hangar electricity and other rants

[A Bruce Hughes]

I applied for a hangar space at OGG (Kahului Maui).

Waited many years

Finally got the space BUT I was told that the airplane MUST be airworthy.

I was working on it so I had to pass.

That airport is run by the state of Hawaii.

All that they care about is (1) incoming airliners

(2) Helicopters (5 or 6 companies)

(3) private jets belonging to the Microsoft crowd

 

[Kent Ashton]

I am trying to generate some interest in a T-hangar partnership at a local airport near Charlotte with a long waiting list--Charlotte-Monroe Exec.  KEQY.  You chaps might be interested in the subject.   In my experience, the major impediment to getting private hangars at federally-assisted pubic airports is "reversion" clauses where the hangar reverts to airport ownership in, say, 25 years, without any compensation.  It doesn't have to be this way.  As long as the airport can regain the property at will to make other airport improvements, the FAA will go along (I think).  My preference is a buyout of the hangar owner or worst case, the hangar owner can remove the structure.  See para 6.6a here  https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/

Quote

[5190.6 para 6.6a]:  A method a sponsor may use in this regard is to place a “subordination clause” in all of its tenant leases and agreements that subordinates the terms of the lease or agreement to the federal grant assurances and surplus property obligations. A subordination clause may assist the sponsor in amending a tenant lease or agreement that otherwise deprives the sponsor of its rights and powers. A typical subordination clause will state that if there is a conflict between the terms of a lease and the federal grant assurances, the grant assurances will take precedence and govern.

Quote

[I said]  You [9] chaps are the ones so far that have indicated you might be interested in a T-hangar partnership at Monroe.  I am updating you on what I’ve found out

Raleigh Executive https://www.airnav.com/airport/KTTA    I talked with  Mr. Bob Heuts at Raleigh Exec who operates 99 T-hangars (very helpful).  In 2017-2018 the airport built 30 T’s and 2 helicopter spaces for $1.4M.  That pencils out to $4375 per space or $43750 (rough calc.) for a row of 10.  They were Erect-a-tube hangars with bifold doors.  Erect-a-tube only offers bifold or sliding doors.  He does not like sliding doors (neither do I).   Heuts said on some older T’s, the bifold door flexes the roof when open which moves the fasteners and causes leaks.  [Bifold doors put a big load on the hangar structure].  His hangars have insulated ceilings.  He suggested building somewhat larger hangars than needed for a CE-172 (40’W x 12” H).  A turboprop TBM needs about 45’ x 15’.  His engineering was done by https://www.kenbrightengineering.com/    The airport got a so-called “Red-leg” loan from USDA that covered part of the cost.  https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-economic-development-loan-grant-program   I do not know if Monroe would qualify.  It appears his airport already had land improved and read for concrete so I’m guessing the cost did not include land prep (forgot to ask)

Cleveland-Shelby airport (KEHO)  - Recently built a row of 10 Erect-a-tube hangars + 1 restroom on already-prepared ground.  Cost was $575,000 ($57,500 per space) erected, including concrete pad and bifold doors.
[KEHO has 6 names on their waiting list]

Duplin County Airport  http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDPL  just finished a row of 6 T-hangars plus two 60’ x 60’ hangars for $2M.  $770,000 for the hangars and erection, $900K for site preparation.  Engineering by W K Dickson, a large engineering firm.  Airport manager George Futrelle was very helpful.  He rents T-hangars for $300/mo.   I am estimating that the six T’s were about $63,500 per space, not including land prep.

RM Steel is a steel structure provider   https://rmsteel.com/metal-building-types/t-hangars/     An estimate would be $19,000 per space, or approximately $200,000 for a row of 10 with bifold doors.  Price does not include land prep, concrete pad.  Just the hangar “kit”   Erection has to be done by a local general contractor.  The footprint is 11780 sq feet, 51’ x 231’   .27 acre

HigherPowerDoors (hydraulic doors)   https://www.hpdoors.com/   estimated $10341 per door with a 5% discount for 9 doors, 10% discount for more than 10. $132 more for a 3’ wide built-in access door.  Shipping 10 doors to N.C. would be $5000.  Hydraulic doors do not require the heavy header that a bifold door needs.  I asked if they knew whether RM Steel would design their kit for the HPdoor.  The HPDoor man said no.   I have asked RMSteel if they see the kit without doors.  No reply yet.

Another hydraulic door is http://hydroswing-hydraulic-doors.com/    I have not talked to them yet.  

FulFab supplies hangars http://www.fulfab.com/fullnested.html      A 10 unit model LK42 would cost approximately $ 162,000.00, delivered to Monroe, NC. ($16,200 per space)  Price does not include erection price because FulFab is not licensed to do work in North Carolina.  Fulfab only offers the bifold door. Suggested that if I want to use a different door I might just get a metal building contractor to do the whole thing.    BTW, what we want are “nested T-hangars”.   

