Michigan House Bill 6075 - Need Help!

[anumerick]

All,
I just spoke with the AOPA about Michigan House Bill #6075, and the AOPA is aware of the bill, however has no stance (basically supporting the bill).

The Bill states below, that basically if the airport management doesn't want you there, your trespassing. Punishable by 1 year and $1000!.

This only supports the Monopoly of FBO's and Flight Schools on the field. So, if you have the OVER PRICED $10,000 Annual, $7.50gal for 100LL, your Crap out of Luck.

No longer can you have your favorite mechanic preform work on your plane inside your hanger, unless approved by the airport management. And if the airport management is in co-hoots with the FBO... your screwed!

Now this bill is on the governors desk awaiting to be signed, by someone who doesn't support Aviation.

If you would like to voice your concern, please call the AOPA and the State of Michigan. The ph# to the state of Michigan is 517.373.3400, reference House Bill 6075. Please voice your concern soon. This bill effects many people I know that pride themseleves as a A&P and CFI's.

Thank you,
-Allen

A bill to amend 1945 PA 327, entitled
"Aeronautics code of the state of Michigan,"
by amending section 184 (MCL 259.184), as amended by 1996 PA 370.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 184. (1) A person shall not trespass upon the area within 1
the boundary of an approved or licensed airport, landing field, or 2
other aeronautical facility, or operate or cause to be operated a 3
vehicle or device, or conduct an activity upon or across a licensed 4
airport, landing field, or other aeronautical facility, unless that 5
operation or activity is authorized by the airport management. 6
(2) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A 7
MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 1 YEAR OR 8
A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000.00, OR BOTH. 9

 

[wsuffa]

Another nail in the coffin.

 

[KennyFlys]

I would be interested in the association the bill's authors have with aviation. You might contact them and ask the basis for this bill.

It seems strangely similar to "Hilary Care."

 

[EdFred]

The SKY IS FALLING, The SKY IS FALLING!!!

The only change to this is that they are now making it fineable and jailable within this statute. The first 1/2 of the code is already in place. I think I would know.

 

[anumerick]

Ed, If you know all the answers, then why change the law? If it's already covered by trespassing, then why add to it? Isn't good enough?

I have a feeling this is only the start of changes down the road. And it doesn't matter what Federal law states, it will be passed and put into place until someone challanges it. And in the meantime creates problems for everyone else, because they could be arrested. Sure they could challenge it, but personally I don't have the time from work or money, or be placed into jail to break a state law put into place by some Yahoo until the courts realize I'm federally protected.

Yes, I understand this helps keep the unwanted vechiles and people of the field, however one must prove who it was at the time the event occured. So, the same problems will continue to exist. And signs do not defer people.

And if a clever enough lawyer was to look into this, if a Mechanic, CFI, or some other Aircraft service company was to solicit their services or doesn't have business with a client on the field then it could be considered trespassing, unless they had airport management approval.

 

[ScottM]

Am I missing something this looks like a pretty standard trespassing law. I do not see this adding to restriction that may already be in place to restrict who does business on an airport. It also does not prevent anyone from taking their plane to whatever facility they desire for maintenance.

 

[Pjsmith]

Am I missing something this looks like a pretty standard trespassing law. .

IMHO, not really. trespassing statutes almost always have an exemption for a person who is on a property which is open to the public during normal operating times. This proposed statute is remarkable in its brevity, and the real risk is not what it says, but what it fails to say. Who is the "airport manager"? In the case of my local muni field, the assistant public works director is titled the "Airport Manager", yet the FBO's contract gives that FBO management rights. And what are the standards under which a Manager can restrict access to the field? Absent anything in the statute to say otherwise, the "Manager", or anyone who thinks they are, have unfettered latitude (until the matter is litigated, if ever).

3CK had this issue years ago, and if you google it you can find the decision online. IIRC, the FBO tried to exclude certain competing businesses from operating on the field. Had this statute been in place at the time, and the FBO established a rule limiting hangar area access to leaseholders, the decision probably would have gone entirely in their favor. Sad, but true.

 

[EdFred]

In general, the "flying public" is allowed on the airport and can use the facility without having to get prior permission from the airport manager or owner. However, if there is a member of the flying public that is operating in an unsafe manner or not abiding by reasonable rules that have been adopted by the airport, than the airport has the right to exclude that person. You can't unjustly discriminate, (for example, you can't exclude me just because I like to wear pink hats or some such thing).

If you read the current statute, the ONLY THING THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS SPECIFY A FINE AND PUNISHMENT. It does not redefine trespassing, it does not expand the power already granted to airport managers, it does nothing but say, "Hey, you broke the law, instead of us just saying, 'hey you broke the law' you now have to pay a fine, and possibly serve time."

Ed Frederick
AIRPORT MANAGER

 

[Pjsmith]

The SKY IS FALLING, The SKY IS FALLING!!!

The only change to this is that they are now making it fineable and jailable within this statute. The first 1/2 of the code is already in place. I think I would know.

Can't say that I agree with the argument that this is much ado about nothing.

The first clause simply says 'you won't trespass on an airport'. Being that 'trespass' is a legally conclusive term, that language is superfluous. But, like most bills, the author was smart enough to lead off with a pretty ribbon that appears, at first blush, to make the whole package reasonable.

The issue lies with the second, independant clause, which starts with "or operate or cause to be operated ..". Note that "Operations" or "Activities" need not be a trespass in order to be disallowed and thus criminal. Hence, whereas before this law the field was open to you unless your behavior met the elements of a criminal trespass, after this law the field is closed to you unless the manager has authorized your presence AND activity. It is a big shift (though the issue is admittedly pretty small to most voters) that results in an end run around the current criminal trespass statute and related case law. More importantly, this can be used as a competition crusher.

EDIT: I just saw your post above with the quote from MDOT. Note the standard of behavior that the author of the note cites (reasonableness). Now re-read the new statute. Not only is there no reasonableness standard, there is no standard at all. I also, for the reasons above, can't agree that this doesn't expand the manager's authority. Clearly, you as an airport manager can now set access restrictions which correlate in no way to the elements of a criminal trespass, the violation of which magically becomes a criminal act.

 

[EdFred]

This is the CURRENT CODE:

A person shall not trespass upon the area within the boundary of an approved or licensed airport, landing field, or other aeronautical facility, or operate or cause to be operated a vehicle or device, or conduct an activity upon or across a licensed airport, landing field, or other aeronautical facility, unless that operation or activity is authorized by the airport management.

This was enacted in 1945 and amended in 1976, and then amended again in 1996. I do not know what the original act was, but this has been effect in this form since 1996. There is nothing new here, other than the fine.

 

[Pjsmith]

This is the CURRENT CODE:



This was enacted in 1945 and amended in 1976, and then amended again in 1996. I do not know what the original act was, but this has been effect in this form since 1996. There is nothing new here, other than the fine.

Ed, I respectfully disagree. Under the current law, violating this is not a criminal offense (though you may be civally charged by the state for violating the Aeronautics Code, of which it was part). Under the new law, it is a criminal offense. This is a fundamental change. The fact that the stakes are now higher makes me even more skeptical of the clear absense of any standard for behavior.