Will Flight Schools survive in Cali
 

A hearing in California on Monday night was packed with flight instructors and flight school operators worried about the impact of a new California law on their profession. The law requires flight schools to comply with various kinds of oversight and fees that are meant to protect students from financial losses if a school should suddenly close down. However, operators have complained that the new rules are so burdensome and expensive that most flight schools in the state would be forced out of business. Schools must register with the state by Aug. 1 under the law, which took effect on Jan. 1. Michael France, director of regulatory affairs for the National Air Transportation Association, told AVweb on Wednesday that the regulations are "burdensome," and according to a NATA survey, up to 90 percent of the flight schools in the state would close down if they are forced to comply. "This could really have an impact," he said. "We've proposed some changes to the regulations, and we hope we can find a solution."

AOPA's California representative, John Pfeifer, said this week he has asked the state to push back the registration deadline to Jan. 1, 2011, to allow time to work things out. "It has become clear from our meetings with legislators that their sole intent was to protect students financially, and they clearly did not anticipate the potential damage of this regulation," Pfeifer said. "So it is our hope that we can now buy some time to work out a more reasonable solution before any damage is done." The California Pilots Association also is opposed to the new law, and has asked members to write to their representatives in government to protest it. The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) has submitted a letter to various officials in the State of California expressing opposition to the law. According to SAFE, the state's rules also apply to individual independent CFIs, but other advocacy groups have said it's unclear whether the law covers those activities.

Just read this on AvWeb myself. Good old United State of California, they really know how to muck things up.

The best way to protect students is simply not allow a flight school to hold more than $1000 of their money on deposit. Simple law, and the only burden would be that the flight school would need a little more financial depth instead of operating hand-to-month.

Those which cannot do that should not be in business...aviation is no place for shady finances.

Addtionally, those who also instruct under 61 may run into problems in that arena if there is not clarification for "independent" instructors.

EAA News - California Bill to Make Independent Instructors Follow Part 141 Rules

For those of us at 141 locations that also perform independent 61 instruction, I doubt meeting the 141 reqs for the school would qualify to meet the requirements (and associated fees) of our freelance endeavors.

Too many career politicians and lawyers who want to protect you from yourself in California. :(

When I was getting my Private under Part 61, the FBO I went to went out of business when I was about 20 hours into it. My CFI got a regular job but I kept him working on the side after we figured out the airplane situation.

If the law would have prevented me from doing that...well that's just stupid. :rolleyes:

It's a $5000 initial fee, $1000 yearly renewal. Plus .25% of your income. It requires audited financial records to be sent to the state. Supposedly there might be a $250 opt-out fee, which has not yet been defined as a yearly or one-time fee. And you don't get the chance to opt-out until you've already received the dunning notice. Hope you have money for the lawyers to fight the notice.

Plus, CFIs are now subject to state accreditation boards and a whole bunch of other BS.

It is a "Fee" not a tax, so there was no voting on this.

It is already law.

Think you are immune? The law is so poorly defined that an airline pilot conducting IOE going into LAX could be subject to the $5000 fee. A 135 operator doing line training could be subject. A CFI conducting ONE BFR for the year, subject. Hold a CFI certificate but not active, subject.

Worse, this law will not do a thing to stop the criminals of Silver State Helicopters or the like. Nor will it provide any sort of fund reimbursement to naive students and banks that put down the entire cost of training up front. The first multimillion dollar claim will bankrupt the fund and as the state is bankrupt, there will be no reimbursement money. Of course, as the banks are more politically active than the students, the banks will get funds back first.


Max Trescott Aviation Trends Aloft: California Pilot Alert: New Regulations To Raise Cost of Flight Instruction--Write Your Representatives Today!

http://www.maxtrescott.com/max_tresc...struction.html

Wow, how could any freelance CFI afford that? :eek: :rolleyes:

Worse was the board in charge of the regulation stating they specifically targeted flight training facilities, i.e. any flight, ground, or sim instructor. It's bad, it's really bad, and it looks like it is going to take a lawsuit to get the regulation exemption put back in place.

Just one more of a thousand reasons to leave CA. I defected in 1996 after living there for about 30 years (from birth). I don't miss the People's Republic of Kalifornia. :p

Yeah this place sucks. Nazi Germany

We've lost our way in this state, for sure. I could expand, but we're talking flying here...suffice to say that we no longer have our priorities in order. (As a Californian import, this makes me sad.)

I wonder, though, if a challenge to the law could be made in Federal court. Seems to me California is trying to regulate aviation ( = interstate commerce = no, you can't, as a state)...I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure regulating aviation and flight schools is an FAA responsibility, not the People's Republic.

This could be a record for Godwin's Law to kick in!

Yeah, I'm not sure where that one came from.

Seriously, though...perhaps California's government is a good argument for the republican (small 'r') form of government rather than a direct democracy. Our current form of mob rule has >=75% of the State's budget as mandatory spending through State constitutional amendments, meaning that our legislators get to play with smaller pieces of the pie. Result? Hope you don't like roads, higher education and all the other stuff that built Californian prosperity.

What about airlines doing IOE in the state? Who is responsible for the fees? The airline or the Check Airman?

MOD INPUT: Let's steer clear of general political discussion and stick to the specifics of the aviation issue here.

Yeah, sorry about that...it's just my $0.02 that the current political mess in California created the need for alternative revenues ( = non tax).

I don't know how California plans to enforce this, either. It seems like the INTENT here is to get firms that take large chunks of students' money up front to straighten up and fly right—not saying that these firms don't yet do this, but I can think of a few places (Silver State!) where folks paid for something they didn't get. The side effect is that a lot of folks are gonna get caught up as a side effect.

So I read that as: if you are a 141/142 operator certificated prior to December 31, 1990, or a freelancer, you need not pay, as long as you don't make your students borrow money.

Head here for the latest updates:
NATA - CA Flight Training Issue Update

No one is exempt. Remember, this is a CA money grab. If you really feel the need to see if you're exempt, fill out the application and pay the $250 application "fee".