In summary, it appears hangar partners would need to commit to $43,000-$55,000 per hangar space excluding the cost of land preparation.  Perhaps a local general contractor for metal buildings could do the whole thing cheaper.  I will have to ask around.  Will keep you informed.
 

 

[Kent Ashton]

On 8/17/2020 at 11:36 AM, A Bruce Hughes said:

I applied for a hangar space at OGG (Kahului Maui).

Waited many years

Finally got the space BUT I was told that the airplane MUST be airworthy.

I was working on it so I had to pass.

That airport is run by the state of Hawaii.

For future reference Bruce,  the FAA has ruled that federally-assisted airports must accommodate "maintenance, repair, refurbishment" and "construction" in their hangars. 

See rule here at page 39810 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/15/2016-14133/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars

FAA Q and A here:  https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/hangar_use/

Airports do what they want unless persons are willing to fight for their rights.   I am getting ready to file a 14 CFR Part 13 complaint on just this topic.  Clearly, an airplane that is out-of-annual or under repair or refurbishment is not "airworthy" but those repairs must be accommodated.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Kent Ashton

[Kent Ashton]

I heard a guy on one of the lists the other day who got a little huffy over what I call "Question Flipping".  It's when someone asks a question and the repliers tell him why his question is the wrong one or why he should not do what he is asking about.  It told him "It's just the way of the internet".  People are just trying to be helpful.  Just take it that way.  Saw this example just now:   Now that you've seen one, you will see them all the time.

[Kent Ashton]

Here is a point I am arguing about now with the FAA--something to be aware of.  My local airport revised its hangar lease to say

Quote

2.    TERM OF LEASE:  This Lease shall be for a period of three (3) years, commencing on ____________________, 20______, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein.  Partial months shall be prorated.  If Lessee remains in possession without express written agreement as to such holding over the Lessee shall be considered a tenant at will at 150% of the then current rental rate as established by the City, and all other provisions of this Lease shall continue to apply.

Let us pose the situation where you have complained about some aspect of this federally-assisted airport (as I have done, from time to time) and the airport authorities decided they would rather not have you there.  Your lease expires and you get a notice to vacate your hangar.  You ask for a new lease and the authorities refuse.  Now you are a "tenant-at-will" paying 150% rent.  The term "tenant-at-will" is a legal term for a tenant with no right to remain in a rental property.  By signing the lease, you agreed to that.   You could complain to the FAA which might take a year to resolve.  Meanwhile you're paying 150% rent, even if the airport does not immediately kick you out of your hangar.  You could be compelled to move your airplane back on to open storage on the ramp.  You can try complaining in a local court but the judge may say "But Mr. Pilot, you agreed that when your lease expires, you became a tenant-at-will who can be evicted at will.  The airport is just doing what you allowed it to do".  You can try explaining federal grant obligations to a judge--good luck with that--but a sheet of paper with your signature to the terms holds more weight with a local judge and is an easy thing to rule on.  The authorities will also show the judge that the FAA preempts regulation of airports and grant assurances and they'll tell the judge you should be complaining to the FAA.  (Seen that one too)

Formerly, my local airport had additional words in the paragraph above that said when a lease expired, a lessee could continue to pay his monthly rent and maintain his hangar.  They took those words out because it limited who and how they could evict tenants.

Airport authorites are not above threatening pilots with lease termination.  I am seeing this at another airport in our area.  Pilots there are afraid to protest too loudly about how the airport is operated because the authorities have hinted they might not be granted a lease for any storage.  That is illegal but very difficult to fight if it happens.

One option is to sign the lease and write "Paragraph 2 signed under protest".  Your right to lease a hangar is a benefit under the Grant Assurances and usually also a right under state law.  The government cannot condition your receipt of a benefit on giving up other tenant rights.   Another option is make a complaint under state law.  Most states have a law saying citizens have the "rightful use of airports, airport property, and improvements".  That might hold some water with a local judge.

By the way, this airport formerly used terminology "We can terminate your lease _for_any_reason".   Thankfully, the FSDO held that this terminology was overbroad and made them omit it.  That's when they developed this alternate way of getting rid of pesky pilots.

 

[Kent Ashton]

Waste of time (pic). 

[Kent Ashton]

On 1/8/2021 at 10:22 AM, Kent Ashton said:

Here is a point I am arguing about now with the FAA--something to be aware of.  My local airport revised its hangar lease to sayLet us pose the situation where you have complained about some aspect of this federally-assisted airport (as I have done, from time to time) and the airport authorities decided they would rather not have you there.  Your lease expires and you get a notice to vacate your hangar.  You ask for a new lease and the authorities refuse.  Now you are a "tenant-at-will" paying 150% rent.

