Jump to content

Another example of Califrornia's brilliant legislature


Recommended Posts

Ripped from ANN.

 

Costly California Bill Would Make Independent Instructors Follow Part 141 Rules

 

Sat, 05 Jun '10

Hefty Fees And Annual Renewals Would Come With The Legislation

 

The California Legislature reauthorized a state Post-Secondary Bureau last year that monitors the quality of post-secondary institutions and protects students from losing pre-paid tuition to a school that closes down. Flight training facilities had been exempted, but as part of the re-authorization of the Bureau (Assembly Bill 48; AB48), the exemption was tentatively removed.

 

With the exemption lifted, all flight training facilities, from full-fledged Part 141 flight schools to independent instructors, must be certified and operate as though they are a post-secondary institution such as a college or technical school. The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) contends that AB48 was designed to regulate private colleges and technical schools, not the disparate world of flight instruction which varies widely and whose curriculum is already regulated by the FAA.

 

The NATA says that the rules would affect independent and small flight schools as the cost and infrastructure requirements are quite involved. It would likely force instructors to either leave the profession or try to join a large flight school to avoid the start-up and maintenance costs, and administrative hassles. Small FBOs that offer instruction would also face a hard decision about whether to continue to offer instruction.

 

If an independent instructor were to want to continue instructing under the new rules they would be subject to additional qualifications for flight instructors before they could teach in California even though they are certified by the FAA. In addition, all instructors would be subject to academic reviews that are designed for colleges and universities.

 

Along with the annual academic reviews, periodic fees would be assessed on each flight instructor including $2.50 per $1000 which would go toward a state fund that would pay claims to students whose CFI "disappears" with their money. Each instructor would be charged an initial application fee of $5,000 and a $3,500 renewal fee every three years. If the instructor has a second location an additional fee of $1,000 would be assessed. Finally, they would be required to pay an operation fee of three-quarters of a percent of the CFI's income (not to exceed $2,5000 annually).

 

Public comment on this change closes June 7.

FMI: www.leginfo.ca.gov, www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/12448/Default.aspx

 

I can't wait to read the opinions on this. OK, I'll start.

 

W T F ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING? WE'RE NOT LOSING ENOUGH JOBS ALREADY? Whatever Flight Instructors and Flight Schools were eaking by to pay for Top Raman or PB&J is proposed to be taken... Hmmm, I know, The Students will be surcharged cause they can afford it.

 

Good Lord.

 

 

-WATCH FOR THE PATTERNS, WATCH FOR THE WIRES-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or there just may be no flight training in CA shortly.

As is schools/instructors can barely afford to do what we do, students can barely afford to do what they do and now CA wants a larger piece of everyone.

Best of luck to the CA people if this goes through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it about time for the big one?

 

Hey now, I live too close to the San Andreas to be thinking that!

 

This bill will change the way schools and CFI's train. No doubt, it will close many schools, and no doubt schools will have to charge more for training because Arnold is reaching into their pocket.

 

Its a joke to think that this will protect students money to any real degree at all. After all the red tape that will be involved and layers of bureaucracy are done with it, a student might see 50% of what they are out.

 

So here's the ludicrous part. This will cause more schools to fail, which in turn will cause more students to lose money none of which would have happened had the bill not been passed!

 

In the long run there will be fewer schools and fewer CFI's charging more money for training. Somehow that is the government's way of protecting the consumer.

 

Oh yeah, what school has $5,000.00 laying around for the "application" fee???

 

And here I thought I was done dealing with dopeheads.

 

Thank god we have government looking out for us.

 

Goldy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical California...I'm curious how they are going to enforce this? What branch of Government would cover this?

 

Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Same guys who arrest mechanics that try and rip you off, same guys that watch over doctors that charge $60 for a marijuana card...glad none of that is happening!

 

http://www.dca.ca.gov/about_dca/entities.shtml

Edited by Goldy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Same guys who arrest mechanics that try and rip you off, same guys that watch over doctors that charge $60 for a marijuana card...glad none of that is happening!

 

http://www.dca.ca.gov/about_dca/entities.shtml

 

Mmmm...Wyoming is looking better daily!!

