Return to Newsletters

HN Newsletter                                                                                         July 2014
In This Issue



Featured Listings



3,600 SF Condo Hangar at Yampa Valley Regional (HDN)


Minutes from Steamboat Springs, world class skiing, big game hunting and all the amazing Rocky Mountains has to offer. 


 Listed by:




5,000 SF Hangar with 1,600 SF office/shop space at Ramona Airport (RNM)


Here's the opportunity to own or rent one of the nicest hangars in San Diego County!





5,040 SF Hangar with attached office/shop space (GJT)


Corporate hangar on 2.17 acres.  14 years left on the Direct Airport Ground Lease. 


 Listed by:





3,000 SF Hangar for sale or lease at Fort Collins-Loveland Muni (FNL)


Custom built hangar located at the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport. Clean, epoxy-sealed floors in heated hangar; water and compressed air on hangar floor.



 Listed by:




1,428 SF Hangars for sale or lease at Hayward Executive (HWD)


Box hangar units available for lease or purchase.  All units have electric bi-fold doors, T5 or T8 lighting, fire sprinkler protection, internet access, and three-phase power capability.






50,940 SF Hangar at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway (IWA)


73,000+ SF state of the art facility with direct runway access.  This provides a turn-key environment for a sophisticated user far below replacement cost.



 Listed by:




10,000 SF Hangar with a 3,000 SF attached office/shop (MMV) 



Evergreen International Airlines is selling its portfolio of properties located at the McMinnville Oregon airport.  This is an extraordinary opportunity to obtain a state-of-the-art campus consisting of six properties for an exceptional price on fee simple land.


 Listed by:



48,000 SF Hangar with 24,000 SF of office and parts warehouse space (MKE)




Total of 72,000 SF includes a Hazmat room, drive-in doors, built in 2001.  Former Skyway hangar.



Listed by:



Click here to see the lisitng 


3,720 SF Hangar and 800 SF internal office/shop space for Lease (APA) 


Executive hangar with direct access to tarmac. 60' wide x 60' deep 3,720 SF. Good lighting, epoxy finished hangar floor, full bath down, storage, office down, kitchenette, mezzanine, office.


 Click Here To See ListingĂ‚  



10,000 SF Hangar for Lease (BJC)



Private Corporate Hangar, Great Location, Attached 2 Lane Car-port, Passenger Lounge, Pilot Lounge, Conference Room, Bathrooms and Shower.


8,100 SF Hangar for sale (APA)



Premier 8,100 SF hangar with long-term attractive-rate ground lease. High quality hangar door (24.5' clear) and construction.


Listed by:


Stijgend Real Estate, LLC 


9,000 SF Hangar for sale (FTG)


Large hangar with a semi private road to a 12 car parking lot behind. Office space, bath, and unfinished kitchen area.


 Click Here to See Listing  


Quick Links
Send us your press releases and news...

Global Aviation's New Hangar Reaching for the Sky

Global Aviation's new hangar is now reaching for the Oregon rain-filled sky with the help of two hydraulic cranes lifting up and putting together the metal rafters.


Dave Wheeler, Global Aviation's Project Superintendent for Perlo Construction reports that "everything is going smoothly." The floor slab is done and they are erecting the metal building. Roofing will be the next step with electrical, mechanical and fire protection all going on this next month. The new hangar is scheduled for completion in July 2014.


Oregon's spring weather can be a bit dramatic for construction. Sunny skies are often replaced by torrential downpours in a matter of minutes. Wheeler says that the rain doesn't slow them down.


"Rain can make it a little miserable, but our guys are used to it. If you work construction in Oregon, you've got to be able to work in the rain."  


The expansion comes at an exciting time of growth at Global Aviation. The increased aircraft capacity will allow the company to meet the area's high demand for business rentals and charters.  The new hangar will also provide the space needed to increase maintenance operations and capabilities. 


