The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.104, addresses the registration of aircraft. This statute mandates that any aircraft operated within Michigan, if not registered in another state or with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under specific provisions that exempt it from state registration, must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. The purpose of this registration is to maintain a record of aircraft operating within the state for regulatory and safety oversight. Aircraft owned by the United States government and used exclusively in the public service are typically exempt from state registration requirements. Similarly, aircraft operated under a dealer’s or manufacturer’s demonstration certificate, or those engaged in flight testing after manufacture or alteration, may also have specific exemptions or registration procedures outlined by the Michigan Aeronautics Code or administrative rules. The question focuses on identifying the type of aircraft that would *not* require Michigan registration under these statutes, implying an exemption. Aircraft used for public service by the United States government are a common category of exemption from state registration.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.104, addresses the registration of aircraft. This statute mandates that any aircraft based in Michigan must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. The term “based” is crucial here, as it refers to the location where the aircraft is habitually kept and operated. Simply flying over Michigan airspace or having a temporary stop within the state does not automatically establish it as based there. The intent of the law is to ensure that aircraft with a significant operational connection to Michigan are properly accounted for, contributing to state oversight and potentially taxation or fee structures related to aviation. Therefore, an aircraft that is primarily hangared and maintained in Michigan, and from which most of its flights originate, would be considered based in the state. This registration requirement applies regardless of the aircraft’s ownership domicile if its operational base is within Michigan. The law aims to provide a framework for regulating aircraft operations within the state’s jurisdiction.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.101 et seq., governs aviation activities within the state. When an aircraft is involved in an accident or incident within Michigan, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Aviation Bureau typically takes the lead in the investigation, in coordination with federal agencies like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The primary objective of such investigations is to determine the probable cause of the accident and to identify contributing factors to prevent future occurrences. This process involves meticulous data collection, witness interviews, wreckage analysis, and adherence to established investigative procedures. State statutes empower the MDOT to conduct these investigations, gather evidence, and issue reports that can inform safety recommendations. While the NTSB has ultimate authority over accident investigations under federal law, state agencies play a crucial role in supporting these efforts and addressing any state-specific regulatory or operational issues that may arise from the incident. The code outlines the responsibilities and powers of the state in managing aviation safety and accident response.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS § 259.104, addresses the registration of aircraft. This section mandates that any aircraft based in Michigan must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation, unless it is currently registered in another state and is not based in Michigan. The term “based in Michigan” refers to the principal resting place of the aircraft for at least 60 consecutive days. If an aircraft is operated within Michigan for a period of 60 days or more, it is presumed to be based in Michigan for the purposes of registration. Therefore, an aircraft that arrives in Michigan on April 1st and remains until June 1st, a total of 62 days, would be considered based in Michigan and subject to its registration requirements, even if it is also registered in another state. The critical factor is the continuous presence for the 60-day period, establishing the base of operations within the state. This provision aims to ensure that aircraft utilizing Michigan’s airspace and infrastructure contribute to the state’s regulatory framework and potentially its revenue streams through registration fees. It is important for aircraft owners and operators to understand this definition of “based in Michigan” to avoid potential violations of state aviation law.

The scenario involves a pilot operating a drone under Michigan law. Michigan law, specifically through Public Act 231 of 2018, addresses the operation of unmanned aerial systems (UAS). This act clarifies that a person operating a UAS in Michigan must adhere to federal aviation regulations, including those promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Furthermore, the act specifies that a local ordinance or regulation that conflicts with federal aviation regulations or is unreasonably restrictive regarding UAS operations is invalid. The question tests the understanding of preemption, where federal law generally supersedes state and local laws in areas of federal authority, such as airspace regulation. Therefore, a local ordinance attempting to impose a registration requirement beyond what the FAA mandates for a drone of this size would be preempted by federal law. The FAA’s Small UAS Rule (14 CFR Part 107) governs commercial drone operations and requires registration for drones weighing 0.55 pounds or more. A drone weighing 0.4 pounds is below this threshold. Thus, a local ordinance requiring registration for a drone under 0.55 pounds would be invalid as it conflicts with the federal regulatory framework and is unreasonably restrictive. The correct response identifies this preemption and the specific weight threshold for FAA registration.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.105, addresses the registration of aircraft. This section mandates that any aircraft operated within Michigan, unless specifically exempted, must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. The purpose of this registration is to provide a mechanism for identifying aircraft operating within the state and to ensure compliance with state aviation laws and regulations. The registration process typically involves submitting an application, providing proof of ownership, and paying applicable fees. Failure to register an aircraft that is required to be registered can result in penalties, including fines and potential impoundment of the aircraft. The code outlines various exemptions, such as aircraft operated exclusively in interstate or foreign commerce, or aircraft registered in another state and only temporarily in Michigan. However, for an aircraft based and regularly operated within Michigan, registration is a fundamental requirement for legal operation. Therefore, an aircraft used for regular charter flights originating and terminating within Michigan, and not falling under any specific exemption, would be subject to Michigan’s aircraft registration requirements.

