Aircraft Hangar Justice

[AOPAPILOT]

Why is there no equal justice? The hangars at airports are required to meet all the local building codes for wind/loads etc., but we only use ropes to tie down our airplanes to a cable or eyebolt in the ground. I have looked at more pictures of damaged airplanes that were flipped during a thunderstorm micro burst, than hangars that were damaged because of the high winds. In order to build a hangar at our local airport, the red tape is just not worth it, yet they do not say a word when the big corp. jets stay overnight without being tied down. This is just one example of selective enforcement. Why is an airplane not held to the same standards as a hangar? The airplane sure costs more than that tin hangar. I’m surprised that the insurance types haven’t seen the light.

 

[avbug]

Say again?

Building codes are for buildings...not airplanes.

Building codes do not address aircraft safety or engineering, and have nothing to do with tying an airplane down or otherwise mooring or securing it.

Building codes are about the building, not the airplane.

I hear someone griping because they have a beef with local politics. Insurance companies may mandate that an airplane be hangared, or may charge higher rates if the airplane is not hangared. This is reasonable; it's their risk, their policy. You have the option of not owning, paying the higher amount, or taking your chances without the insurance if you are able.

Most municipalities will not only require very strict building codes for a hangar, but will require that you deed the hangar back to the city or municipality after a certain period of time (usually 20 years). At that point, generally the contractual obligations are written such that you may continue to lease back your structure for a given rate, gauranteed for a certain period of time (generally out to 100 years).

Large airplanes are generally not tied down. At certain locations, they may be moored, but generally not. How does this affect you? Are you concerned that perhaps you're paying more for ramp space than big airplanes? This isn't the case. Are you concerned that you must pay for ropes when large airplanes don't? This is your problem, not theirs. Are you upsete because your airplane is more likely to get damaged than theirs for any given wind value? Again, your problem and your risk. If you don't like the idea of tying down, then don't tie down. Your problem is solved...until it gets damaged. Again, your problem, alone.

Just what is it that you're saying??

 

[starvingcfi]

i think he's saying he wants to build an airplane in the shape of a house? wait. no.............not a clue.

 

[starvingcfi]

ahh. explains it all. but brings up a good question. can anyone really manage us? any thoughts?

 

[Typhoon1244]

It's like trying to follow a story told by a drunk.

"So I was flying over these hangars, but they weren't tied down, just like corporate jets, you know the big white ones, some whales are white too, they don't fly though, like birds do, do you like birds? I have a cockatoo, it kinda looks like a 757, but not really, I just rode on a 757, it was nice, with TVs and stuff, I like TV, cuz it keeps me busy when I am off work, did I tell you about my work? I fly planes, over hangars and stuff, which should be tied down, but the building codes say they don't need to be tied down, but planes should, because they blow away, even corporate jets."

Laughed my ever-lovin' a__ off! Thanks, FlyChicaga...I needed that!

As for AOPAPILOT, am I the only one who was picturing Dilbert's pointy-haired boss while reading his post?

 

[Float Pilot]

Ya, the red tape can be a big pain in the butt, but just try to figure out what the city building dept wants & then give it to them. If they want drawings stamped by a professional engineer, most hangar suppliers can provide this. If they want design calcs, most hangar suppliers can provide these too. If you're building your own from scratch, you may need to get a registered civil engineer to help you out. Work with both the city's building department and a reputable engineer & it shouldn't be too bad. Go to the building dept & talk to them & get a list of what they need. It's usually not too onerous if you join their game instead of fighting them. Good luck - a hangar would really be worth it! Where I live we can get some hellacious wind storms & I know some guys who have spent all night babysitting their plane & would've killed to have had it in a hangar. Until you get that hangar, however, I understand that the Kennon wing covers do a great job of killing lift.

 

[starvingcfi]

ahh. another "manager," eh? they speak the same language.

