Last month the Super Bowl brought more than airplanes to Arizona’s Glendale Municipal Airport (KGEU) — it also brought potential buyers for property located on the airport. At least that’s the hope of Brian Hufft, chief financial officer of Glendale Hangars.
Glendale Hangars is selling 103 hangars, along with a number of shade rows and 11 acres of open land for development on the south end of the airport, which is about 30 miles northwest of downtown Phoenix, Hufft explains.According to Hufft, the hangars, built in the late 1980s to early 1990s, were primarily used as rental space. The spaces have since been refurbished and are now going to a condo-type situation where the tenant owns the hangar and the City of Glendale owns the ground lease.
The structures range from T-hangars measuring 44.5 feet wide and 38 feet deep for $31,000 to units 38 feet wide and 29.5 feet deep, which start at $27,000. There is a hangar association for each row of hangars and an association fee to cover maintenance, insurance, and utilities. Internet access is available and each hangar has a private lock.
The topic of hangars is a sensitive issue at Glendale Municipal, notes Airport Manager Walter Fix, because in recent years there have been disagreements and lawsuits filed over what tenants are allowed to keep in the hangars.
Fix explains that the leases stipulate that the hangars are to be used for aviation storage, and any non-aviation use puts the city in non-compliance with FAA rules — and non-compliance jeopardizes the city’s eligibility for FAA funds.
The controversy began in 2009 when the FAA cracked down on the non-aviation use of hangars across the country. Some hangars were being used as storage for household goods, such as bedroom furniture, appliances and sporting equipment.
During a two-year investigation, FAA investigators went out to local airports and took pictures while hangar doors were open, documenting the items stored inside.
According to Fix, during a visit to Glendale Airport, FAA inspectors found non-aviation items, such as Recreational Vehicles and cars in hangars. The airport was used by the FAA as an example of an airport not in compliance with the rules governing hangars.
“These hangars are privately owned with ground leases that stipulate that the hangars are to be used for the parking and storage of aircraft,” Fix says. “The lessee must comply with airport rules and regulations. The lessee shall not use the hangar for any other purpose other than parking and storage of aircraft.”
Some of the hangar tenants took exception to being told they had to remove items they had kept in their hangars for years, and alleged that airport officials were playing favorites.
In April 2014, members of the Glendale Airport Pilots Association filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court to allow them to continue storing their non-flight-related belongings in the hangars they have used for years. The complaint was filed by some 20 pilots, who allege that the city was forcing pilots to clear their non-flight related belongings from their hangars in order to appease the FAA. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, broken promises, changing contracts, and loss of property value and is still on-going.
Multiple attempts to contact hangar owners by telephone and email were unsuccessful. Those who did respond to emails and phone calls did not want to be interviewed, saying they feared retaliation.
In the past two years there have been several stories in local newspapers about hangar tenants trying to sell their hangars and move their airplanes to what they described as “more friendly” airports.
According to a May 2014 article that appeared in the Arizona Republic, in 2009 south-end hangar owners sued the city for allowing north-end hangar owners to store non-flight-related belongings while prohibiting south-end tenants from doing the same. The city lost the suit and paid $1.7 million to the hangar owners and the FAA threatened to cut off Glendale from grant funding.
According to Fix, as of last spring the airport hangars had achieved compliance with FAA minimum standards, but he could not comment on the pending litigation.
“Build – and THEY will come”? This is simply a result of OVER supply and “ZIP” demand; at least for what “they” (aircraft storage?) were intended for, perhaps?
Airport authority(s) now “desperate ” for non-aeronautical related income; looks like the case here to me!
I have built and owned a few hangers in the past, In one of my hangers we could store three full size airplanes, two low wing and one high wing type. I always told my tenents that it was our hanger and that the responsability of keeping it clean and maintained was every ones job. I also put a stop to some of my friends that hangered there planes in the hanger that wanted to store their jeeps etc. in the hanger. I had rules the only stuff allowed in the hanger was aviation related stuff and stuff to maintain the aircraft,tools etc. We did however have a fridge, micro owen tables and several chairs, what ever we needed to be comfortable. Nothing else, no other toys or family or friends stuff. Soom times it would anger me to the point I would have to have a serious talk with my hangered buddies. Like drinking to much beer and making messes in the bathroom. Absolutly NOT !!! thanks.. Joe
Joe, sounds like you are a stern taskmaster with a strong sense of right and wrong.
Could you kindly explain your thinking, in addition to your feelings? Did the friend’s jeep impede movement of the aircraft? Was is a fire risk? Source of fleas?
At least the jeep might provide useful transportation in a pinch. Can’t say the same for the fridge and microwave. I mean, there must be restaurants or grocery stores near the hangar, right?
