0
kallend

FAA: Building an airplane is "not aeronautical".

Recommended Posts

From AVWEB:

FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders
www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2872-full.html?ET=avweb:e2872:239879a:&st=email#222534


The FAA says most of the work involved in building an airplane is a "non-aeronautical use" and it has singled out homebuilders in a new proposed policy statement issued July 22. Policy on the Non-Aeronautical Use Of Airport says homebuilders will have to build the components of their projects elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final assembly.

A few weeks ago the FAA issued a similarly absurd policy statement about model airplanes that essentially would give FAA jurisdiction over even a paper plane flown outdoors by a child.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

Quote

the work involved in building an airplane is a "non-aeronautical use"



Quote

FAA jurisdiction over even a paper plane flown outdoors by a child



I've been dealing with the FAA for over 49 yrs now. There is little intelligence within that agency.

So far they do not even know where to begin to develop regulations for drones. I hope no one is holding their breath while the FAA completes the regs.

:S

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, "building" isn't an aeronautical "use" even if what you're building is some day intended to fly. You can disagree with their decision, but their logic is still sound.

How many builders take years to finish their project, using up valuable hanger space more like a club house than an actual hanger?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi John,

Quote

the work involved in building an airplane is a "non-aeronautical use"



***FAA jurisdiction over even a paper plane flown outdoors by a child


I've been dealing with the FAA for over 49 yrs now. There is little intelligence within that agency.

So far they do not even know where to begin to develop regulations for drones. I hope no one is holding their breath while the FAA completes the regs.

:S
------------------------------------------
When there is a fatal midair with drone involved, especially a 121 operation, we will see how fast new regs will be passed.
As it has been said "All regs are written in blood."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

Well, "building" isn't an aeronautical "use" even if what you're building is some day intended to fly. You can disagree with their decision, but their logic is still sound.

How many builders take years to finish their project, using up valuable hanger space more like a club house than an actual hanger?



If they're paying their rent, why should it matter? They're working on what will become an airplane.

It also looks like they're saying all of the DZ's that don't use their hangar for aircraft storage but instead for packing areas and manifest facilities are not going to be allowed, I can think of a few off the top of my head that would be impacted.
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

Well, "building" isn't an aeronautical "use" even if what you're building is some day intended to fly. You can disagree with their decision, but their logic is still sound.



"Logic" and "FAA" don't belong in the same sentence.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theonlyski

***Well, "building" isn't an aeronautical "use" even if what you're building is some day intended to fly. You can disagree with their decision, but their logic is still sound.

How many builders take years to finish their project, using up valuable hanger space more like a club house than an actual hanger?



If they're paying their rent, why should it matter? They're working on what will become an airplane.

It also looks like they're saying all of the DZ's that don't use their hangar for aircraft storage but instead for packing areas and manifest facilities are not going to be allowed, I can think of a few off the top of my head that would be impacted.

A business (like a DZ) for flying isn't where this is coming from.

Where this is coming from is limited hanger space for small aircraft. It's rich guys wanting to park their rides in a hanger vs rich guys (although probably a little less so) wanting to take up hanger space while building their kit planes.

The FAA gets involved because of funding issues. At a DZ like, Chicago, Eloy, or Perris, this will never be an issue because the entire airport is in the service of the business to begin with.

Where it gets sketchier are DZs located on multi-use public airports, but even then it's not going to be the biggest issue; simply another one.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know of a few airports that let people park their campers/trailers in them so they can stay at the airport and the FBO use the T hangers for storage of the airport lawn mowers and other grounds keeping equipment. I once saw a T Hanger converted into a tool storage area for a non aviation business since they got a secure place to store their stuff at a lot cheaper rates than they could get at a storage unit.

I can somewhat see the FAA's point that hangers should be used for direct access to the runway and anything not needing access to the runway should really not be permitted to stay in hangers since the hangers are subsidized via federal funds, especially if all hangers are full and there is a waiting list for hanger space at an airport.

At one airport there is an RV that is at least 6 years into the build cycle and there is no sign that it will ever be completed but the hanger is sitting prime just off the taxiway of a decent sized GA airport that has at least half a dozen to a dozen planes tied down since there are no open hanger spaces. From what I gathered the owner has lost interest and has basically abandoned the project but since he still pays rent the pile of metal and jigs just sits there. If he was paying for a storage unit off airport the fees would be at least double his T hanger rental for the same amount of space. He is in essence getting his rent reduced by the FAA over market value to store everything on an airport.

And yes, under this interpretation any DZ that is using a hanger just for packing or have converted a T hanger to be a manifest hanger would also likely be in violation so its important for DZO's to write comments on this on the FAA website so that they can explain that they need facilities too in order to run their aviation business and how this is different than storing a classic car in the T-Hanger beside a kit plane under construction.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

A business (like a DZ) for flying isn't where this is coming from.

