NPPL FI

[dah dah]

I am trying to set up a special interest group (SIG) to lobby for an NPPL FI rating that operates in the same way as the microlight FI rating - no CPL; unlicensed strips; A/C does not require public C of A. The various industry bodies are pursuing this type of thing already, but the timeframe is long term. :(

If you wish to support or get involved with this SIG please e-mail me at [email protected].

If on the other hand you already have you FI rating (probably gained via the BCPL route), before you object to my proposal, ask yourself if you would be prepared to follow the present expensive and tortuous route to JAR FI – 42 weeks part time ATPL theory; 25 hours CPL et al; total cost in excess of £12,000. :mad:

[Hazardous Attitudes]

dah dah.. very good point and you have my support for one.

Also, if there was no requirement for CPL this would imply no requirement for a Class1 medical? This would widen the field for those of us with refractive limits a gnats whisker over the current limit (which is why I went the FAA route!)

Your views?

[dah dah]

Hazardous Attitudes

I agree. Hopefully we can get a more pragmatic approach to the medical. I actually have my class 1, but I had to jump through a number of hoops to get it. Also, if you only manage to Earn £15 per hour as an instructor, you will be doing more than 20 hrs instruction a year just to pay for your class 1 medicals. :mad:

[BEagle]

dahdah - you ma alienate yourself from those working towards the NPPL if you jump in with both feet wanting everything at once. Whilst the prospect of a prudent FI flying a well-maintained private category Europa (for example) from a decent strip might be quite fine, the CAA must protect us all from a 'Bodgett Aviation' crook flying a decrepit old deathtrap from a mudhole somewhere in the back of beyond. Regrettably, there are plenty of devious so-and-sos out there waiting to make a quick buck in this way, believe me! Hence certain proposals are sitting there waiting for us to put forward, but only when we have convinced the CAA that the NPPL is entirely safe. I'm afraid it's this 'softly, softly' approach which is vital at this stage. You simply won't get anywhere if you start making demands; however, I assume that you have responded to the CAA's Letter of Consultation and I'm sure they will note any constructive comments you may have made.

With apologies if there is anyone trading entirely legitimately as 'Bodgett Aviation'!!

[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[clear prop!!!]

Dead right dah-dah

Lets face it, your ATPL ground school will teach you nothing that will help you one bit to fully understand your profession and help you impart knowledge to students.

And as for CPL training.....complete waste of time for all those with a PPL and some hours. How on earth could advanced expensive training help improve your flying skills?

And while we’re at it, why don’t we let paramedics train doctors.

The NPPL, if it happens, will allow holders to fly aircraft above schools, hospitals and everywhere else that requires the highest standards of certification. Why should we reduce the qualification requirements for instrucors?

[dah dah]

Beagle. I don’t disagree with anything you say and we will try very hard not to alienate the people working towards the NPPL. BUT, the current system is untenable and I don’t want to wait another 2 years before I can start my FI course. The purpose of the SIG will be to gather info, raise awareness and to highlight issues through the various industry groups. I have responded to the CAA and I have also made contact with my PFA representative.

Clear prop!. I assume you are trying to be ironic. Re. your question, “why should we reduce the qualification . . . .”. Well, did you ask the opposite question when JAR was introduced? In my opinion there was no need whatsoever to change from the BCPL + AIF route. We can’t go back to that system (too much loss of face in many quarters) so lets work together to get an even better system. Maybe the new FI course will be more detailed than the existing one, covering the RELEVANT theory from the CPL course, but surely no one believes that the typical club FI needs the detail of the ATPL theoretic knowledge!

“Jumping in with both feet” – maybe if a few more of us had done that 3 years ago we could have avoided the whole JAR fiasco.

Please support the NPPL.
:)

[RVR800]

What about an NCPL or NATPL as well?

For those that dont want to work on
the 'Continent'

This is because the JAA is a tad expensive
for many people

Why not have an international licence
and not one just confined to European
requirements.

We could get together in Chicago to discuss it :rolleyes:

...I'll take my port and wine by the fire .. theres a good chap

[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: RVR800 ]

[UKPPL]

DahDah,

I agree and support the NPPL FI proposals/suggestions 110% as I think the CPL theory/exams portion of the current FI rating requirements is complete overkill for someone only ever doing PPL level instruction. eg. Knowing how to calculate the exact partial pressure of O2 in a persons alvioli at 18000ft.... alot of use when teaching someone to fly a C152...have they visited the planet earth recently? ...lets get real here!

Clear prop you wrote

>>The NPPL, if it happens, will allow holders to fly aircraft above schools, hospitals and everywhere else that requires the highest standards of certification. Why should we reduce the qualification requirements for instrucors?<<

Easy - the current requirements are absolute Tosh! (the theory not the flying training). The requirements for a FI in a PPL level club situation and a Commercial pilot are not the same, so why insist they are with the same licence???

