Elected officials in Michigan are moving forward with a bill that, according to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, could “negatively impact aviation by placing unnecessary restrictions on aeronautical activities in the state.”
Introduced by Rep. Jeff Yaroch (R-District 33), H.B. 6361 aims to “change the definitions of private airports and private landing areas, place burdensome regulations on flying clubs, and regulate skydive drop zones,” AOPA officials said.
In a letter to the Michigan House Transportation Committee, AOPA urged members not to take up the bill.
“It is clear that Rep. Yaroch did not consult any FAA representatives, industry or professional aviation association, airport management organization, skydive operation, or any private airport owner or operator before introducing HB 6361,” the letter reads. “While there are needed updates and clarifications to the Michigan Aeronautics Code, the language in the bill is overreaching and will have a negative impact on the aviation system in Michigan.”
A previous bill similar to H.B. 6361 was introduced in 2018, drawing criticism from aviation advocates, who were especially concerned with language to designate flying clubs as commercial entities and limit combined takeoffs and landings to 10 per day at private landing areas.
AOPA argued that by incorporating flying clubs into commercial operations, the bill’s proposed definitions directly conflict with FAA policy and the state aeronautics code.
The new legislation is also opposed by the U.S. Parachute Association, as it includes language to implement a rule that would require skydive drop zones to be located 1,000 feet from residences. In its letter, AOPA argued that the rule would negatively impact safety and the ability of an airport to accommodate skydiving operations.
Additionally, the bill sponsor did not provided any research or documentation into the reasoning behind the arbitrary 1,000-foot rule, AOPA officials said.
The bill also includes changes to the definitions of private airports and private landing, which serves no purpose but to curtail certain aeronautic activities in the state and restrict commercial activities, such as skydiving, paid flight instruction, and flying clubs, AOPA officials noted.
“It is an overreach to limit what a private citizen can do with their private property,” the letter continues. “There are well over 400 private airports or landing areas in Michigan, and these definition changes would cause an uproar in that community. AOPA does support the licensing of private airports open to the public, for obvious safety reasons, and we do believe that there should be reasonable accommodating language proposed to satisfy any safety concerns.”
No hearing date is set yet, but AOPA urges pilots and aviation enthusiasts in Michigan to call their state representative or contact the transportation committee with their concerns about the bill.
Follow the money, as it is certainly due to a donor or the Rep having moved and been irritated at the noise ( which he can’t hear when his yard crew has their blowers, mower and edger going as these make much more noise than a little GA bird) and then publicly shame him as the whiner he is.
Attitudes like yours is what has fostered this bill
Dear Mr. Yaroch: I am the manager of a small licensed airport in Kenockee Township, MI, known as 39G. Your bill as proposed needs some additional research and clarification on the terms and conditions that you are proposing. It seems to be too restrictive to the activities involved in private aviation. If you would like to talk with me about the activities here on our strip, you can email me at [email protected]. Thank you for considering my thoughs on this subject. Lee Engel.
How much do you want to bet that this politician lives near such a facility or has a major donor that does. They move into the proximity of an existing facility and then complain about noise and whatever then demand it be shutdown or severely restricted. There is no other reason for someone who apparently has no direct connection with aviation to just out of nowhere be wanting to push such overreaching and ill conceived legislation. We need to get to the bottom of what his motivation is to be able to start to address this problem.
YUP! When in doubt, FOLLOW THE MONEY
Elections have consequences. Rep. Jeff Yaroch (R-District 33), is obviously not concerned about what pilots think or what lack of safety factor there might be concerning skydiving operations. Or letting an airplane get a little low in the traffic pattern and the PIC getting fined or whatever, no matter what the pilot’s discretion might be in the interest of flight safety. And what’s his reason for tying a flying club to Commercial ops!!! Yaroch sounds like just another politician turned dictator who can put H.B. 6361 where the sun doesn’t shine.
See:
Sky Vectors, skydiving symbol between Romeo State Airport (D98) and Ray
Community Airport (57D). There is a field there used by Midwest Freefall known as Kunstman Airport. There is no FAA or ICAO identifier for this field.
See:
https://www.house.mi.gov/sessiondocs/2017-2018/testimony/Committee442-11-27-2018.pdf
I would urge all Michigan Pilots to call Rep. Yaroch at 517-373-0820 to see what his motivation is. We are facing the same issue in Traverse City where the newly formed Airport Authority wants to fine us if we fly too low on downwind or cross a runway without FAA permission.
I recommend anyone commenting here do the same before calling Representative Yaroch’s motives into question.
The best defense is a strong offense. Private airfield owners in Michigan should find a representative to enter a bill with similar wording but aimed at private marinas on the many lakes there. Anyone with a dock would be affected.
Any background on the motivations of the bill’s sponsor? What’s behind the effort that drafted it?
It is aimed at curtailing skydive ops at a “private airport” in Rep. Yaroch’s district.