AB48 CA CFI new state licensing requirements

S

SoCalFlyer2

Well-Known Member
There was another thread on this subject but no one has bothered to mention this rule went into effect beginning today, August 1st. I know there was/is another bill that was going to amend the current law giving us another 18 months but not sure where that stands either...

For those of you unfamiliar, CA AB48 establishes the bureau of private post secondary education within the Ca Dept. of consumer affairs. Part 61 schools/instructors have lost their exemption and must now comply with new operating license requirements for CFI's operating within the State of CA. This includes a $5000 application fee plus $1000 per location. CFI's also must submit audited financial statements each year and pay up to 0.75% of their income.

Does anyone know if anything is being done about this?? I haven't received any notification so I'm unsure how I'm supposed to comply.
 
SoCalFlyer2 said:
Does anyone know if anything is being done about this?? I haven't received any notification so I'm unsure how I'm supposed to comply.
Click to expand...

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=14195

I have a hard time imagining that the FAA would allow this to occur without action. Flight instructors are regulated by the federal government and the state of California would be trying to preempt the federal role by setting restrictions on a flight instructor's ability to exercise his privileges.
 
tgrayson said:
http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=14195

I have a hard time imagining that the FAA would allow this to occur without action. Flight instructors are regulated by the federal government and the state of California would be trying to preempt the federal role by setting restrictions on a flight instructor's ability to exercise his privileges.
Click to expand...


The FAA isn't responsible for regulating the financing/money of any school. So why would the FAA even care? This bill (I'm sure you know this) is about preventing fraud's from taking money. It has nothing to do with following any FAA regs.
 
tgrayson said:
It depends on what they mean by "school". Is a random indepedent flight instructor a "school"?
Click to expand...


According to the regs, I think they are. If I have a student as an independant CFI, I need to keep his records for 5 years correct(for some reason I remember a examiner telling me this and showing me the FAR, but I can't remember where it is, and as an independant CFI, the FAA may look at me as a school)?

But still, the FAA is not regulating any exchange of money. Doesn't the bill use an all inclusive wording that doesn't specifically mean a school?
 
mshunter said:
Doesn't the bill use an all inclusive wording that doesn't specifically mean a school?
Click to expand...

I haven't read it, but I gather from the concern of the OP that he thinks he'll have to cough up $5,000, and the article I posted a link to also could be read in that way.

If this is true, then the state of California is enacting regulations that will effectively prevent independent CFI's from exercising the privileges granted by the Federal government, which is something the FAA could legitimately take an interest in.
 
tgrayson said:
I haven't read it, but I gather from the concern of the OP that he thinks he'll have to cough up $5,000, and the article I posted a link to also could be read in that way.

If this is true, then the state of California is enacting regulations that will effectively prevent independent CFI's from exercising the privileges granted by the Federal government, which is something the FAA could legitimately take an interest in.
Click to expand...


I read it a while ago, and yes, it has no exemption for an idependant CFI IIRC. There was another thread about it, and I think I copy/pasted the part where it is worded like that. But it's late, and I have a charter tomorrow.

"just step away from JC Mike, you'll be o.k.!":crazy:
 
There is also precedent for treating an independent CFI as a flight school in the application of the TSA's Alien Flight Training rules. Even Joe Bob CFI is now supposed to comply with that. Caused quite a mess when it first came out, as I recall, because the TSA did not realize how many independent CFIs there were out there.
 
tgrayson said:
Flight instructors are regulated by the federal government and the state of California would be trying to preempt the federal role by setting restrictions on a flight instructor's ability to exercise his privileges.
Click to expand...

They certainly have a precedence of preempting the federal government. Look at Proposition 19.
 
The problem is that flight instructors are the poorest group of professionals, so it will be a while this rule is challenged. Maybe a class action lawsuit against the State of California should be looked into.
 
The bill suspending fees for flight schools is AB1140 being worked in this weeks session. Call your State Senator and express your support for it. Also, in reading the law under Artcle 4, flight schools may be exempt anyway. If a school is designed to prepare students for licensing in a particualar career or for recreational purposes and that school must be certified by a government body (read Federal) other than the BPPE, then that school is exempt under article 4. Anyway, support 1140 just to be sure.
 
stevefilson said:
The bill suspending fees for flight schools is AB1140 being worked in this weeks session. Call your State Senator and express your support for it. Also, in reading the law under Artcle 4, flight schools may be exempt anyway. If a school is designed to prepare students for licensing in a particualar career or for recreational purposes and that school must be certified by a government body (read Federal) other than the BPPE, then that school is exempt under article 4. Anyway, support 1140 just to be sure.
Click to expand...

The problem is I can think of a lot of flight training outfits that are not, and have either tried to become (and have waited, and waited, and waited, and then waited some more) or have no interest in, becoming Part 141 or 142. And that certification requirement would still not protect independent CFIs from more useless interference from the State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top