Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Fred Stratman on September 8, 2014 at 10:13pm

Mack:  Thanks for the heads-up on this.  I just saw that the FAA has granted a 30 days additional comment period in response to a request by the EAA.  The EAA also has suggested some changes to wording which would make the policy less draconian.

 

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/eaa/2014-09-02...

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Walt Snyder on September 8, 2014 at 11:50pm

Thanks for posting that, Fred and Mack, Iv'e been pissed at myself because I forgot to comment, I can now sleep tonight, thanks.

Walt Snyder

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wayne Tyson Jr on September 9, 2014 at 12:25pm

I'm gonna post my comment to FAA here, and hope others will do the same (unless this is against regulations). I sent a comment to EAA several days ago because I felt my heartfelt comments might offend FAAck yew, but decided to tone it down a bit and send this one to FAA. If y'all express other ideas, I'll get my wife to post another comment.

Comment:

I agree that non-aeronautical uses of hangars should not be permitted as a matter of relevant principle. However, I see no need for control over particular aeronautical uses such as aircraft assembly, particularly with respect to small, "home-built" aircraft. Similarly, being overly concerned about the presence of so-called non-aeronautical materials and equipment when the primary use criterion of aircraft storage has been met INVITES ABUSE TO THE POINT OF RETARDATION OF THE AVIATION INDUSTRY. Believe me, I speak from experience. You will give license to those airport managers who are "control-freaks" and overly-constrain those who have better things to do with their time and resources.

 

Aircraft owners already fear the FAA and consider it a kind of "enemy." Why? Why shouldn't the FAA stick to its primary mission of aircraft and flight safety and restrain the tendency to control relatively minor details of low relevance and significance? The FAA should be picking the low-hanging fruit, as it were, not creating jobs and budget-building with levels of obsessive control over minor issues.

 

I see nothing to be gained by this overly-restrictive policy. This is based on the readily-observable fact that this PERCEIVED "problem" simply does not exist where it cannot be handled under current regulations. This has all the earmarks of a "solution" in search of a problem.

WT

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mack P. Kreizenbeck on September 9, 2014 at 10:01pm

Thanks for your comments.

Please one and all, now that we have a comment extension - write the FAA and offer your thoughts.

The following excerpt from the EAA says it all;

"EAA contends that once an individual hangar reaches its designated capacity of aircraft as a protected aeronautical use, the remainder of the space should be available for non-aeronautical items. This change would prevent overstrict interpretation of any FAA policy by the agency or local airport management".

Reiterating the other FAA proposal - the following explanation is offered; "While building an aircraft results in an aeronautical product, the FAA has not found all stages of the building process to be aeronautical for purposes of hangar use".

Pay special attention to the word NOT in the above quote.

Remember, the "sqeeky wheel" gets the grease!

Mack

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wayne Tyson Jr on September 9, 2014 at 11:36pm

With power-mongers, it's all about FACE. The trick is to get them to back off without losing it. I gotta confess I have no idea how to do that.

WT

• ▶ Reply