For more information go to their website


Judge's Decision Clouds the Sky


The use of drones is one of the most rapidly-evolving areas in aviation.


Though known by the public as "drones," the industry prefers to use the term UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle), and the FAA uses UAS (unmanned aircraft system which includes the aircraft and ground station). Recently the term RPV (remotely piloted vehicle) has come into use to indicate that the craft is not unmanned but rather it is remotely controlled.


Regardless of the term used, the debate over whether and how these craft may be flown continues to simmer, and a recent decision by NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty has thrown even more confusion into the picture.


In the US, the Department of Defense has by far been the biggest user of UAS, but the last 10 years has seen a steady increase in their use for domestic purposes. The vast majority of such domestic use has been by RC (radio controlled) hobbyists, but commercial applications have recently sprung up. In particular, real estate and other companies have turned to RPVs for obtaining aerial photos and videos of properties to enhance their marketing appeal.


While the FAA has begun to address the use of UAS for recreational and commercial purposes, the definitions used by the FAA and by commercial entities do not coincide.


And therein lies the problem.


Scroll down to read the rest of the article..

The FAA and Real Estate Developers Clash Over Building Heights

Back in October of 2000, the FAA's concern to limit real estate development surrounding airports was based upon diminished radar visibility due to building heights. Now the FAA concern to limit development and building heights near airports is driven by the need for safer flight paths for planes taking off that may lose power in an engine.  Planes can fly with only one engine, but they have less power to climb quickly over obstacles. The proposal is drawing fire from real estate developers, local officials and members of Congress who say it will hurt property values.


The Federal Aviation Administration proposal is supported by some airports and airlines.  Local business leaders, who see airports as a means to attract development, say they fear office towers and condominium complexes will have to be put on hold until developers and zoning boards can figure out what effect the proposal will have in their communities.  The local Chamber of Commerce President in Tempe Arizona, Mary Ann Miller, said she fears almost any new building in the city's downtown would face new restrictions because the community is located near the edge of Phoenix Sky Harbor's runways.  "Coming out of a very long recession, we hate the idea of stopping some growth," she said.  In Florida, the Miami City Commission urged the FAA to conduct a study of its potential economic impact before moving forward.  Miami passed a resolution two weeks ago that said the proposal "may be detrimental to the overall growth and economic prosperity" of the city's downtown.


As more buildings, cellphone towers, wind turbines and other tall structures go up near airports, there are fewer safe flight paths available. Current regulations effectively limit building heights based on the amount of clearance needed by planes with two operating engines.


Airlines already must sometimes cut down on the number of passengers and the amount of cargo carried by planes taking off from airports in Burbank, San Jose, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, and near Washington, D.C.  This is so they will be light enough to clear obstructions if only one engine is available, said Chris Oswald, vice-president of the Airports Council International-North America.


The problem is exacerbated in hot weather when air is less dense and planes require more power during takeoff. Bigger planes that carry lots of passengers and cargo on lucrative international flights are especially affected.  Airports worry that the problem could cost airlines enough money that they'll find some routes unprofitable and eliminate service, Oswald said.


The FAA's proposal would change the way the agency assesses proposals to build new structures or modify existing structures near 388 airports to take into account the hazard that would be created to one-engine takeoffs. For example, under the proposal future buildings constructed 10,000 feet from the end of a runway and within a designated flight path would have a maximum allowable height of 160 feet instead of the current limit of 250 feet, according to an analysis by the Weitzman Group, a New York real estate consulting firm.  As the distance from an airport increases, the allowable building height increases as well. The proposal could affect buildings as far as 10 miles from an airport.