In Michigan, the regulation of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), commonly known as drones, falls under a combination of federal and state laws. While the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) holds primary authority over airspace and drone operations, Michigan has enacted specific legislation to address issues like privacy and land use. Public Act 220 of 2022, for instance, amended existing statutes to include provisions for UAS operations. This act clarifies that a person may not operate a drone over private property without the consent of the owner or occupant if the drone is being used to capture images or data that would be considered an invasion of privacy. Specifically, it defines an invasion of privacy as the intentional, unauthorized, and offensive intrusion into a place or matter affecting the private affairs or seclusion of another, or a publication of another’s affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. This means that while drone flight itself might be permitted under FAA regulations, the specific use of the drone to record or gather information on private property without permission can be a violation of Michigan law, particularly if it infringes upon an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The key is the intent and nature of the intrusion, not merely the act of flying over the property. Therefore, understanding the nuances of privacy laws in Michigan is crucial for any drone operator.

The scenario involves a private pilot operating a small aircraft in Michigan. The pilot is not carrying passengers and is not engaged in commercial activity. The question pertains to the permissible altitude for such a flight over a sparsely populated area. Michigan aviation regulations, mirroring federal guidelines, establish different altitude requirements based on the nature of the flight and the terrain below. Specifically, for flights over open country or sparsely populated areas, pilots are generally required to maintain an altitude that will permit an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. While there isn’t a single, fixed numerical altitude mandated for all such flights, the principle is to ensure safety by maintaining sufficient altitude to manage potential engine failures. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), which are largely adopted or mirrored by state aviation laws, specify a minimum safe altitude. For example, FAR 91.119(b) states that “except when necessary for takeoff or landing, or except as otherwise permitted by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below a minimum altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet of the aircraft when operating over any mountainous area or over congested or populated area.” However, for sparsely populated areas, the regulation implies a need for a safe altitude for emergency landings. Considering the intent of Michigan’s aviation laws to promote safety and align with federal standards, the most appropriate answer reflects the general principle of maintaining a safe altitude for emergency landings rather than a specific, arbitrary number that might not be universally applicable or legally defined for all such flights in Michigan. The concept of “minimum safe altitude” is key, which allows for pilot judgment within regulatory frameworks.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.101, establishes the framework for regulating aviation within the state. This statute grants the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) broad authority to adopt and enforce rules concerning aircraft operation, air navigation facilities, and airport management. When considering the implications of a new, innovative drone delivery service operating primarily within Michigan’s airspace, the relevant legal considerations extend beyond federal FAA regulations. State law plays a crucial role in areas not exclusively preempted by federal authority. For instance, aspects of property rights, privacy concerns, and local zoning ordinances can be influenced by state-level legislation. The Michigan Aeronautics Code empowers MDOT to license airports and to prescribe regulations for the safe operation of aircraft, which can include unmanned aerial systems (UAS) when not in direct conflict with federal rules. Therefore, any entity seeking to operate such a service must ensure compliance with both federal mandates and any specific Michigan statutes or administrative rules that govern the unique operational environment within the state. The core principle is that while federal law provides a baseline, state law can impose additional requirements or address issues of local concern, provided they do not create an undue burden or conflict with federal aviation policy. This dual regulatory approach necessitates a thorough understanding of both federal and state aviation legal frameworks for any new aviation enterprise.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS 259.108, outlines the requirements for registration of aircraft. Aircraft operated within Michigan, unless specifically exempted, must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. This registration is a prerequisite for legal operation and is distinct from federal registration with the FAA. The code mandates that the application for registration must include specific information, such as the aircraft’s make, model, serial number, and the owner’s name and address. A certificate of registration is then issued. The intent behind this registration is to provide a state-level inventory of aircraft operating within Michigan, facilitate enforcement of state aviation laws, and potentially aid in disaster response or recovery efforts. Failure to comply with registration requirements can result in penalties. The question probes the fundamental legal obligation for aircraft operating in Michigan, emphasizing the state-specific regulatory framework.