X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:19:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail9.tpgi.com.au ([203.12.160.104] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 7062090 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Aug 2014 19:50:27 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.12.160.104; envelope-from=domcrain@tpg.com.au X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed X-TPG-Abuse: host=60-241-193-89.static.tpgi.com.au; ip=60.241.193.89; date=Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:49:51 +1000; auth=lCMk85acEwS5EitTlTMVBq/k80PlAUC0mhrQOc1Og5I= Received: from [192.168.0.3] (60-241-193-89.static.tpgi.com.au [60.241.193.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail9.tpgi.com.au (envelope-from domcrain@tpg.com.au) (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s73NnJEa019960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:49:51 +1000 From: "Dominic V. Crain" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0161F65C-D705-486C-894A-8BEBB32EF23E" X-Original-Message-Id: <1E84A188-93B5-4E6F-A693-8E293277D995@tpg.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA says hangars no place for homebuilders X-Original-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:49:13 +1000 References: X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) --Apple-Mail=_0161F65C-D705-486C-894A-8BEBB32EF23E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Un-bloody-believable! Dominic V. Crain domcrain@tpg.com.au Phone 03-94161881 Mobile 0412-359320 On 4 Aug 2014, at 9:24, Steve Richard wrote: > I just posted this on the site (hopefully in the correct location): > =20 > So the FAA would rather have the initial construction process done = without the benefit of experienced builders and fliers who are always on = the airport? That is counter to safety. I am somewhat stunned this = proposed requirement has seen the light of day, considering that the FAA = is constantly trying to find ways to make experimental airplanes safer. = I believe the proposal should be changed to encourage builders to start = and end their projects at the airport. It should acknowledge that = airports are the geographic center of most safety activities. Airports = are where hundreds of years of expertise in the form of A&P's, IA's and = serial kit builders can be accessed almost instantaneously. Would it = not be better for a new builder to be near all this expertise rather = than in their garage at home without any on site immediate counsel? > =20 > The FAA knows how important airports are as evidence by the money that = flows to their capital improvement programs. Do they not see that = airport quality and longevity will not work with money alone? And the = greatest supporters of airports are people who just invested thousands = of dollars in a kit. > =20 > Steve Richard > =20 > From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Sky2high@aol.com > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 9:30 AM > To: Lancair Mailing List > Subject: [LML] FAA says hangars no place for homebuilders > =20 > FAA Says Hangars No Place For Homebuilders >=20 > 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 Hangars = (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-= the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13) says homebuilders will = have to build the components of their projects elsewhere and can only = move to a hangar for final assembly. Comments are being accepted until = Sept. 5 and can be submitted online (http://www.regulations.gov/#!home) = citing docket number FAA-2014-0463. The agency has devoted a separate = section in the proposed policy to explaining its stand. The essence is = that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed storage for = aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is that = bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an = aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The = FAA is not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify = that 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," the proposed policy says. EAA is aware of the = proposed policy and staff are assessing it. >=20 > The new policy statement is the result of stepped-up enforcement of = the rules regarding uses of airport hangars. In dozens of audits = conducted over the past two years, the agency has found hangars crammed = with just about everything but airplanes. Household goods, cars, even = non-aviation related businesses have been discovered. The FAA says that = because federal funds are used to build and maintain airports, the use = of airport facilities for non-aeronautical uses amounts to a subsidy for = those uses. In some cases the city or county responsible for the airport = was the violator. Auditors found police cars and other municipal assets = tucked safely away in airport hangars. The proposed policy will also = clarify the incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in hangars, = meaning that a couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the = feds. >=20 > =20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > =20 > With respect to experimental aircraft building, this is stupid on the = face of it. The FAA is supposedly concerned about aviation safety yet, = they will force builders to work in their mushroom cellar without any = immediately available advice of other builders, pilots or aircraft shops = located at their airport. The FAA apparently no longer has objectives = of promoting GA or safety. > =20 > Scott Krueger=20 > =20 > PS Please consider making comments to FAA as outlined above. Do not = mention your own airport because the data might be used by FA = enforcement. > =20 > PPS Uh, Final Assembly starts when first part is built/assembled. --Apple-Mail=_0161F65C-D705-486C-894A-8BEBB32EF23E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Un-bloody-believable!

Dominic V. Crain
Phon= e 03-94161881
Mobile 0412-359320

On 4 Aug 2014, at 9:24, Steve Richard <steve@oasissolutions.com> = wrote:

I just posted this on the site = (hopefully in the correct location):
 
So the FAA would rather = have the initial construction process done without the benefit of = experienced builders and fliers who are always on the airport?  = That is counter to safety.  I am somewhat stunned this proposed = requirement has seen the light of day, considering that the FAA is = constantly trying to find ways to make experimental airplanes = safer.  I believe the proposal should be changed to encourage = builders to start and end their projects at the airport.  It should = acknowledge that airports are the geographic center of most safety = activities.  Airports are where hundreds of years of expertise in = the form of A&P's, IA's and serial kit builders can be accessed = almost instantaneously.  Would it not be better for a new builder = to be near all this expertise rather than in their garage at home = without any on site immediate counsel?
 
The FAA knows how = important airports are as evidence by the money that flows to their = capital improvement programs.  Do they not see that airport quality = and longevity will not work with money alone?  And the greatest = supporters of airports are people who just invested thousands of dollars = in a kit.
 
Steve Richard
 
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Sky2high@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 = 9:30 AM
To: Lancair Mailing = List
Subject: [LML] FAA says hangars no = place for homebuilders
 
<= /o:p>

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 Hangars (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031= /policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars#h-13) says = homebuilders will have to build the components of their projects = elsewhere and can only move to a hangar for final assembly. Comments are = being accepted until Sept. 5 and can be submitted online (http://www.regulations.gov/#!home) = citing docket number FAA-2014-0463. The agency has devoted a separate = section in the proposed policy to explaining its stand. The essence is = that the principal role of a hangar is to supply enclosed storage for = aircraft to give ready access to the runway. The FAA's argument is that = bucking rivets on a wing doesn't require a runway so it's not an = aeronautical use. It also says the policy has always been in force. "The = FAA is not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify = that 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," the proposed policy says. EAA is aware of the = proposed policy and staff are assessing it.

The new policy statement is the result = of stepped-up enforcement of the rules regarding uses of airport = hangars. In dozens of audits conducted over the past two years, the = agency has found hangars crammed with just about everything but = airplanes. Household goods, cars, even non-aviation related businesses = have been discovered. The FAA says that because federal funds are used = to build and maintain airports, the use of airport facilities for = non-aeronautical uses amounts to a subsidy for those uses. In some cases = the city or county responsible for the airport was the violator. = Auditors found police cars and other municipal assets tucked safely away = in airport hangars.  The proposed policy will also clarify the = incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in hangars, meaning that a = couch and a beer fridge will probably be safe from the = feds.

 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
<= div>
 
With respect to experimental aircraft building, this is = stupid on the face of it.  The FAA is supposedly concerned = about aviation safety yet, they will force builders to work in their = mushroom cellar without any immediately available advice of other = builders, pilots or aircraft shops located at their airport.  The = FAA apparently no longer has objectives of promoting GA or = safety.
 
Scott Krueger 
 
PS Please consider making comments to FAA as outlined = above.  Do not mention your own airport because the data might be = used by FA enforcement.
 
PPS Uh, Final Assembly starts when first part is = built/assembled.
= --Apple-Mail=_0161F65C-D705-486C-894A-8BEBB32EF23E--