Planes taking off usually follow one of about a half-dozen possible flight paths. To limit the number of buildings and other structures affected by the proposal, the FAA is recommending airports and local zoning boards work together to select a single flight path for each runway that planes can use in the event that an engine quits, said John Speckin, the FAA deputy regional administrator in charge of the proposal. The new height limits would only apply to structures in that path, he said.   "We're trying to create a balance of the aviation needs and the development needs in the local community," he said.  But even with that limitation, thousands of existing and planned structures would be affected, said Peter Bazeli, who wrote the Weitzman analysis. Existing buildings along the path would not have to be altered, but a property owner who wanted to increase the height of a building or replace it with a taller building might be out of luck.  "Just one flight path could cover hundreds and hundreds of acres in densely developed areas," Bazeli said. "You are going to be bumping up against some very valuable property rights."


Property owners near airports are supposed to apply to the FAA before construction for a determination on whether a proposed building or renovation presents a hazard to navigation. Erecting a building that the FAA says is a hazard is akin to building in a flood plain - insurance rates go up, mortgages are harder to get and property values decrease. Local zoning laws often don't permit construction of buildings determined to be an aviation hazard.


The FAA's proposal has created "a real estate and developer firestorm," said Ken Quinn, a former FAA chief counsel who is representing several developers. "A single building can be worth $100 million and more. If you are talking about lopping off whole floors, you can ruin the economic proposition and you can destroy the viability of the building. Cellphone tower owners and operators are also concerned.  "A change in the maximum allowable height of infrastructure surrounding airports could degrade wireless service coverage and capacity," PCIA, a trade association for the wireless industry, said in a letter to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members.


The real estate and wireless industries want the FAA proposal to be put through a formal rulemaking process, which can take years to complete. When an agency proposes a new rule, it also has to show that the benefits outweigh the cost to society. That makes it easier for industries to challenge the rule. FAA officials have chosen instead to treat the proposal as a policy change, eliminating the need to meet rulemaking requirements.  A bill recently introduced by Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, whose Northern Virginia district includes densely populated areas around Reagan National Airport near downtown Washington, would require the FAA to conduct a formal rulemaking. In a letter earlier this year to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, Moran and three other lawmakers expressed concern that the proposal would have a "detrimental effect on the development and marketability of airports as well as hinder job creation and shrink the tax base of local governments."


Federal Aviation Administration explanation of proposal 


Judges's Decision Clouds the Sky (continued) 

Judge's Decision Clouds the Sky Continued...


A 1981 FAA Advisory Circular (AC 91-57) basically excluded "model aircraft" from FAA regulations except to recommend compliance with standards designed to limit hazards to full-scale aircraft. Unfortunately, the AC and FAA regulations do not define exactly what a "model aircraft" is, but in subsequent policy statements, the FAA has stated that anyone other than modelers may not interpret AC 91-57 as authority to operate UAS, that AC 91-57 applies only to modelers, and that its use by entities for business purposes is specifically excluded.


Thus there is presently much confusion and disagreement over how UAS may be used for commercial purposes. In a recent move to assert its authority, the FAA issued subpoenas to realtors in the New York City area, demanding to know how the technology was being used.


It is useful to understand how the FAA views its role in regulating aircraft operations within the US National Airspace System. The two segments of domestic UAS are "public" and "civil." A "civil aircraft" is any aircraft except a "public aircraft." "Public aircraft" include 1) aircraft used only for government purposes and 2) aircraft leased or owned by the government and operated by anyone for purposes related to crew training, equipment development or demonstration.


Therefore any aircraft operated within the US National Airspace System is either a "civil" or a "public" aircraft. The distinction is important because the FAA regulates the airworthiness and airmen of civil but not public aircraft.


The next important question: is a UAS an "aircraft" as defined by law or is it a "model aircraft" not subject to FAA regulations?  This is precisely where the FAA and commercial entities disagree.


The recent NTSB decision centers around the definition of a UAS as a "model" or an "aircraft." The case arose from a $10,000 fine levied by the FAA against Raphael Pirker, who was being paid by Lewis Communications to fly a Ritewing Zephyr powered glider for the purpose of obtaining photos and videos of the University of Virginia campus.