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS 259.101 et seq., governs aviation within the state. When considering the establishment of a new public airport in Michigan, several statutory requirements must be met. One critical aspect involves the process of acquiring land for the airport. While eminent domain is a recognized power for public projects, its application is subject to specific legal frameworks and limitations. The Michigan Constitution and relevant statutes outline the necessity of “just compensation” for property taken for public use. Furthermore, the Aeronautics Code mandates a comprehensive planning and approval process, which includes considerations for environmental impact, noise abatement, and compatibility with existing airspace. The acquisition of land for a public airport is not solely a matter of state law; federal regulations, particularly those from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), also play a significant role in airport development, including land acquisition standards and funding. However, the question specifically asks about the authority and process under Michigan law for acquiring land for a public airport. The Michigan Aeronautics Commission has the authority to acquire land for public airports, either by purchase or by the exercise of the power of eminent domain. This power is exercised in accordance with Michigan statutes that define the procedures and protections for property owners. The process involves identifying suitable sites, conducting feasibility studies, obtaining necessary approvals, and then proceeding with land acquisition, which may involve negotiation or condemnation proceedings if agreement cannot be reached. The core principle is that such acquisition must serve a public purpose and provide just compensation to the landowner.

Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) § 259.103 specifically addresses the requirements for aircraft registration and the validity of such registrations. The law mandates that all aircraft operating within the state of Michigan must be registered with the Michigan Aeronautics Commission. This registration process involves submitting an application, paying a fee, and providing proof of ownership and airworthiness. A registration is considered valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance, unless otherwise suspended or revoked by the Commission. Upon expiration, the aircraft owner is responsible for renewing the registration. Failure to maintain a current registration can result in penalties, including fines and the prohibition of flight within Michigan airspace. The primary purpose of this registration is to ensure accountability, facilitate enforcement of aviation laws, and maintain a record of aircraft operating within the state. Therefore, an aircraft registered on January 15, 2023, would have its registration expire on January 14, 2024, assuming no other actions were taken to invalidate it.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.104, addresses the registration of aircraft. This statute mandates that any aircraft based in Michigan and operated within the state must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). The purpose of this registration is to ensure accountability, track aircraft ownership, and facilitate enforcement of aviation laws within the state. Aircraft that are merely passing through Michigan airspace or are temporarily located in the state without being based there do not require Michigan registration, provided they are properly registered in another jurisdiction. The definition of “based” is crucial here; it generally refers to the location where an aircraft is usually kept or maintained. Failure to comply with this registration requirement can result in penalties, including fines. Therefore, an aircraft owned by a Michigan resident, primarily operated from an airport within Michigan, and maintained in the state would be subject to Michigan registration requirements.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.109, addresses the licensing and regulation of aircraft manufacturers operating within the state. This statute outlines the requirements for obtaining and maintaining a manufacturer’s license, including provisions for inspections, record-keeping, and adherence to federal aviation regulations. The code also specifies penalties for violations, such as operating without a valid license or failing to comply with inspection mandates. When considering an aircraft manufacturer that has ceased operations and is now selling off its remaining inventory of unassembled aircraft kits, the primary legal framework governing this activity in Michigan would be the Michigan Aeronautics Code. This code dictates the regulatory oversight for aviation-related manufacturing and sales within the state, ensuring that even defunct manufacturers adhere to aviation safety and licensing standards when disposing of aircraft components or kits. Therefore, any entity engaged in the sale of aircraft kits, regardless of whether the manufacturing process is complete, must still comply with the licensing and operational requirements stipulated by Michigan aviation law to ensure public safety and regulatory adherence within the state’s airspace. The specific provisions regarding the sale of unassembled kits are implicitly covered under the broader manufacturing and sales regulations to maintain a consistent standard for all aviation commerce.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.101 et seq., governs aviation within the state. A key aspect of this code pertains to the establishment and regulation of public airports. Section MCL 259.106 outlines the powers and duties of the Aeronautics Commission, which includes the authority to acquire, establish, construct, improve, maintain, and operate airports. Furthermore, MCL 259.107 grants the commission the power to acquire by purchase, lease, or condemnation, any property, real or personal, needed for the establishment or improvement of airports. This includes the acquisition of land necessary for approach zones and clear zones, which are critical for safe airport operations and are often regulated by zoning ordinances enacted by local authorities in conjunction with state guidelines. The commission’s role extends to ensuring that airport development aligns with state and federal aviation plans, promoting the safe and efficient use of airspace, and fostering the growth of aviation within Michigan. The question probes the understanding of the commission’s specific authority regarding land acquisition for airport purposes, which is a fundamental aspect of aviation infrastructure development in Michigan.