draconian ‘sterile hangar’ and disingenuous inspection demands as reasons for leaving. Our airport which used to be crammed with aircraft is now dying as far as general aviation is concerned – and this in a rapidly improving economy in a major metropolitan area. We now have but just one FBO, and fuel sales are less than they were when there were two FBOs at the field.
As regards specific “aeronautical contents”, while appreciative of the statement affirming “Final assembly” of kit build airplanes to be protected, it is unfortunate that the author hasn’t considered the benefits of being at the
airport at all phases of construction. It’s not the supposed subsidized rents that attract kit builders; they gravitate to the airport because that’s where the expertise is, not in some lonely garage miles away. A vibrant airport will typically have several aviators who have been through the kit build process, will offer advice, and informally monitor progress. Further, one unintended consequence is that kit builder’s keen to get onto the airport will rush to satisfy whatever criteria are decided upon for “final assembly” (attachment of the wings, perhaps?). This encourages a departure from the recommended assembly instructions, and – together with the lack of peer review -- constitutes a serious safety concern.
III – Approval for Non-Aeronautical Use of Hangers
The proposal to permit the airport sponsor to designate their property for non-aviation uses when the vacancy rate is high is discriminatory against private hangar owners on long-term leases who are granted no such opportunity.. Procedures need to be established to ensure equal treatment under the grant assurances.. If the private hangar group is included, how many owners get the boon? How are they to be chosen? What order are they to be returned to aviation use should aviation demand returns? Order 5190.6b Ch 22.6 deals only with the requirements for conversion of hangars to non-aviation use; it is silent on the questions asked above.
Even more worrying is the “vicious cycle” scenario, where a plethora of vacancies makes for a less-inviting airport, which leads to even more vacancies. It is not hard to see how collusion or fraud could lead to virtual abandonment of parts of an airfield in favor of privileged insiders. This proposal needs substantial rework before it is ready for release.
IV – No Right to Non-Aviation Use
The statement that the sponsor “may....prohibit storage of non-aeronautical items” in the Boulder City context means just one thing to us: The sponsor will prohibit items deemed non-aeronautical items. The new policy becomes an exact mirror of The July 12th 2012 letter.
Conclusion and Recommendataions
As a new policy, this proposal is written without sympathy for the private pilot community in general and the hangar owners in particular. Its “Stalinesque” provisions are divisive and have serious “unintended” consequences. The evidence from our airport, detailed above, must be taken seriously – the consequences are there for all to see with verifiable metrics to back them up.
The hostility and polarization that this proposal will generate in the nations’ airports guarantee the policy will fail to achieve its primary objective – there will be scant takers for the hangars the authors believe they are freeing up. The prevalence of non-aviation use of hangars – at least at our airport – was far less than management claimed to justify its actions. The heavy handed way that this policy will inevitably be enforced drives away many more “good” tenants away and “bad”..
We all have an interest in assuring the airport is used for aviation purposes only. In the past, the watchword was “if you’ve an aircraft in there, you can put store other stuff as long as it is not dangerous nor used for business”. As recently as April 17th 2012, FAA policy as expressed in “How Airports Make Money and What’s new in Compliance” show as acceptable hangar contents an aircraft surrounded by tools, and another happily coexisting with jet skis. This vision attracts pilots to an airport, and hangar owners to invest their money. It is very hard to see how the “sterile hangar” concept – with pilots even having to petition the sponsor to be allowed a coffee pot in their own hangar – will further recreational general aviation.
The nation is poorly served by an FAA that insists it must dictate hangar contents – the organization is demonstrably ill-equipped to do so, clearly lacking even a basic understanding of the role hangars play in the pilot community. The solution is not to play “big brother” and persecute an entire class of airport tenant for what it imagines some might have been up to. Rather, the FAA should refocus on the problem at a higher level. Aircraft are odd-shaped, and lots of space is left in a typical hangar after an airplane is parked. A typical 42x39 hangar has plenty of space after (say) a Cessna 182 is comfortably parked. And it is simply impractical to put a second one in the same hangar – although the footprint is small, the required maneuvering footprint is large. The excess space – 75% of a hangar in this case – is simply wasted. It serves no one’s interest to forbid use of all but the 1% reserved for “incidental” items.