 

The way I understand the bill is that even a contract CFI will have to pay the $5000 app fee and $3500 every three years. Not just the schools...most CFI's don't have $5k laying around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Californians brought this sort of thing on themselves when they voted for the proposition to limit taxes to unrealistically low levels. Without the ability to tax income and property to run government, they have to get the money elsewhere. Without taxes, civilization does not work, and you get a mixture of anarchy and plutocracy. Both are terrible systems to live under. Everyone wants lower taxes, without stopping to think about all the things that taxes provide them. To coin a phrase, I feel for you but I can't quite reach you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Californians brought this sort of thing on themselves when they voted for the proposition to limit taxes to unrealistically low levels. Without the ability to tax income and property to run government, they have to get the money elsewhere. Without taxes, civilization does not work, and you get a mixture of anarchy and plutocracy. Both are terrible systems to live under. Everyone wants lower taxes, without stopping to think about all the things that taxes provide them. To coin a phrase, I feel for you but I can't quite reach you.

 

You obviously don't live in California...we are the 2nd highest taxed state in the nation...the only thing we voted to limit is property tax which is still higher then every other western state that I know of...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously don't live in California...we are the 2nd highest taxed state in the nation...the only thing we voted to limit is property tax which is still higher then every other western state that I know of...

 

 

I was just going to post the same thing! Our sales tax rate is 9.75% in LA. We pay property taxes..most homes have been sold so are not under the old Prop 13 anymore anyway..we pay the highest gas taxes, income taxes and sales taxes...tell me Oregona or Arizona or Nevada charge almost 10% sales tax and an income tax?

 

Nope, we like to spend our taxpayer money here in CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let them try. We're federally regulated, not state regulated. Fight it. They have no right to impose anything like this. And if that doesn't work, register your business or LLC out of state...

 

Every time something like this happens it makes me wonder why i moved back to the US....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Restrictions on Guns, Ammo and now Flight Training...... my favorite pass times Argh.

 

I love California (primarily NorCal, sorry Goldy and the rest of you!) for so many reasons, with the exception of the Bozos in Sacramento that are elected by people that want things given to them on a silver platter. Wish more people voted and those that do vote, very few seem interested in learning what the consequences are by checking a box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the latest from an aviation ally, again ripped from ANN:

 

SAFE Opposes California Assembly Bill 48

 

Mon, 07 Jun '10

Proposed Regulation of FBOs & Instructors Would "Kill Aviation in California"

 

The outrage over California's bizarre attempt to enact ponderous and unwarranted new regs on the flight instruction industry continues... The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) has submitted a letter to various officials in the State of California in opposition to Assembly Bill 48 (AB 48). The bill would impose burdensome and overly costly regulations on FBOs and independent flight instructors, treating them the same as post-secondary institutions. Not only has SAFE taken a stand on the issue, but many individual SAFE members in California have also mobilized in an effort to stop a bill that many believe will cause serious damage to California's flight training industry.

 

The statement prepared by SAFE reads:

 

The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) is an international organization formed to facilitate the professional development of aviation educators, as well as create a safer aviation environment. By providing quality educational materials and other resources, we seek a reduction in aviation accidents, increased professionalism among aviation educators, and lifelong learning by everyone involved in aviation. We seek to make aviation education a viable career goal.

 

SAFE is therefore very concerned that the reauthorization of the California Assembly Bill 48, designed to monitor the quality of post-secondary institutions and protect students from losing pre-paid tuition when a school closes down, will have dire consequences for California flight training facilities. The reauthorization includes the repeal of exemptions for flight training facilities, which will cause potentially serious difficulties for Fixed Base Operators, flight schools and independent flight instructors.

If the exemption is removed all flight training facilities from Part 141 flight schools to independent instructors will have to be certified and will have to operate as though they are post-secondary institutions such as colleges or technical schools. It is understood that AB 48 was intended to regulate private colleges and technical schools not flight instruction which covers a wide range of providers and whose curricula are already regulated by the FAA.