My issue is not non-aviation items in hangars, it’s storing unairworthy aircraft in precious hangar space. I get that with the high cost of fuel and maintenance and an aging demographic that GA has become more about the social interaction at the airport than actually flying. But new young people who are vital to aviation a future are being told the wait for a hangar at some local airports is up to 16 years. That discourages investment and even involvement in aviation while a bunch of guys with no intention of flying hang out in lawn chairs in front of their hangars. A reasonable condition of hangar tenancy should be that the airplane be in annual and some documented minimum useage.
That may be fine with respect to municipally-owned rental hangars. Unfortunately, the FAA policy applies to privately-owned hangars as well.
I own a condo hangar. While the FAA may persuade the airport sponsor (who is the owner/lessor of the land my hangar sits on) to force me to remove all “non-aviation” property from my hangar, they sure as heck can’t force me to lease it to someone else, no matter how needy.
After my hangar was inspected by the FAA, I wrote the following to one of Alaska’s senators:
Federal over reach is a hot topic, especially these days. Reversing this trend and pushing back was part of your campaign. Here is a subject that needs your action.
Back in December, 2013, an FAA inspector knocked on my airplane hangar door, came in and took several pictures. This inspection was a part of the Juneau International Airport compliance inspection. See http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?4579-FAA-Compliance-Hangar-Inspection-Juneau-Alaska for more details of what he saw in my hangar.
I find it hard to believe that our federal government is actively trying to control the minute details of our daily lives. This offends me and is an invasion of my privacy. Also, this kind of detailed control by our federal government is scary. What is next, our homes?
See https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/22/2014-17031/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars?utm_campaign=comment%20publication%20notification%20email&utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email for the hangar use policy and proposed changes.
Check out the more than 2,000 comments on this policy at http://www.regulations.gov/?utm_campaign=comment%20publication%20notification%20email&utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0463-2312. There are many serious comments from airport managers and professionals in the aviation field, including from Alaska.
Congress needs to order the FAA to greatly reduce their control of hangar use. I own my hangar, pay property taxes on it, insurance, utilities, maintenance and property and sales taxes on the lease. I should be free to choose whatever else I want to store in my hangar, alongside or underneath the wings of my airplanes.
General Aviation is struggling and declining in the U.S. This kind of over regulation is one of the causes. Previously, congress made FAA change their ban on residential airpark through the fence access to airports. Congress is pushing the FAA, dragging and kicking all the way, on medical reform. I hope congress can direct the FAA to eliminate restrictions on hangar use and pull back some of this executive branch government overreach.
Don’t worry about federal overreach into your home next, because the FAA does not provide aviation trust fund grant dollars to build or replace your driveway like it does for runways and taxiways. When the airport accepts federal aviation dollars generated by the aviation users in the U.S., it want to make sure that the investment is for aviation, which is required by the FAA because they are aviation dollars. That’s why there has to be an airplane in the hangar. Some airport operators may be a little lenient, allowing non-aviation items provided there is an airworthy aircraft in the hangar, but bottom line is that you don’t have a right to just store what you want because it is your hangar, unless you move it off the airport, in which case you can store whatever you desire.
I currently rent a T-Hanger for my light sport….There’s a lot of left over space…Why can’t I use that extra space for whatever I want? It’s not like someone else could use that space?!?
I am a hangar owner at KGEU. When we built these hangars almost 20 years ago, we were assured by the then airport manager that the hangars were ours and we could do or store what we wanted with them. Now, they changed the rules. While my hangar was constructed primarily to store my personal aircraft as well as to perform maintenance (I am an A&P/IA), I did have limited non-aviation personal equipment. It seems that the City has reneged on their earlier agreements.
GO GET IT BRETT.
This article hits home for me a little, as KGEU used to be my home base years ago. On the west side of Phoenix there really are only two easy access airports to choose from, and at KGEU ramp space can get cramped.
I am all about hangars being used for Aviation purposes as the primary means. However, as a hangar tenant I personally store my aircraft and my household property dually in the hangar. What a waste of space otherwise!
Maybe the FAA interpretation allows for this, but if not then we should as a community petition the FAA to allow household items and the Aircraft/Air Vehicle use.
However, I am EXTREMELY against using a hangar, which in some areas are prohibitively expensive ($105k+ for a hangar, or $600/mo for a T!), for anything Non-Aviation related as its primary use. At one of my previous homebases which was a FAA funded airport there sat dozens of hangars used solely to store their boat, RV, and miscellaneous junk or even sit empty for years (owned property) without a single hint of anything related to aircraft or aircraft maintenance. This is a shame and is against owners/operators who would love to be able to protect their aircraft from the elements without having to pay a second mortgage payment! My corrosion control efforts from that area was immense due to the extreme salt exposure and the lack of viable hangar space within an hour drive.