America has the finest pilots in the world. Many US pilots live and breathe aviation, and are enthusiastic, dedicated, and motivated. They take pride that their expertise and knowledge, and look forward to passing it on to the next generation. US facilities are excellent – children are drawn to and inspired by such programs as the “Young Eagles” and many foreign pilots come here for their training. This policy needlessly destroys the attractiveness of the venues – around airplanes and hangars – where these win-win interactions mostly occur. It offers no substitute, and expresses no remorse. Private aviation requires not only time but considerable capital investment. It strips small airports of the sources of that capital and has nothing to offer in return. It claims to have the goal of protecting Federal investment, but doesn’t even believe its own rhetoric – hedging its bets by proposing regulations that not only permit, but actively encourage conversion of airport property to non-aviation use!
To be truly aligned with its policy objectives this document needs extensive reworking along these lines.
1) Develop objective criteria for hangar occupancy based on space and cease micromanagement. Let the community do the rest. Hangar owners are not the enemy.
2) Review the proposal to ensure fair treatment of long-term tenants who now find themselves “hostages to fortune” following the FAA’s abrupt and unforeseen policy shift in 2012
3) As the FAA is ambivalent as to the effect its proposal might have, then it should at least implement transparent and equitable procedures that allow private hangar owners to

benefit from anticipated conversion of hangar space to non-aviation uses on the same terms
as the Sponsor.
4) Recognize and encourage the activities of the non-commercial pilot community and stop
treating these constituents as potential criminals.
5) Consider acknowledging the contribution that kit builders make to a vibrant airport by
designating their kits at all stages of the active construction process as an aeronautical activity.
6) I am a former Navy pilot, retired from the Naval Reserve, a retired airline pilot with 33 years of service and a general aviation pilot for 45 years. I am a current aircraft and BC hangar owner; I also served for 2 terms on the Airport Advisory Committee.
Capt. Rich Moynihan, President BCAA
Navy pilot (retired), 47 years aviation experience including 33 years as airline pilot. Current aircraft and hangar owner. Served two terms on the Boulder City Airport Advisory Committee.
Col. Mike Smith, Vice President BCAA
BCAA Colonel USAF (Retired), Commercial SEL, MEL, Instrument, CFI, two time home-builder and A&P, 54 years of flying
Bob Fahnestock, FBO owner, Vice President BCAA
AP/IA 32 years, pilot 35 years Rotor/Fixed, Owner of FAA 145 RS, FBO, and Flight school
Ms. Cathie Winters, Treasurer and Secretary BCAA
Two-term Treasurer and three-term Secretary of the BCAA. Hangar owner.
Capt Doug Mueller, Communications Director, BCAA Three time communication director, CFII, ATP
John H. Bacon, advisor to the board.
A&P, IA, and Independent Mechanic. SEL MEL Instrument rated Pilot
Col. CA Smith, USAF ret., ex-officio BCAA
ATP, ME, MBA, Major Program Director Hughes Aircraft, Small aviation business owner, 64 years as a pilot and aviation
professional. A BCAA Founder
Capt. Mark DuLaney, ex-officio BCAA
LtCol USAF (ret), CFII, Hangar owner, aircraft owner, BCAA ex-officio Dr. Anthony D Cox MA DPhil, ex-officio BCAA
Two-term President BCAA, President Citrus Controls Inc. Consultant Controls Engineer and Physicist. Former Aircraft owner. Current Hangar owner. Private pilot. 20 years flying experience. BCAA ex officio
http://www.regulations.gov
http://www.regulations.gov
52' C-170B N2713D Ser #25255
Doug
Post Reply