Due to the manner in which Pirker allegedly operated the craft as described in the complaint, the FAA fined Pirker for violating 14 CFR 91.13(a) for careless and reckless operation of an aircraft.  Pirker filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming he was operating an unregulated model aircraft.  Pirker argued that the FAA's enforcement action was based on policy and not actual "regulation or order" as stated in the statute which gives the FAA its regulatory authority. The administrative law judge agreed, and the FAA has filed an appeal.


In arguing the case, each side presumes their own definition is correct: Pirker assumes he is operating a "model aircraft," while the FAA assumes he is operating an "aircraft." The judge's opinion presumes that Pirker's powered glider is a "model aircraft," without offering any discussion about why it is a model aircraft. The glaring omission in this case is the lack of definition: what is it that makes Pirker's power glider a model aircraft and not an aircraft?


Thus the situation is perhaps even less clear than before.  Pirker argues that a flying device operated by people on the ground using a radio control system is a "model aircraft." In contrast, the FAA's position is that the intended use defines the aircraft.  If it is used by a hobbyist for sport or recreation, it is a model.  If it is used in the furtherance of business, it is an aircraft.


The Pirker opinion certainly weakens the FAA's enforcement authority, but a successful appeal - presumably one that addresses the technical definitions of "model" versus "aircraft" - would swing the pendulum decidedly in favor of the FAA, and lead to the grounding of all civil unmanned aircraft operations conducted without airworthiness and airmen certificates.


HN Contributing Author: 

Mike Straka, PhD

President, Colorado General Aviation Alliance




1.  "Can I Fly or Can't I Fly? Drones in the Wake of the NTSB's Pirker Opinion" by Tim Adelman, West Law Journal Aviation July 2014. published on the JD Supra website.


2.  "FAA slaps drone-using realtors with subpoenas" Julie Strickland, The Real Deal New York Real Estate News website, July 01, 2014.


32,000 SF Hangar Opportunity
Click below




Listen To A Message From The County Manager 






The new terminal is coming along


Click here to see available properties 









Available Airport Hangars  




Featured Listings



3,500 SF Home at exclusive Wild Wings Residential Community at Watts-Woodland Airport (O41)


Potential to have your own Private Airplane Hangar, Taxi Strip to access Airport from Back Yard Gate. 


 Listed by:





Hangar Home for Sale at Roy E. Ray Airpark (5R7)


Wonderful 1,300 SF home with attached 3,000 SF hangar on 1 acre.






6,000 SF Hangar for sale (FTG)



Executive/corporate hangar (2 units) 55 X 20' overhead bi-fold hangar doors. 990 SF (60 X 16.5') upper commercial carpeted/and tiled loft galley kitchen, dining, living, full bath, upscale amenities, heated & air conditioning



Click Here to See Listing 




98,000 SF of high end heated hangar space at Portland-Hillsboro (HIO)




Scheduled completion July 2014.  Can accommodate up to a Global Express/Gulfstream 650 aircraft.  NO SALES TAX for Oregon based aircraft.  Full service support available through Global Aviation.  

40,000 SF of Hangar 
Space for Lease (IND) 




Newly refurbished hangar with new heating system, lighting, roof, all new electrical & roof. 



Listed by:



 Click Here To See Listing 



25,781 SF Hangar for lease (BUR)



Exclusive use 25,781 sq. ft. hangar for rent with attached 3,356 sq. ft. of prime office space. 203'W x 127'D. Perfect for Corporate Flight Department or Charter operation. Deep fuel volume discounts. 


Listed by:



 Click Here To See Listing 




4,000 SF Hangar for sale with 4.7 acres to build your dream home (C015)

Property has a rare grandfather clause to have only a hanger if you desire.  Motivated Seller, open to offers.



 Listed by:


HangarSphere Ad  
HANGAR NETWORK LLC | 855-942-6427 | |

Copyright © 20XX. All Rights Reserved.

Return to Newsletters