Darren Hughes Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=13789&z=11 Just read this article in the daily newsletter from Vertical Mag. Thought I'd help distribute it as I know Jim Brannan, having attended & instructed at his school Mazzei Flying Service. I can tell you having worked at many other schools since, he is the most knowledgeable and insightful instructor I've had and worked with. He's been in the industry over 30 years and he's committed to the flight training(both fixed and rotary) industry and making it more efficient and effective for students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Incompetence at its finest! When will people finally say enough is enough!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendulosity Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Leave it to California to screw everyone over. I don't personally work in California, but I know how many flight schools there are and this could ruin many of them. Bravo, Guvenator, bravo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fry Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 Brannan, though, is taking things seriously: he has reached out to flight schools in a letter to rally a co-ordinated opposition to the inclusion of flight schools in AB 48. A public hearing is scheduled in Sacramento on June 7th to get inputs from the flight training community. Brannan is suggesting that as many as possible attend. Further, he hopes that by working with the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), Helicopter Association International (HAI), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the media, the obvious flaws in this legislation will be brought to the attention of key California State Assembly representatives, as well as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. A vocational flight school exemption sounds like a long shot given that the bill is the direct result of the failure of SSH. Where were NATA, HAI, AOPA and the other flight school owners when SSH was operating? "[T]he obvious flaws in this legislation"...are what"? The cost? Who should pay for vocational school oversight if not the schools and the students? Especially since California is broke and is raising fees on state university students..."Can you tell our readers Mr. Politician why the taxpayers are having to pay to protect students from predatory vocational schools?" This could be a good thing for well managed and adequately capitalized vocational schools (the law doesn't apply to Part 61 recreational flying clubs that offer training) by driving out all the shoestring operators and sending those students to the better run schools. A good move by California...although too late to help the SSH students...other states (like Utah that was negligent in its oversight of SSH) should implement the same protections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eggbeater Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 I tend to agree with fry on this one. The failure of the industry to police itself with the Silver State debacle has forced outside intervention. That being said, I think most other flight schools in the industry knew what was happening but were powerless to legally interfere. Second to Jerry and his ilk, I put a lot of the responsibility on trade publications and organizations like Vertical and HAI for promoting Silver State's agenda. Vertical published positive stories and press releases from Silver State itself. If I remember correctly, HAI even appointed Silver State reps to the Flight Training committee. I understand that legal difficulties were possible (as I recall even this forum was served with a cease and desist regarding negative Silver State posts), but what is the point of having these organizations if they do not address the real issues affecting us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fry Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 Here's the law: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_48_bill_20091011_chaptered.pdf I don't see a requirement for an audit or the maintenance of a current assets to current liabilities ratio. Anyone know where the VM article got those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 Either way it is just more regs, red tape and paper work that isn't needed. Who cares what happened with SSH, they didn't MAKE people sign the dotted line for a $70k loan! Personal responsibility still counts some in this country, same with the housing debacle, no bank FORCED anyone to sign the dotted line! More regs NEVER help anything!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fry Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 Who cares what happened with SSH... Obviously no one in "the industry"...which is why it must now contend with more regulation and additional costs. One guy...literally...was allowed to screw it up for everyone else. The cost of the SSH era just continues to grow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.