I'd like to thank everyone who either wrote to Sacramento or attended the meeting on Monday to provide the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education with comments regarding new regulations and fees for the flight instruction industry. Clearly there was an impact, as the Bureau seemed surprised by the flurry of comments generated over the past few days.
AOPA testified at the hearing and include a request to delay implementation of the regulations related to flight schools and flight instructors until January 2011. In the meantime, there don't appear to be any exemptions for flight schools. There is however an exemption for individual flight instructors giving flight instruction to their clients for strictly avocational purposes. Any teaching of clients for vocational purposes (e.g. so the client could get a job working as a pilot) would not be exempt and subject the flight instructor to the same fee schedule that applies to flight schools.
I exchanged email with a lawyer about the potential grey area of teaching the Commercial license. He and I both agreed that it would come down to the intent of the student as to whether this teaching would fall into the avocational or vocational category. Going forward, I may ask clients to sign forms acknowleging that they are not planning to use any flight instruction I give for vocational purposes, which might simply answering any future inquiries from state regulators reqarding the type of instruction I'm giving.
My friend Martin Michaud attended the hearing in Sacramento on Monday. With his permission, I'm reproducing below in its entirety an email that he sent after the hearing.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today I attended the Advisory Committee Meeting of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) in Sacramento. After trying to sort out the meaning of all the email traffic zooming around over the past few days I felt the need to get an Unambiguous Statement from an Unimpeachable Source. (In Sacramento? How naïve.) Here are some random thoughts and observations which I will not attempt to weave into coherency in the interest of timely dispatch.
I was able to spend some time with Chuck Cole from the AOPA and John Lotz from NATA and the long and short of it is that this is a real issue with grave consequences for the flight training industry in the state of California, though some of us will be less affected than others.
The notion that our industry is exempt from the provisions of AB48 is incorrect. It was specifically exempted from the prior statute, but that statute has expired and the exemption was not readopted into AB48. Indeed, Chuck Cole told me that AOPA reps have been told that by BPPE staff that it is their intention to include flight training in the regulatory process.
Eight members of the Advisory Committee were present. I have their names if anyone wants them. The meeting was ably chaired by Joanne Wenzel. She was quite cordial and seemed to me to be genuinely interested in assuring that we were heard. She acknowledged that she had recently received much correspondence from folks in our industry, but told us that AB48 became law on January 1, 2010, that the fee schedule is in the statute, and could not be amended by “this body” (the Advisory Committee.) Having said that she allowed us to speak.
The meeting room had seating for 75-100 and was mostly full of aviators although other industries were also represented. Each speaker was allotted three minutes. Chuck Cole of AOPA was up first and was barely rolling when the timer went off. They were going to try to make him sit down until someone in the audience (I won’t say who) called out “He can have my three minutes!” Another followed, then another and another and another. The Chair wisely allowed Chuck to retain the microphone. He spoke for ten to fifteen minutes. Because he’s a pro he knew that arguing the statute with the committee would be a futile undertaking. He tried to convince them to act within their powers to amend the compliance deadlines to ease the hardship on the industry while other legislative work can be accomplished. As they did with all subsequent speakers as well, the committee members listened politely, but were noncommittal.
It was noted by the Chair that a topic need only be brought to the committee’s attention but once. That would be sufficient to get it into the record and require a response. She did not attempt to enforce this as a meeting rule and allowed everyone their say, repetitive or not. The three minute limit was generally respected by the speakers although some folks came back for a second shot.
All told I counted twenty-three speakers, nineteen of them from our industry. Large schools and small, independent CFIs and employees, full-timers and part-timers, Part 61 and 141, from all over the state. From Fresno and Fox Field up to Auburn and in between. AOPA, NATA, Attitude Aviation, Ahart Aviation, Oakland Flyers, Sierra Academy, Jet University, Executive Flyers, King Schools, EAA Chapter 52, Mach 5 Aviation are some of the names I was able to capture. The message was the same from all of them. Our industry is fragile. These fees will kill us. They will cause the loss of many jobs in the state and will force some organizations to leave the state.
I asked Chuck Cole if it was true that free-lance CFIs were going to be swept into this net. AOPA’s feeling is that we will be. He explained some subtle definitional language embedded into the various regulations which I’m now having trouble recalling in detail.
BPPE’s role is to regulate vocational training. Its authority does not extend to avocational training. There was some discussion in the hallways during the break that those of us free-lance contractors who do not provide vocational training (i.e. Commercial, ATP, CFI, CFII) would be exempt from the provisions of AB48. This notion remains to be tested.
Any of us can apply to the BPPE for an exemption. Cost is $250. Ms Wenzel did say, though, that if we felt we were exempt we need not apply for the exemption. We could just wait until BPPE knocked on our door. A questioner from the audience asked what penalties would be incurred if BPPE subsequently determined that we were not exempt. She said that would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
The meeting started a few minutes past 1000. Committee housekeeping chores consumed a few minutes. Public comment began shortly thereafter and continued up until the lunch break. After lunch the committee involved itself with discussion regarding specific bits of language in the statute. Many of us started to wander away. When I left at 1400 Chuck Cole was still in his seat looking out for us. If you’re not an AOPA member you should be. (IMHO)
Please keep in mind that these are just my notes kept for my own purposes. I share them with you as a courtesy, but take no responsibility for any errors of commission, omission or interpretation.
Martin
Max, thanks for posting on this. I'm in the middle of buying an SR20 to use for instruction (@STS) with the ultimate goal of a "post-retirement" career and this will make my plan more challenging (we don't need more challenges in flight instruction!). I do like your plan to ensure that all students are "avocational" only, but I hate anything that limits the potential market out there.
I do wonder how they will address flight schools that only use contract (independent) flight instructors - the situation we have in Santa Rosa.
Glad to have AOPA represent us.
Posted by: Jim McCord | June 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM