Warbird Information Exchange

Got this overnight from one of my CFIs. Not being a member of NATA I can't access the actual report but if this is accurate then I don't see how many of our CFIs will choose to stay in business:

NATA has published a regulatory report on proposed rules issued by the Bureau of Private Post Secondary Education in California . These rules, prompted by the passage last year of Assembly Bill 48, will regulate the operation of flight training facilities. All flight training operations, including independent certified flight instructors (CFIs), will be required to comply with the provisions of these rules, including such provisions as the requirement for producing and printing a "college catalogue" type of document. Flight training facilities have until August 1 to comply with these rules, including paying a $5,000 application fee and submitting audited financial statements from 2009, or they will no longer be permitted to operate in the state. Other provisions of the proposed rules include:

Only CFIs with three years of experience in flight will be allowed to instruct students, unless they can demonstrate an equivalence of other experience factors
All flight training facilities will be required to submit a $1,000 annual fee and 0.75% of their gross revenue to the state
Flight training facilities' curriculums must receive approval from the state
These proposed rules are open to public comment until June 7, 2010. Additionally, the Bureau of Private Post Secondary Education will hold a public comment forum on these proposed rules in Sacramento , CA , on June 7, 2010.

NATA is very concerned about the negative impact these regulations would have on flight training and urges all impacted members to submit comments.

Dear School Administrator:

On October 11, 2009 Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 48 (Portantino Chapter 310
Statutes of 2009). AS 48 is known as the Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 (“Act”). The Act
establishes the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (“Bureau”) within the Department of
Consumer Affairs. The Act became operative on January 1, 2010. The text of the Act is available online
at www.bppe.ca.gov.

The former Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989 classified schools
approved by the Federal Aviation Administration as exempt. However, the California Private
Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 does not provide an exemption for schools approved by the
Federal Aviation Admin stration. Consequently, your institution is not exempt and will need to obtain
Ca fornia State approval to operate in order to comply with the new law.

The Act requires all institutions that are not approved or exempt to submit an application for approval
within six (6) months of the application becoming available. We anticipate the application will be available
in February, 2010, following the adoption of the emergency regulations.
We encourage you to sign up for e-mail updates on the above website. Once you have signed up, you will
receive information and forms, including the application, by e-mail notification.
Section 94809(c) of the Act requires institutions operating, without a valid approval to operate, notify
students seeking to enroll, of the status of the institution’s pending application. The Bureau recommends
the following language for this required notice: “This institution’s application for approval to operate
has not yet been reviewed by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education.”

Please Note: If your institution does not have a valid approval to operate and continues to operate under
the Act, the institution may not use the terms “approval,” “approval to operate,” or “approved to operate”,
without clearly stating that the institution’s application for approval has not been reviewed by the Bureau.

You may address questions and correspondence to:

Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education
P.O. Box 980818
West Sacramento, CA 95798
By E-mail to: bppve@dca.ca.gov
Phone: 916-574-7720
Sincerely,
Joanne Wenzel
Staff Services Manager, III

Well, just got off the telephone with John Pfeifer, AOPA's Representative for California. The short answer ... we have trouble here in River City!

John said that during his personal visit to Sacramento he went directly to the offices of some of the legislators. He discovered that Rep. Niello (R-5th Dist) intentionally lined out the flight school exemption when the new rules were composed. His district was the site of a large Silver State Helicopters training facility and when SSH went bankrupt, several of his constituents lost a lot of money and complained to him. This was his method of "being responsive."

While the game plan still includes AOPA and NATA attending the public hearing on June 7th and presenting the case for flight schools and independent CFIs to be excluded from the oppressive rules, it is likely that it will take legislative action to accomplish the task. Fortunately ... or not ... the rules as written won't take effect until August 1st. However, if your application (and fee) haven't been submitted by then you are no longer authorized to conduct "aviation training."

With this in mind, all Californians need to take a deep breath and get prepared to participate in a coordinated, educated, and logical effort to get our local Representatives and Senators to come to the aid of the aviation training activity. I'll be creating a web page on my site with links to the actual Assembly Bill creating the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE), the BPPE's regulatory language that is on the table, Representative and Senators contact information.

This is a truly an issue that affects all of us ... imagine being unable to get a BFR because all the CFIs at your airport quit in the face of a mandatory $5000 Bureau certification fee! Sure, California is leading the way in idiocy and unintended consequences, but if they are successful and it generates even a dollar of additional income you can bet other states will follow.

Aeronautically,
{name removed}
flightfix.com

I am only in my 20s but someday I will fly it at airshows. I am getting rich really fast writing software and so I can afford to do really stupid things like put all my money into warbirds.

I'd leave the state.

A few things...

I can see this being challenged in a federal court as as it seems the state of California is imposing requirements that conflict with the Code of Federal Regulations. The city of Santa Monica has been fighting with the Feds for years on who has jurisdiction over jets and noise coming from the airport. Additionally I don't see how thy can enforce this on small Part 61 operations, especially with instructors who use their privately own planes for instruction and may have one or two students at a time being taught covertly. Not to go on a political tangent but this is another example of the loony politicians in "Kommiefornia" who will go to desperate measure to tax business and its because of situations like this the state is the US version of Greece.

This is another example to me that 7 years ago I made the right decision to leave California. Great time for California Lawmakers to drive away business from their state!!!

I guess when your state is, what, 550 billion in debt, you have to start somewhere!