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.107, addresses the establishment and operation of airports. This statute outlines the powers and duties of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in relation to airport development, including the authority to acquire, establish, construct, improve, extend, own, operate, and maintain airports. It also grants MDOT the power to enter into agreements with political subdivisions, including cities and counties, for the purpose of jointly acquiring, establishing, constructing, improving, extending, owning, operating, and maintaining airports. Furthermore, the code empowers MDOT to adopt and enforce rules and regulations for the management, government, and use of any airport, or any portion thereof, that it owns or operates, or that is owned or operated by a political subdivision with which it has entered into an agreement. This comprehensive authority ensures that MDOT can effectively oversee and facilitate aviation infrastructure development across the state, promoting safety and efficiency in air transportation. The question tests the understanding of the specific legal framework that empowers the state agency to collaborate with local entities for airport development and management within Michigan.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS 259.104, addresses the liability of aircraft owners for damages caused by the operation of their aircraft. This section establishes a presumption of negligence on the part of the owner. When an aircraft causes damage, the owner is presumed to have been negligent in its operation, unless the owner can prove otherwise. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the owner to demonstrate that the damage was not a result of their negligence or the negligence of someone operating the aircraft with their permission. The owner can rebut this presumption by presenting evidence that demonstrates they exercised due care, or that the pilot was not operating the aircraft with their consent, or that the damage was caused by an unavoidable accident or the negligence of a third party over whom the owner had no control. This legal principle is designed to provide a remedy for those harmed by aircraft operations and encourages aircraft owners to ensure their aircraft are operated safely and responsibly. The core of this legal concept is the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur*, which translates to “the thing speaks for itself,” implying that the mere occurrence of the accident is sufficient evidence of negligence to hold the owner liable in the absence of a successful defense.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically Public Act 327 of 1945, as amended, establishes the framework for aviation regulation within the state. Section 259.103 addresses the licensing of aircraft. This section mandates that no aircraft shall be operated within Michigan unless it has an appropriate airworthiness certificate issued by the United States government, and a current registration certificate issued by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The purpose of this dual requirement is to ensure both national airworthiness standards and state-level oversight for operations within Michigan’s airspace. The registration process under Michigan law is distinct from federal airworthiness certification and serves to identify aircraft operating within the state for regulatory and safety purposes. Therefore, an aircraft operating in Michigan must possess both federal airworthiness certification and state registration.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS 259.101 et seq., establishes the framework for aviation regulation within the state. A critical aspect of this code pertains to the registration and licensing of aircraft operating within Michigan’s airspace. When an aircraft is based in Michigan for a period exceeding 90 consecutive days, it is generally subject to state registration requirements, unless specific exemptions apply. These exemptions are typically for aircraft engaged in interstate commerce, foreign aircraft, or aircraft owned by the U.S. government. The intent behind these registration requirements is to ensure accountability, facilitate taxation, and maintain a registry of aircraft operating within the state’s jurisdiction. Therefore, an aircraft owned by a Michigan resident and operated primarily from an airport within Michigan, even if it occasionally flies outside the state, would likely be required to register with the Michigan Department of Transportation if its base of operations is established within Michigan for more than 90 days. The absence of a specific FAA registration number does not exempt an aircraft from state registration if it meets the residency and operational base criteria. The question focuses on the *base of operations* and *duration of presence* within Michigan, which are key determinants for state registration obligations, irrespective of the aircraft’s specific type or the owner’s domicile if the operational nexus is clearly established.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS 259.105, addresses the liability of aircraft owners for damage caused by the negligent operation of their aircraft. This section establishes a presumption that the pilot operating the aircraft is the agent or servant of the owner, and that the aircraft is being operated within the scope of the owner’s business or consent. Therefore, if an aircraft owner allows another person to operate their aircraft, and that pilot operates it negligently, causing damage, the owner can be held liable for the pilot’s actions. This is a form of vicarious liability. The key element is the owner’s permission or entrustment of the aircraft to the pilot. Without such permission, the owner would not typically be liable for the negligent acts of an unauthorized pilot. This legal principle aims to ensure accountability and provide recourse for those harmed by aviation accidents within Michigan.