A nice person from the FAA called me today to say they did not agree with me on the "tenant-at-will" issue above.   Well, at least they agreed on some other objections I raised.  The FSDO told me the lease issue was "too hypothetical", i.e., that an airport was unlikely to use a lease provision like this to evict a troublesome tenant but I know better.  They would.  Some years ago the FAA held that a tenant could be excluded from a federally-assisted airport if he complained too much and his complaints became a "financial burden".  Of course, the right to complain is protected by the Petition clause of the 1st Amendment.   A court can sanction you for frivolous complaints, make you pay the other party's fees, even dismiss them early-on, but you can't be denied the use of an airport because you legally complained.  Nevertheless, the FAA has used the rationale in several cases:

Skydive Monroe, Inc. v. City of Monroe, Ga., FAA Docket No. 16- 06-02, Director’s Determination Mar. 30, 2007, where the FAA held that a sponsor has “a right to protect itself from unnecessary litigation or financial burdens that could harm the airport or negatively impact other airport users.”   Skydive, p. 15.
 

JetAway Aviation, Inc. v. Montrose County, CO, et al, FAA Part 16 Docket 16-08-01, Director's Determination, July 2, 2004, where the Director stated
"One example of where an airport sponsor may exercise its proprietary rights is to protect itself as a going concern in the face of litigation."

Airport managers and their municipal attorneys study these cases.  If they can justify an eviction because a tenant complained, they will.

 

[Kent Ashton]

Ever notice that HOTAS is never just written  "HOTAS" or "hands on throttle and stick?  It is always written "HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick)" like they are describing it for their Grandma.   It is left to the grandma to figure why this fighter-pilot lingo is employed.  Don't all airplanes use hands on throttle and stick?  Mine does.  Do you have a mic button on your stick?  You're HOTAS-equipped!  🙂   Sorry, meant to say "you're HOTAS-equipped (hands on throttle and stick)".

Edited February 6, 2022 by Kent Ashton

[Kent Ashton]

My adventures with FAA medical:  I had a stent installed last September (2020) and  put in my paperwork for a Special Issuance Medical in early April.  The papers were scanned into the FAA system April 12th.  Finally, on August 18th, I got a letter saying they needed a brain MRI due to my history of melanoma 6 years ago.  It seems that melanoma can reoccur years later and if it returns in the brain, it can cause a seizure.  Both I and my AME should have caught this back in March.  The AME guide is very clear that with a history of melanoma, a brain MRI must be submitted every-freaking-time.  My insurance would not cover it so I booked one with a company called MDSave that links to discount providers and got one done for $544.  My local hospital quoted $1200+.   Lesson learned: read the AME Guide closely.  I saw that an MRI was required but I thought my MRI six years ago cleared me.  Noooooo.    The AME Guide is available online.  https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/guide.pdf

[Kent Ashton]

It surprises me that buyers of Exp-Amateur Built airplanes sometimes don't know their "Operating Limitations".  Most original builders know because the FAA shoves them in their epoxy-coated fingers but then they get folded up in a case in the airplane (I hope, although some don't know these must be carried in the aircraft).  A friend was contemplating changing his prop.  He had not considered that a prop change is a "major change" and that his OLs require test and recertification in his logbook. In fact, he was not sure he had any OLs.  We dug them out and his OLs require a 5 hour test and logbook statement after a "major change".    A couple of points:

Ops limits have changed over the years and the current ones are on the FAA website.  If you have very strict OLs, the FAA may give you the newer ones on request.  It usually requires a letter to the FSDO and an inspection.

I recall an incident where a chap installed a new carb and did the required tests and logbook entries.  Sometime later he reinstalled the old carb, then had an insurance claim.  The insurance company denied the claim because he did not test/log the reinstalled carb!

[Marc Zeitlin]

1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

It surprises me that buyers of Exp-Amateur Built airplanes sometimes don't know their "Operating Limitations"....

Nothing surprises me anymore. "Where are your OL's", I ask, when starting a CI. And the owner hands me a dog-eared POH. "Ummm, Nope. That's a POH. The OL's are a 2 - 4 page document that's part of the AC - you HAVE to have one, and have a copy in the airplane, or else you're not legal". No clue. Sigh.

1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

He had not considered that a prop change is a "major change" and that his OLs require test and recertification in his logbook. In fact, he was not sure he had any OLs.  We dug them out and his OLs require a 5 hour test and logbook statement after a "major change".

So a prop swap MIGHT be a major change, or it might not, depending upon how the OL's are written and what type of prop you're swapping. Going from one fixed pitch prop to another is almost certainly NOT a major change, but installing a C/S or adjustable prop would be. From 14 CFR Part 21.93(a) (which is the rule most commonly referenced in OL's to define what a minor or major change is:

A “minor change” is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are “major changes” (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section).

So, yeah - very vague and interpretable.