Tracy Airport
San Joaquin COG ALUC Thu, Sep. 23 at 05:00PM |
||||||||
CalPilots Annual Meetin...
Long Beach Airport... Sat, Nov. 13 at 10:00AM |
| AB48 Alert! - Call to Action on AB48 |
|
|
|
| Written by Ed Rosiak – President California Pilots Association |
| Saturday, 05 June 2010 09:50 |
|
Call to Action! AB48 (update at the end of this article) June 5, 2010 Please take the time to read this - I know it is long, but it is important. If you haven’t already heard, Sacramento is at it again. Last year AB-48 was quietly passed without much attention from the general aviation community – mostly because we were not aware we needed to be concerned. AB-48 is a reinstatement of another consumer protection law which had rightfully expired. The Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education (BPPSE), part of California’s consumer protection agency, has been chartered with the consumer protection for the many secondary education facilities (i.e., the Trade Schools you may have seen advertised on TV for training and degrees in anything from Dental Assistant to Motorcycle Mechanic). These are typical brick and mortar institutions BPPSE is involved with. There have been past issues with unscrupulous school operators taking money from students then vanishing into the night. The state says that the problems increase with bad economic times – given the state of the economy it is obvious this is why AB-48 was renewed. Why is general aviation suddenly involved? Nonetheless, two of our state’s legislators decided that while others were reviving AB-48, it would be a good idea to add flight schools, and by default, flight instructors to the bill. Of course experience would suggest that the legislators in our state have no idea of what general aviation is, or the benefit to the state (we all own part of this lack of education issue) and didn’t bother to seek expert or stakeholder opinions. What”s the Issue? - Application Fee - $5,000 - Each additional location - $3,000 - Annual Fee per location - $1,000 - Five (5) Year Renewal Fee - $3,500 - In addition to the fees listed above, all facilities must also pay an annual fee equal to” three- quarters of 1 percent of the institution’s annual revenues derived from students in California, but not exceeding a total of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) annually.” What is Being Done What Should You Do? Plan of Action
Be advised that we are going to have to fight to get the exemption reinstated for flight schools and flight instructors. There are a few reasons for this:
It is past time that aviation stood up for itself and its rights. In order to be successful, you need to be involved. It’s up to you – please do your part and join us in this fight. Ed Rosiak – President Editor's Note: Even if you did not make the June 7th meeting please provide your feedback anyway. They need to know that the pilots and pro-aviation people in this state are not happy with this ill-advise and uninformed situation.
Read the reaction of Ahart Aviation Services a flight training facility in Livermore, CA. here.
SAFE Opposes California Bill to Regulate FBOs & InstructorsProposed Regulation of FBOs & Instructors would “Kill Aviation in California”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:
UPDATE:June 12, 2010 The June 7th meeting came and went. The BPPSE told the rather large crowd of angry flight school owners and instructors that the law was already passed, and that they were tasked with implementation. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - they are a "Bureau" (make that bureaucracy). The Chief of Staff of Assemblyman Roger Niello responded to the General Aviation News (GAN) story (posted on this site). He states that the bill was available for review for several months, and took exception with my term of "stealth bill". I will concede that all bills are available for review online, and one could spend his or her life trying to figure out what was and was not important - however, the fact is that they NEVER sought aviation expertise when considering this bill is truly puzzling and a huge error. The question remains. Why didn't they seek someone with aviation experience before including flight schools/instructors to AB48? A more important question is, what is the legislature going to do to fix this error? Or, will they sit idly by and watch flight schools all over the state close their doors one by one?
|
| Last Updated on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:52 |
California Pilots Association