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically Public Act 327 of 1945, as amended, governs aviation within the state. When an airport owner in Michigan proposes to construct a new hangar that will extend beyond the existing property line and potentially encroach upon navigable airspace, they must adhere to specific regulatory procedures. This includes obtaining approval from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Aeronautics Commission, and potentially the local zoning authority. The primary concern is ensuring the proposed structure does not create a hazard to air navigation. Michigan law, like federal law under the FAA, prioritizes the safety of the navigable airspace. The Aeronautics Commission has the authority to review and approve or deny such proposals based on their impact on air safety, airport operations, and compliance with established airport zoning standards. The process typically involves submitting detailed plans, including surveys and proposed elevations, to MDOT for review. This review ensures compliance with state aeronautics statutes and administrative rules designed to prevent obstructions and maintain safe flight paths. The core principle is the protection of the public’s right to safe and unimpeded passage through the air.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.101 et seq., governs the registration and operation of aircraft within the state. For aircraft that are used for hire or reward, or in connection with any business, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) may require specific endorsements or certifications beyond basic registration. This is to ensure public safety and compliance with operational standards for commercial aviation activities. When an aircraft is used for charter flights, which falls under “for hire” operations, the pilot in command must possess appropriate certifications and the aircraft itself must meet certain airworthiness and operational standards, often documented through specific MDOT approvals or the pilot’s endorsements that are recognized by the state’s regulatory framework. While the FAA governs pilot certification and aircraft airworthiness, state law can impose additional requirements for intrastate commercial operations, particularly concerning record-keeping and operational approvals that are tied to the state’s jurisdiction. The scenario describes a commercial operation, making the pilot’s credentials and the aircraft’s operational status under state oversight crucial.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.101, addresses the registration of aircraft. This section mandates that any aircraft based in Michigan for more than 90 consecutive days must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. The purpose of this registration is to establish a clear record of ownership and operational base within the state, facilitating regulatory oversight and ensuring compliance with state aviation laws. The definition of “based” in this context generally refers to the location where the aircraft is customarily kept or operated. Therefore, an aircraft that has been continuously located and operated within Michigan for a period exceeding three months would be considered based in the state and subject to its registration requirements. This requirement is distinct from temporary visits or transient operations. The intent is to capture aircraft that have a significant presence and operational connection to Michigan.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS 259.101 et seq., governs aviation activities within the state. One crucial aspect is the regulation of aircraft registration and operation. When an aircraft is manufactured in Michigan, the state has a vested interest in its registration and operational compliance. If an aircraft is manufactured in Michigan and then sold to an out-of-state resident, and subsequently operates within Michigan airspace, the question of whether it requires Michigan registration hinges on the intent and nature of its operation within the state. Michigan law generally requires aircraft based within the state, or operated within the state in a manner that constitutes a substantial connection, to be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. This is to ensure safety, enforceability of state regulations, and for taxation purposes. An aircraft manufactured in Michigan and then sold to an out-of-state resident, but which subsequently operates in Michigan airspace, would likely be considered to have a substantial connection to the state, necessitating registration. The fact that it was manufactured in Michigan is secondary to its operational presence within the state. The primary determining factor for registration requirements in Michigan, beyond initial manufacture, is the aircraft’s operational base or significant operational presence within Michigan. Therefore, an aircraft manufactured in Michigan and sold out-of-state, but then operated within Michigan, would fall under the state’s registration purview.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS § 259.108, addresses the liability of an owner or operator of an aircraft for damages caused by a forced landing or other aircraft operations. This statute establishes a framework for determining responsibility when an aircraft causes damage to property on the ground. The core principle is that the owner or operator is liable for damages to persons or property caused by the forced landing or other operation of the aircraft. This liability is not dependent on negligence; it is a form of strict liability. Therefore, if an aircraft, regardless of fault, causes damage to property during a forced landing within Michigan, the owner or operator of that aircraft is responsible for compensating the injured party for the damages incurred. The statute aims to provide a clear avenue for recourse for property owners who suffer damage due to aviation activities within the state, ensuring that those who benefit from operating aircraft also bear the responsibility for any harm caused.