In areas where hangars are cheap and plentiful, the issue may not seem like a big deal. I don’t expect those people to understand the difficulties of finding an affordable hangar/shade space. But for those living in population dense areas, near the coasts (salt is ever present), or in places where hail and wind are ever present, hangar space is sacred.
Lets have the flexibility of having an aircraft AND home goods be co-located in the same space, but for crying out loud an aircraft hangar is just that…a hangar for aircraft.
The FAA solicited comments from the general public last fall to help them address new or updated interpretations of what is acceptable to store in aircraft hangars. As founder and editor of HangarSphere magazine, I take any issue relating to hangars very seriously and submitted several statements in support of easing literal interpretations of their policy. Tools, golf carts converted to aircraft tugs, work benches, fridges, seating areas, offices, shelving, aircraft consumables, all forms of GSE, coffee makers, hangar modes of transportation (aka bicycles or mopeds to get to your friend’s hangar just down the line), and an American Flag hanging on the wall should all be permitted. In addition, I further argue that if space permits and does not “Interfere” with the space being used as “Aeronautical” then a boat, antique car, etc should be allowed to be stored in the hangar as well.
Corporate flight facilities and FBOs have all sorts of items that could be interpreted as a violation yet airports understand that their investment in the airport is vital. GA aircraft owners and their investment in the airport should be viewed through this same lens.
FAA has nothing better to do than inspect hangars – unbelievable. We have class-3 medical reform, part 23 rewrite, and a host of other important items, and we’re worried about a couch in a hangar.
Way to go FAA – focusing on what’s most important….
Not to play devil’s advocate here (more like “this is the result of being married to an attorney”) – but I wonder if there’s a way to skirt the FAA’s legal instrusiveness? For instance – what’s to say you can’t park a tiny R/C aircraft or drone right in the middle of the hangar – and still store your sofas, refrigerators, RVs all around your ‘aircraft’? Wouldn’t these (R/C model aircraft, drone) still be defined as ‘aircraft’ or forms of ‘aerial conveyance’?
I know, I know – I’m being a smart-alec and I’m just trying to have fun and make fun of what I think is a silly FAA rule – but I’M JUST JOKING. Please no flame mail.
This is not a flame!!
From what I have read elsewhere, the plaintiffs in the Glendale lawsuit(s) do in fact store aircraft in their hangars. However, the FAA policy is that with respect to airports that have accepted FAA grant money for improvements, ONLY aircraft may be stored in those hangars (whether rented or owned).
The FAA rationale is that the taxpayers who fund the FAA budget are being screwed (!?) if those nasty, elitist private pilots use airport property (which includes the land on which the hangars were constructed as well as the aprons and taxiways etc.), which has been improved with FAA grants, for non-aviation purposes such as general storage, geezer man caves and so forth.
While this FAA policy is usually incorporated into the individual hangar lease agreements (ground leases included), most airports have turned a blind eye to such use for decades and it is only recently that some go-getter at the FAA has decided to hitch his cart to this horse.
So, it is the couches, fridges, loft beds, ’63 split-window ‘Vettes, Winnebagos, boats, weight lifting pits and so on that the FAA is objecting to. In addition, construction and owner-maintenance of E-AB aircraft is under scrutiny, which has stirred up a hornets nest with the base EAA membership
I BELIEVE THAT AN AIRCRAFT HANGAR IS FOR AIRCRAFT AND I BELIEVE THAT A STORE ROOM IS TO STORE ALL OF THE REST.
You are right. Some even sell pizza out of them!
I believe that “you believe” correctly, CAPTLEO –
“An aircraft hangar is for aircraft and a store room is to store all the rest.”
And your two-car garage attached to your house is for your two cars and a store room is for all the rest of the stuff you have crammed in there, so I believe you should get busy moving your BICYCLES AND TRASH CANS AND CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS out of your garage and put them back into your storage room where they belong!
The only reason the FAA bureaucrats got involved in the first place was because the kids on the playground couldn’t learn to get along.
It’s my hangar, my airplane, my Corvette, and my couch. I paid to have that hangar built (along with the sales taxes I paid on the building materials). I also pay rent to the airport for the land my hangar sits on, I pay a maintenance and electric fee to the airport to help maintain the facilities, and I pay the property taxes on my hangar twice a year. I also own the key to my hangar and I will keep the doors closed and locked so passersby won’t have to look at my unsightly “hangar flying” couch!
Bravo! Don’t forget that at the end of the lease, the airport can simply take ownership control of the hangar you paid for if new lease terms cannot be negotiated, and do so with no compensation for any residual or fair market value of the structure.