Eligibility for privileges at a regional airport as a “flying club”; The Michigan Aeronautics Code; MCL 259.4(c) & 259.91; A “federally obligated airport”; A flying club under federal law; FAA Order 5190.6B § 10.6; Requirements for flying club status; Improper marketing as a place people could learn to fly

The court held that the corporation at issue (nonparty-PHDS) did not meet the requirements under federal and state law to be registered and operate as a flying club and thus, that defendants-county, its board of commissioners, and regional airport did not err in denying PHDS registration as a flying club. It affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiffs’ summary disposition motion, granting defendants’ motion, and dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs asserted “that PHDS, an entity to which they were members, constituted a ‘flying club’” and that “defendants improperly denied PHDS registration as a flying club with privileges at the airport as a flying club.” FAA Order 5190.6B § 10.6 defines and sets out “the federal standards for flying clubs at federally obligated airports” (there was no dispute the airport here was such an airport). The court found “nothing ambiguous in the language set forth in FAA Order 5190.6B § 10.6 and the” FAA’s relevant amendments and clarifications. The county was obligated “to ensure that the airport complied with federal and state laws and regulations. To have flying club status under the” FAA Order, an entity must show “it is a nonprofit or not-for-profit entity whose aircraft’s ownership is vested in the name of the flying club or owned by all its members equally. An entity seeking flying club status is prohibited from holding itself out as a fixed based operator, flight school, or as a business that offers services to the general public. An entity seeking flying club status is expressly prohibited from marketing or communicating in any manner that it is a business where people can learn to fly.” Unrebutted evidence showed that nonparty individuals owned and held title to the aircraft used by PHDS “and neither PHDS nor its members held ownership interests in the aircraft as required under FAA Order 5190.6B § 10.6 as amended and clarified by the FAA in its policy statement . . . .” In addition, the FAA Order does not provide any “lease exception to the ownership requirement, nor does it specify that any form of substantial compliance suffices to meet” this requirement. The court added that the evidence also showed “PHDS violated the FAA Order’s prohibition against holding itself out as a place where people could learn to fly by advertising in a flyer posted at the airport terminal that it welcomed student pilots and had a flight instructor on staff.”