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS § 259.108, addresses the regulation of airport zoning. This statute grants the Michigan Aeronautics Commission the authority to adopt and enforce airport zoning regulations for publicly owned airports. These regulations are crucial for ensuring the safe and efficient operation of aircraft by controlling the height of structures and other objects in the vicinity of airports. The purpose is to prevent obstructions that could interfere with flight operations, particularly during critical phases of flight such as takeoff and landing. While local governments have a role in implementing and enforcing zoning ordinances, the overarching authority to establish these standards for publicly owned airports rests with the state aeronautics commission. The question revolves around identifying which entity possesses the primary statutory power to establish these airport zoning standards in Michigan for public airports. The Michigan Aeronautics Code explicitly vests this power in the Michigan Aeronautics Commission, not local zoning boards, the Michigan Department of Transportation directly for zoning standards, or the Federal Aviation Administration for state-specific zoning of public airports, though FAA guidance is influential.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.101, addresses the registration of aircraft. This section mandates that any aircraft operating within the state of Michigan must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation, unless it falls under specific exemptions. These exemptions typically include aircraft that are federally registered and are only temporarily in Michigan, or aircraft that are being operated under a waiver or special permit issued by the department. The core principle is to ensure that all aircraft engaged in regular operations within Michigan are accounted for and adhere to state aviation regulations. The question asks about the requirement for an aircraft that is primarily based and operated in Michigan. Therefore, it must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. Other options are incorrect because while federal registration is a prerequisite for most operations, it does not supersede the state’s registration requirement for aircraft based and operated within Michigan. An exemption would require specific documentation or a condition not described in the scenario.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCL 259.105, addresses the registration of aircraft. This statute requires that every aircraft owned by a resident of Michigan, or operated within the state for more than 30 consecutive days, must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. The purpose of this registration is to ensure accountability, facilitate enforcement of aviation laws, and contribute to the state’s aviation infrastructure funding through registration fees. Failure to register an aircraft as required can result in penalties, including fines and potential impoundment of the aircraft. The 30-day threshold is a critical factor in determining the registration obligation for aircraft temporarily operating in Michigan. This provision aims to balance the state’s regulatory interests with the operational needs of transient aircraft.

The Michigan Aeronautics Code, specifically MCLS § 259.101, outlines the state’s jurisdiction over aeronautics and the establishment of the Aeronautics Commission. This commission is vested with the authority to make rules and regulations for the safe and efficient conduct of aeronautics within Michigan. One of its key responsibilities, as detailed in the code, is the establishment and maintenance of a state airport system plan. This plan serves as a guide for the development of airports across the state, ensuring they meet established safety standards and contribute to the overall economic development of Michigan. The commission’s powers extend to approving airport sites, issuing airport licenses, and regulating the use of airspace within the state to prevent hazards. The code also addresses liability for damage caused by aircraft, as well as the registration and operation of aircraft within Michigan’s borders. Therefore, any action taken by a municipality or private entity to establish a new airport or significantly alter an existing one within Michigan must align with the regulatory framework established by the Michigan Aeronautics Commission, as mandated by the Aeronautics Code. This includes obtaining necessary approvals and adhering to operational standards to ensure public safety and the orderly development of aviation infrastructure throughout the state.

Michigan law, specifically the Aeronautics Code of the State of Michigan, governs the registration of aircraft. Section 259.73 of the Michigan Compiled Laws outlines the requirements for aircraft registration. An aircraft that is owned by a resident of Michigan and is based within the state, meaning it is habitually kept or operated within Michigan, must be registered with the Michigan Department of Transportation. This requirement applies regardless of whether the aircraft is also registered in another state, as long as it meets the criteria for Michigan registration. The purpose of this registration is to ensure proper identification, taxation, and oversight of aircraft operating within the state’s jurisdiction. Non-resident aircraft that are temporarily visiting or operating in Michigan for a limited duration, as defined by statute or rule, may be exempt from registration, but the core principle for resident-based aircraft is mandatory registration. The question probes the understanding of when an aircraft, even if registered elsewhere, necessitates registration in Michigan based on its operational base and ownership nexus.