What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

EAA Will Defend Homebuilding as "Aeronautical Activity"

Ironflight

Ironflight

VAF Moderator / Line Boy
Mentor
Rather than build on the old thread which you can find here, there is a reference to a new announcement out of EAA headquarters today that should be good news for everyone - not only does the EAA support the majority of the FAA's clarification on hangar use (which many of us agree with), they are going to advocate a change to the language that many of us objected to. In today's press release, they said:

"EAA will ask the FAA to consider all active aircraft construction as an aeronautical activity. We believe any type of active homebuilding meets the standard of aeronautical activity and EAA will fight for that language.?

The whole release is here. The docket link here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FAA-2014-0463;fp=true;ns=true

Getting this clarification was the work of a number of folks and numerous emails and discussions with EAA headquarters over the past several days. People who have not yet commented on the proposed clarification on the government dockett are encouraged to do so!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very Good News

Thanks for the update, Paul. This is an outstanding position taken by EAA, and entirely appropriate to their mission. The only alternative to policy efforts is one of litigation. While this approach is not the desired method of doing EAA business, it has worked extremely well for certain groups to change policy outside of the collaborative efforts. Ref: Environmental Defense Fund.

Thanks to those individuals behind the scenes that have effected this support, whoever they are.
 
A forum is a nice thing to have...

This is good news, Paul. Thanks for keeping us informed as to EAA's posture on this.

I made the decision the other day to delay my comment on the proposal until all this "dust settled" on this discussion. I have learned much from all the comments posted in the other thread.

Definition of a "forum:" a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Thanks, everyone who commented. :)
 
rv7boy said:
Thanks, everyone who commented. :)
Click to expand...

Just remember folks - just because the EAA is going to defend our position doesn't mean that WE don't have to comment- their's is just one voice, like all of ours! The issue is not settled - we need to keep pushing.
 
Ironflight said:
Just remember folks - just because the EAA is going to defend our position doesn't mean that WE don't have to comment- their's is just one voice, like all of ours! The issue is not settled - we need to keep pushing.
Click to expand...

Well....last I looked at the oridgnal thread it had over 13,000 "reads"!

I would think we had a ton of comments sent in....hopefully!

Again, great effort on getting the word out!
 
Please comment.

This is a big deal. In a nutshell, EAA got it right. This is NOT complicated. The FAA just needs crystal clear language, (a use case would be helpful), allowing construction/restoration activities. Here is what I wrote.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!home
FAA-2014-0463.

--------------

Regarding proposed rule found in FAA-2014-0463.

Please amend the proposed to rule to EXPLICITLY allow the construction of any aircraft, amateur or professional. Further, EXPLICITLY ALLOW the maintenance of such aircraft, which requires a lot of equipment and tools.

It is an unreasonable proposal, (the policy is really in place??) to prohibit such activity. It is critical to the General Aviation Industry as well as the economy of small airports that these activities continue to be allow. If the policy really does exist to prohibit such activity, then it needs to be struck with explicit wording allowing such activities.

A user should be able to demonstrate that progress is being made towards an airworthy aircraft at reasonable temperal check points such as 6 to 12 month intervals.

As far as the underlying impetus that has driven this policy, I agree that hangars should NOT be used for storage of non aeronautical materials when weighed as a majority of items in the hangar. A use case would be finding an air worthy aircraft, an aircraft being constructed, a work bench, air gun, air compressor, photograph of wilbur wright a refrigerator, a computer and a stack of eaa and aopa magazines and an air conditioner. The end analysis is that ALL of these items should be allowed to remain in the hangar. A/C is badly needed while doing a an annual or condition inspection in texas during the summer. Not necessarily aeronautical, but a required tool non the less. Photo of wilbur, not aeronautical?? Ha! Well it doesnt take up much space and I think it is the very definition aeronautical. The magazines while not required for flying are the baseline of aeronautics for a lot of us. Please seek out pilots and builders in your peer groups to gain a better understanding of what truly defines aeronautical. We all agree that a bunch of boxes stacked to the ceiling is illegal. A guy building an airplane and/or inspecting/repairing an airworthy airplane IS legal.

Thank you for you attention to this matter.


--------------

One more thing to consider... I have a bunch of airplane buddies wired into facebook. If you do too, please tell your circle of pilot/builder buddies and lets blow up the social media with this issue and get some more comments plugged in... and fast!
 
Last edited:
EAA HQ

This shows what can be done when a united group of folks stand together for the greater good. Taking our issues directly to the EAA is sometimes what must be done to call urgency to the cause. The EAA exists for and because of it's members and we DO have a voice! Let's hope that the FAA will honor our request, However, this is just the first step. PLEASE, spread the word and urge everyone to visit the FAA Docket and Comment on it ASAP. Just 405 or so comments will not cut it. It will take a lot more than this to influence the FAA to change direction on this issue. Thanks to everyone who have stepped up made comments!
Brad
 
We individual homebuilders and restorers need to keep pushing and spreading the word. Glad to hear the words from EAA, but their track record with government advocacy is very poor, in my opinion.
 
Everyone here should comment!

I just added my $0.02

While I appreciate that airport hangars are for airplanes (helicopters, and other aeronautic uses), some of the nannyish aspects of this proposal are ludicrous, unwieldy, and likely unenforceable.

Really?!!? It should be a "small" refrigerator? Are we going to have airport inspectors touring with measuring tapes to check that the volume of my beer fridge is below the non-aeronautic threshold?

I also have a particular objection to the idea of explicitly finding that the construction of airplanes to be a "non-aeronautic" activity until the plane is in "final assembly" (whatever *that* is). What could be more aeronautic? The airport is the exactly right place to do much of the activity even starting with initial assembly.

I visited a group of builders working out of their hangars at KSBP. It was clear that these builders relied on each other, shared tools, and shared expertise. This is exactly the kind of environment that I want to build my plane in! This will make me a safer and better builder.

Now I am not talking about throwing a few airplane parts into a hangar used for (non-aeronautical) storage and calling it a build. I am talking about real airplane parts being used to build a real airplane. The airport is the exact and best place to do that. I cannot see why you wish to restrict that by explicitly limiting it in the proposal.
 
My submittal.

Anybody wishes to lift pieces or parts please feel free.

Airports and airport hangars are the meeting place for an entire community of aviation enthusiast. General aviation airports form the backbone of aviation by getting people involved, especially the youth that will become the the next airline pilots, mechanics, engineers, military service men/women, ATC, aircraft assembly line worker, etc.

I agree that there are hangars at airports that have no connection to aeronautical use. Those are were the focus ought to be. Calling aircraft building, restoration, or major repair not aeronautical use is ridiculous. Building an Experimental, amateur built airplane, is defined as building of educational purposes. An airport provides the perfect place for education just a going to a baseball game teaches you about how to play baseball. Building and restoring at an airport also enhances safety by having many resources in tools, knowledge, and man power near by.

Plus having a few personal comfort items around like a couch, desk, and a fridge so people in the aviation community can socialize, recite experience, and trade ideas has enormous impact on aviation enthusiasm. In an age when way to much interaction with others happens electronically, why would any one think people hanging around in a hangar talking aviation is anything but aeronautical use of a hangar. Driving people out of the airport unless they are specifically there to fly is definitely anti-aviation.

If the purpose of this ruling is shrink the USAs aviation community and industry then I think this serves it's purpose. If the ruling is to expand aviation by allowing access for those with aeronautical activities then allowing aircraft building, restoring, maintaining, and socializing is a must. This rule should go after the obvious offenders and not target the enthusiasts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top