 

It has been reported that if independent instructors wanted to continue instructing under the new rules they would be subject to additional qualifications before they can teach in California even though they are certified by the FAA. All instructors would also be subject to academic reviews that are designed for colleges and universities. In addition to the yearly academic reviews, periodic fees would be assessed on each flight instructor including $2.50 per $1,000 which would go toward a state fund that would pay claims to students if their "flight school" closed its doors after they had paid their "tuition" in advance. Each instructor would be charged an initial application fee of $5,000 and a $3,500 renewal fee every three years. If instructors have a second location an additional fee of $1,000 would be assessed. Finally, they would be required to pay an operation fee of three-quarters of a percent of their income (not to exceed $25,000 annually).

 

If we might point out, it is highly unlikely that any of the free-lance instructors in California accept pre-payment for their instruction. Further, calling a free- lance instructor "a flight school" or post secondary institution is as ridiculous as referring to a free-lance Spanish tutor as "a school."

 

If flight schools, Fixed Base Operators, and independent flight instructors are no longer to be exempt from the requirements of AB 48, it is likely that many, already in a precarious financial condition, would elect to curtail their flight instruction. This would have a severe impact upon flight safety in California, as it is these very instructors that provide the vast majority of recurrent safety training to California pilots. It is also these same instructors that provide virtually all of the initial training received by pilots in California.

 

Since many pilots come to California not only from across the entire United States, but from many foreign countries as well, not only would the flight instruction industry suffer, but all the ancillary businesses (hotels, restaurants, etc.) would lose business as well.

 

As a professional association concerned with aviation education and safety, SAFE believes that if exemptions for flight training facilities are not reinstated in the bill it would make it difficult, if not impossible, for flight training providers to continue to make a viable contribution to California's reputation as a state that welcomes and supports aviation education.

 

Sincerely,

Doug Stewart, Chairman The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators

 

Representatives from SAFE will be present along with other pro-aviation organizations at hearings held on AB 48 in Sacramento, later today, June 7th.

FMI: http://safepilots.org

 

-WATCH FOR THE PATTERNS, WATCH FOR THE WIRES-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ripped from ANN.

<snip>

The California Legislature reauthorized a state Post-Secondary Bureau last year that monitors the quality of post-secondary institutions and protects students from losing pre-paid tuition to a school that closes down. Flight training facilities had been exempted, but as part of the re-authorization of the Bureau (Assembly Bill 48; AB48), the exemption was tentatively removed.

<snip>

 

It has been my experience that, when it comes to legislation, it is best to perform due diligence and READ THE LAW, AB48, at

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_48_bill_20091011_chaptered.pdf

 

There are still some exemptions in Article 4, sec 94874, appropriately titled "Exemptions" -

"The following are exempt from this chapter:

(a) An institution that offers solely avocational or recreational educational

programs."

....

(d) An institution offering either of the following:

...

(2) Continuing education or license examination preparation, if the

institution or the program is approved, certified, or sponsored by any of the

following:

(A) A government agency, other than the bureau, that licenses persons

in a particular profession, occupation, trade, or career field.

....

Any institution holding 14 CFR Part 141 approval seems to be exempt per 94874(d)(2)(a), but that doesn't necessarily help the individual CFI. One ray of hope, however, is if training is "recreational", i.e. Not for vocational training, then it is exempt per (a). That should give independent CFI's some time to earn a living via private or instrument training, until it is determined if a sole proprietor CFI is considered an "institution" and therefore also exempt similarly to Part 141 institutions.

 

The $5000 application and 0.75% "fees" mentioned on

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100519ca.html

is found in Article 17, Fees, section 94930.5(a)(1) and (d)(1)(A). Ouch, but ONLY if the institution is not "exempt" from chapter 310.

 

Lawmakers apparently realized AB48 might not be perfect the first time around-

"94801. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

....(e) The Legislature advises future policymakers to continually and

carefully evaluate this chapter and its administration and enforcement.

Where there are deficiencies in the law or regulatory oversight, the Governor

and the Legislature should act quickly to correct them."

 

Given the preceding, pursuing injunctive relief might be an option if the BPPE doesn't want to admit federal authority (read: limit their fee uptake). Might be helpful to get the FAA Office of General Counsel's take on this, and file an Amicus if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...