As the FAA continues to mull the nearly 2,500 comments related to its proposed rule on the non-aeronautical use of hangars, some degree of concern about its possible ramifications has begun to set in amongst some aircraft owners. On one board, a blogger who had heard tales of a hangar being declared in violation because it contained a couch opined, “Someone in the FAA wants to get rid of little airplanes…I see this as being a way to push more of us out.”
Responding to the flurry of attention the matter received, the FAA extended the initial comment period to allow more concerned users to comment. While some airport tenants fear possible Draconian interpretations of the policy, the FAA’s basic intent is not to punish for the presence of a piece of furniture but to root out large-scale abuses of airport hangar use, according to John Collins, AOPA’s manager of airport policy. He noted some glaring examples where the hangars in question resembled department stores once the doors were opened. “There are some folks that are kind of pushing the limits on that, and there were airports where that became an issue,” he told AIN. “Particularly if the airport has a waiting list, I think the airport manager has a responsibility to make sure everything that’s in the hangars is aeronautical in use and that nothing is in there occupying space that could be better occupied by an aircraft.” That’s not to say he believes the hangars should be starkly empty aside from an aircraft either. “The guy who’s got his airport car in there because it fits under the wing of his airplane, and he’s got tools to do maintenance on his airplane and maybe a couple of folding chairs to enjoy the sunset or a barbeque grill to roll out for the weekend burger burn, that’s good,” Collins said.
Interpretation of ‘Aeronautical Activities’
The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) in its comments to the agency requested that when no more aircraft can reasonably fit into a hangar, the remaining space within be designated as “insignificant,” thus permitting its use for other purposes that should not be considered a violation of federal grant assurances. Airports in the U.S. that have accepted such federal grants under the airport improvement program (AIP) are required to adhere to a set of assurances that require the sponsor to make the airport available for aviation use. Grant assurance 19 “prohibits an airport sponsor from causing or permitting any activity that would interfere with use of airport property for aviation purposes,” while grant assurance 22 “requires the sponsor to make the airport available on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination for aeronautical activities.”
The matter in question stems from interpretation of the FAA’s Airport Compliance Handbook, chapter 11, paragraph 6, which states, “The sponsor should design its self-service rules and regulations to ensure safe operations, preservation of facilities, and the protection of the public interest.” Item c adds “restricting hangars to related aeronautical activities.” In short, the agency believes aviation tenants and aircraft sponsors should not be displaced by non-aviation commercial uses that could be conducted off airport property. “When [the FAA does its] land-use inspections and the other things it is required to do under the airport improvement program it has been consistent [about] that,” Collins said. “If you’ve got a non-aeronautical business in a hangar, it’s got to go.”
According to Collins, in response to a formal complaint several years ago, the FAA issued a letter to an airport manager detailing a specific correction plan for that particular situation. “It was circulated around the community and all of a sudden it seemed the FAA was really cracking down on things, when that wasn’t really the intent,” he said, adding that clarifying the issue was one of the factors driving the agency to issue its proposed rule last September.
One matter that has alarmed many in the aviation community, particularly the homebuilder segment, is the FAA’s contention that only the 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. Both AOPA and EAA objected to that definition, urging the agency to reconsider, using “active assembly” of aircraft instead. “Provided that hangar tenants can demonstrate active, ongoing progress on an aircraft project, the FAA should not deny them protected access to airport property and facilities, and these activities should be protected under the grant assurances,” noted Sean Elliott, EAA’s vice president for advocacy and safety. “We agree that hangars should not be used to house a stagnant project or simply to store parts and components, especially in cases where airport sponsors have a hangar waiting list populated by owners of currently airworthy aircraft.”
While the agency has been tightlipped regarding when airport users can expect to see a rule issued, Collins’s best guess is sometime before the end of the fiscal year (September 30). He concluded, “In talking to the FAA, my sense is that it’s really trying to find that midpoint where things are within the guidance and also allow some flexibility for the tenants and the airport management to make sure they’ve got a decent hangar system and that somebody is not running a non-aeronautical business out of the hangar or has crammed it so full of junk that it can’t be used.”