 

[PilotoHalcon]

He would go far in a government position.
j

 

[AOPAPILOT]

Thanks to the experts for the wisdom on the hangar question that I posted on the message board. My sincere apology for not making my question clear. Here is the main reason that I’m a little miffed over the local airport authority.

Three perfectly, in good shape, fully rented out hangars, at the local airport where I fly from, are being torn down to make way for more parking of the corp. visitor aircraft. What gets under my crawl is the hangar space is at a premium now. The big FBO has political pull and pushes its weight around. It makes us locals sick at what they are doing to the general aviation community. We can’t get on the airport board, to protect our position, due to the appointed positions. It’s all dirty politics. The Big FBO can make more money pumping jet fuel than the rent the airport makes from the hangars. Just raise the rent and make the locals happy. I have nothing against the visitors and their big aircraft. There are plenty of parking spaces available. It just isn’t as close to the FBO’s lounge. The visitors might have to walk a little further when they step off the red carpet. The aircraft that were covered, in the soon to be gone hangars, are being put out into the cold, and there is no choice. The control that the airport authority has is beyond reasonable. If it wasn’t for the rent and gas that we in general aviation purchase, there would be no airport for the board to oversee.

For those that replied with a funny reply, it is ok. We all need a laugh now and then. When you own your own aircraft, then lets see how funny you feel when big brother takes that small part of aviation that you enjoy, away from you. I do not consider the corp. jets as part of general aviation. They are in a class between general aviation and the airlines.

I could follow all the regulations and build my own hangar. The aviation board is not againt it. What I'm against is the fact that we had no time for our imput. It was all a behind closed door deal. Now it will take more time and money, which I don't have right now, to correct the injustice.

 

[avbug]

I've never been at an airport where this wasn't the case...welcome to reality. I've been based at quite a few, flown out of many more, and lived at a number of airports (I live in a hangar)...it's always the same.

You'll also see airports shut down or traffic severe curtailed as locals move in around the airport, squeezing it to death. You'll see noise sanctions, and dictations on how you can care for your airplane. You'll find many places where you can't do maintenance on the ramp. Want to change your oil? Fine, but it had better be in a hangar. No hangars? You're stuck.

I spent a season this year on a leave of absence, flying primarily from a small rural airfield. A skydiving school (drop zone) was located on the same field. I spent quite a bit of time there, skydiving, turning wrenches, hanging out. The area was surrounded by large spacious fields, excellent territory for dropping students who might turn the wrong way.

The land owner for all the properties surrounding that airport got a bug up her posterior. She had some student jumpers held at gunpoint for tresspassing on her property. Contacted the Sheriff. Stated she would prosecute, and began taking things like reserve pilot chutes, canopies, and free bags that drifted down after jump emergencies.

She agreed to fine the DZ ten dollars for each item or person that touched her property, but soon it was up to two hundred dollars and gaurantee of prosecution...it never stopped.

On that same field were five hangars, owned for years by locals. The adjoining county took over the airport, and as the hangars had been deeded property, siezed the hangars. Locals had been paying 20 dollars a year for their lease, because they built the hangars...but with the change in ownership of the property, the lease went away. The new county ownership began leasing back the hangars to their owners at three hundred dollars a month.

The new owners were forbidden to build more hangars. Only by permit, and as the new management wanted to get scheduled service into that field, there was nowhere on the property that would permit hangars and still maintain adequate distance from the runway.

I've lived other places where the hangars didn't go up until put up by the airport board themselves. They built for their own airplanes, plus a few empties. Then locals had to rent from the airport board. A real conflict of interest, locked in by the board. The soloution...drive the three hour trip to the next airport in order to fly.

I'm not saying it's right but that it happens regularly. Everywhere. I could go on for pages and pages, as likely could most folks here.

You identified yourself as AOPA. If you can show enough political benifit, AOPA may step up to the plate and help you fight it. Don't bank on it...the organization only does what gets them the most political mileage. However, you might have a shot. Good luck!!