Where this is coming from is limited hanger space for small aircraft. It's rich guys wanting to park their rides in a hanger vs rich guys (although probably a little less so) wanting to take up hanger space while building their kit planes.

The FAA gets involved because of funding issues. At a DZ like, Chicago, Eloy, or Perris, this will never be an issue because the entire airport is in the service of the business to begin with.

Where it gets sketchier are DZs located on multi-use public airports, but even then it's not going to be the biggest issue; simply another one.



I'm not saying that they're going after the DZ's but if something happened at the DZ the FAA could come down on the airport/DZ for allowing unauthorized activities in the hangars.

My hangar is on a privately owned airport so this doesn't have any impact on what I store in there, the owner even has several hangars with just cars or a boat or something.

I'm not saying I don't agree with what they're doing, but that it could in theory impact skydiving as we know it, especially if some FSDO gets a hard on for a DZ.

We do have 3 hangars at a local airport for our flying club, the most we have in them is a fridge and a couch or a golf cart, so I don't expect much from this to bother us, but we also don't clutter the hangars up and they're barely big enough for the planes anyways.
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H wayne,

Quote

When there is a fatal midair with drone involved, especially a 121 operation, we will see how fast new regs will be passed.
As it has been said "All regs are written in blood."



In 1955 there was a mid-air over the Grand Canyon between two airliners. The FAA re-wrote the regs & put them out for review.

If those regs had gone into effect, the entire commercial aviation business in this country would have gone out of business.

As John says, the 'FAA' & 'logic' do not belong in the same sentence.

And if anyone does not believe this, just try dealing with them for a few years.

B|

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Close:P, it was '56. Changed a lot about aviation once they figured out what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Grand_Canyon_mid-air_collision

I stopped calling the FAA unless I absolutely had to talk to them about something, the guys I've talked to in the Tampa FSDO seemed to have an attitude issue when I was asking for a simple clarification.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi John,

Quote

the work involved in building an airplane is a "non-aeronautical use"



***FAA jurisdiction over even a paper plane flown outdoors by a child


I've been dealing with the FAA for over 49 yrs now. There is little intelligence within that agency.

So far they do not even know where to begin to develop regulations for drones. I hope no one is holding their breath while the FAA completes the regs.

:S

JerryBaumchen

At the risk of hijacking the thread, since when was any remote controlled plane/copter/flying insect re-defined as a "drone"? The media seems to have lost any common sense with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

In 1955 there was a mid-air over the Grand Canyon between two airliners. The FAA re-wrote the regs & put them out for review.

If those regs had gone into effect, the entire commercial aviation business in this country would have gone out of business.

As John says, the 'FAA' & 'logic' do not belong in the same sentence.

And if anyone does not believe this, just try dealing with them for a few years.

But at least some of those changes came into effect. The creation of the PCA, now known as Class A airspace and restrictions on VFR on top. At least that's how I heard it, but a bit before my time.

The FAA practices management by accident. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theonlyski

Close:P, it was '56. Changed a lot about aviation once they figured out what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Grand_Canyon_mid-air_collision



And that article references this incident, where it became painfully obvious that having military operations oblivious to civilian aviation wasn't working: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_736
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The faa are not property specialists, the airport owner has the say in paths towards property usage, their are many aircraft special projects that show building special parts or just unit building on sight with inter graphic software, builds upon function and safety, when the "faa" starts saying useless crap, look for attempts at validating aircraft sales that are black market listed, they are guilty of crimes like that now and in the past, many choices being made by the Faa are based on the image of political motion and other conflicts, like a realy slow chess game, keep your tech together on the airport and keep your aviation home structured against false laws, and watch your manager and owners for ,pay offs , study the history of area issue airports and closed airfields, look for specific aircraft issues and pattent issues parts to aircraft exchange, there's a patter to that and their actual ability,

Having something never beats doing (>|<)
Iam building things - Iam working on my mind- I am going to change this world - its what I came here 4- - -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

Well, "building" isn't an aeronautical "use" even if what you're building is some day intended to fly. You can disagree with their decision, but their logic is still sound.

How many builders take years to finish their project, using up valuable hanger space more like a club house than an actual hanger?



EAA and AVWEB disagree with the FAA logic too:

www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2878-full.html?ET=avweb:e2878:239879a:&st=email#222570EAA
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***Well, "building" isn't an aeronautical "use" even if what you're building is some day intended to fly. You can disagree with their decision, but their logic is still sound.

How many builders take years to finish their project, using up valuable hanger space more like a club house than an actual hanger?



EAA and AVWEB disagree with the FAA logic too:

www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2878-full.html?ET=avweb:e2878:239879a:&st=email#222570EAA

Not surprisingly. The EAA IS, after all, the lobbying group for hobby builders and AvWeb is a big mouth piece for them as well.

That's not disagreeing with logic; that's just doing their jobs.

That would be a bit like saying the NRA is against the logic of gun control regardless of the issue. Well . . . duh.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0