Back to Squawk list
  • 33

FAA Issues Final Policy on the Use of Airport Hangars

The FAA’s final policy on the non-aeronautical use of airport hangars appears in today’s Federal Register and will take effect on July 1, 2017. The FAA is issuing the policy to clarify how aviation facilities – including hangars can be used on airports that receive federal funds. The final policy strikes a balance between hangar use for aviation and non-aviation purposes. ( さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Link to published policy:
Did they take the public's input into this "ruling"?
Click the link above. Scroll down until you see the words "Discussion of Comments and Final Policy," about 1/3 of the way through.

Short answer: yes.
This is actually a relaxing of the current FAA stance. In the past it has been interpreted as no non aeronautical activity period. This often included kit-built aircraft that were not finished as well. Now they are allowing some leeway.
You are correct 30west. It's really a win, win policy for everyone. It insures that Gov. subsidies hangar space is not wasted for long term storage space. It also insures that pilots using these Gov. subsidies airports will have hangar space. It's flexible enough to allow storage when there is low demand for airplane storage. Sounds like everyone wins with this policy. The 64$ question is; how is it going to be enforced?
It is about time I was on a hanger waiting list for 2 years to get mt plane out of the sun at the time there was 5 hangers full of crap near by.
Interesting, our airport has at least 10 hangars full of junk & old cars (no aircraft) and a waiting list with 20 names on it. Too bad we have to wait until 2017...
Perhaps you could consult an attorney. Mr. Peter F. Hartmann, Esq is both an attorney and operates a hanger rental operation in Calif. He might have some helpful insights.
Well done! It looks like the FAA really did read through and carefully consider all of the comments and balanced them with the AIP funding requirements. The exemption for experimental builds in all stages (not just final assembly) alone probably fixes about 99% of what was wrong with the previous policy.
Why is the FAA subsidizing airport hangars in the first place?
Subsidizes airports. When hangars are used for non-aviation purposes, why bother paying for the land to be an airport?
Mike Mohle -1
So they can control them.
Joe Blake -5
How am I ever supposed to own my own plane when the government takes most of my money to subsidize airplane hangars, buses, trains, colleges, NEA, and a myriad of things I will never use?

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

30west 16
I believe that the Feds want to insure that airports that receive FAA funding continue to be used as airports, not industrial parks subsidized by the FAA; yet allow relief for the airport owner to receive income from genuinely unused assets.
I actually think this shows that the FAA can listen to the users; however, at the same time, they have a duty to ensure that airport sponsors are upholding their end of grant assurances that they accepted. Everything in this is fairly common sense to me. Of course, I'm an airport manager too, so...
bentwing60 -8
"I'm an airport manager too, so...". That's not a downer. I didn't read the article (reg.) so don't shoot the messenger, but you are in the loop. Follow the money, cause that's what it's all about! Was Meigs field legal? Just cause you don't know their motives don't make you safe.
So if I have a hangar on an airfield that was there before the airfield was subsidized, how can I use my own property?
If you have questions about your legal situation, and reading through your agreements with the airport (and land) owner doesn't solve the problem, then I'd suggest hiring a lawyer. Those issues should have been solved long ago -- back when the airport originally accepted AIP funds and thus accepted legal restrictions on the use of the land.

This isn't by any means a new situation. And the new policy isn't imposing any new restrictions. In fact, the FAA is *removing* existing restrictions.

It's hard to imagine being churlish enough to be upset at an improving situation, but, well, I guess that's par for the FA message boards.

[This poster has been suspended.]

If it were a legitimate question from someone who'd read the provided materials and was curious or confused about what those materials meant, then I might possibly agree with you. In this case, though, I find it almost impossible to read the original question as anything other than a not-so-subtle and terribly misguided political rant about property rights.

In order to get benefits from AIP, the owners have to agree to certain terms that are designed to foster aviation. That means: no fair accepting program money and then using the land for something other than aviation.

I was pointing out that the FAA in this case had (rightly in my opinion) expanded the definition of "aviation activities" so that hangars built on improved airport land can be used for more things than before. And, even, in some cases, for non-aviation activities if those don't have a significant impact on the primary purpose of the AIP. They went further than I think many expected they would.

This is all an improvement in the situation, and being upset that there might still be limitations on the use of one's "own property" strikes me as unnecessarily mean-spirited in the face of positive effort by the FAA to support aviation and listen to the public. When they get things wrong, I agree with criticizing them. But why be rude when they get them right?

I think you've misunderstood the point of having an open message board like this. The purpose is for the discussion of aviation by all who are interested. It's not, as you seem to imagine, merely for the unwashed supplicants to beg for pearls of wisdom from the self-anointed experts.

(And, no, I neither checked nor cared whether the original poster was a certificated pilot. If you were so inclined, I suppose you could look up my info, but, like many others here, I do think you should get off your high horse regarding your precious bodily fluids ... er, I mean ... "flyers." You're doing yourself no favor in credibility, and your repeated off-topic rants are the primary reason you get downvoted into obscurity. It's tedious beyond all practical reason.)

[This poster has been suspended.]

Then I'd need to move my hangars to private land.

[This poster has been suspended.]

I owned the property before it was pulled by eminent domain and given minor compensation. That authority allowed me to keep my hangars. I have no lease and there is no "contract" that would prevent me from removing said hangars and equipment. This is what I will have my family do this summer.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Re-read the Policy again. If they receive Federal funding, they have to follow the dictates that come with said funding. The Policy has nothing to do with privately funded facilities.
'Ya gotta dance with the one who brung ya' rule

[This poster has been suspended.]

As I read it, not being a scholar or attorney such as yourself, it would seem that the FAA provide as you say "ENFORCEMENT." Under Part 2 "Standards for Aeronautical Use of Hangars " Paragraph f. "This policy applies regardless of whether the hangar occupant leases the hangar from the airport sponsor or developer, or the hangar occupant constructed the hangar at the occupant's own expense while holding a ground lease."

I could be wrong, but does that not provide the FAA with the authority to force the city to evict you, or lose some portion of funding, should the FAA ever determine that your space is being used for non-aeronautical purposes?

[This poster has been suspended.]

Then I stand corrected. My assumption was that a hangar financed with Grant money was the sole subject of the regulation.


アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!