DahDah, Can I suggest that you also involve AOPA etc in yr ideas, as a unified approach will be more successful with regards to CAA. Knowing how fast the CAA react it will help if there are multiple 'herders' trying to push the elephant to the watering hole, rather than one...

I know the CAA's attitude at the moment is 'wait until we get the NPPL sorted out and running and then we'll think about a NPPL FI'.

Let's hope

[GT]

RVR800,

That's the most sensible thing I've heard anyone say over the last few years. All this fiasco just so that a very few might fly commercially an aeroplane registered in a JAA state other than their own! Can't see it was all worthwhile myself. It would be interesting to know what proportion of professional pilots take up this 'opportunity'.

Regards, GT.

P.S. The above is merely my opinion, nothing more.

[Noggin]

The requirement for a FI to have CPL level knowledge comes from ICAO. You would certainly not become a FI in the majority of countries without that level of knowledge.

You can still become a FI in the UK as the holder of a PPL as you always have been able to, you may not of course be remunerated.

Since the UK adopted the ICAO requirement for CPL level knowledge FIC instructors have found it considerably easier to train FIs as they don't have to start by teaching basic Physics, candidates should start from a common datum. To revert to raw PPL holders with a mixed accademic background will be hard work. Once trained, any FI who does not meet ICAO requiirements will not be able to train for an ICAO licence. The cost of an FI Course (circa £5000) just to teach for the NPPL seems to me to be an expensive option.

Before the NPPL FI becomes even a possibility, the NPPL will have to prove itself successful, I suspect this will be considerably more than 2 years.

[dah dah]

Noggin. Your reply is factual, but does not reflect the current situation.

1. You cannot do CPL knowledge – no one is running the course.
2. People keep telling me that the JAR CPL knowledge requirements are so similar to ATPL that I might as well do the ATPL course anyway!
3. The ATPL course will take 42 weeks part time (including 4 weeks full time) and teach me all kinds of stuff I don’t want to know about (see UKPPL’s reply above)

I just want to teach people to fly in a club environment. I never want to become an airline pilot. I belive there are lots of people like me who WOULD spend 6 months and £6k to get what they want, but will NOT spend 18 months and £12k.

Regarding the success or otherwise of the NPPL itself. Well, this will probably be down to marketing. Hopefully the PFA will take this on as they have the most to gain. If the NPPL fails then I believe we will see even greater drop off in new PPL training and a significant increase in PPL(D) training on the new 450 KG aircraft. We might even see a migration from PPL(A) to PPL(D).

[Noggin]

The lack of a CPL course is a major problem, perhaps some pressure on the providers of theoretical training is required.

The ATPL groundschool is a 650 hour course compared to 200 hour course for the CPL. Its fairly obvious that the longer course is the best to sell for commercial reasons. If candidates who only want a CPL opt for the longer course there never will be a CPL course available.

[dah dah]

Noggin. I would happily do 200 hrs to get my CPL theory (can you feel a but coming on?), but, the 200 hrs is the minimum as defined by JAR-FCL and training organisations say that there is no way that the breadth of knowledge required can be covered in that time! Who knows where the 200 hour figure came from? It was probably a finger in the air job by someone in the JAA. PPSC used to quote ~450 hours for the UK CPL – why should the JAR CPL be any less!

Also, my local training org tell me that the CAA have yet to approve a CPL theory course. They say (hearsay I know) that the 4 Forces course (now defunct) was unapproved. I plan to follow this up in writing with the CAA.

You imply that people like me (who just want to become part time club instructors) are opting for the ATPL course. I don’t think this is the case. Guys with a frozen ATPL but no job, are going on to become instructors because they believe that they have a better chance of getting a job if they have 1000 hours rather than 250 hours (see posts elsewhere on this forum). I am not criticising this method – I would do the same – but it does mask the CPL issue. If there were no students for FI courses, then T/Os would make a fuss and we would get our CPL course (doubt it would be 200 hours though).

I’m sure the CAA could do something if they wanted to. If we can have a UK only IMC then I can see no reason why we can’t have a UK only BCPL!!

The whole thing’s a shambles. In my view the people that got is in this mess should fall on there swords. This of course will never happen, so we need to find a way forward. My SIG may not make any difference, but then again it might.
:cool:

[RVR800]

GT

I suspect that the No of JAA qualified
immigrants to the UK exceeds the quota
going from the UK?

The effect on the UK pilot has therefore
been increased cost and more competition for
and jobs.

The whole thing is undemocratic as well.
Who asked for this? What is the value
in providing another layer of bureaucracy
and who foots the bill - umm that you Im afraid

The reality is that its a political initiative - the JAA is being set up as a rival organisation to the FAA. Its about
big buildings full of suits getting paid
lots of money and building empires and
it has nothing to do with the oft quoted
special european weather and airspace requirements which are no different to
say New Jersey in the US.

i.e. Job creation/power broking dressed up as a safety issue

[UKPPL]

Noggin,

you wrote;

>>The requirement for a FI to have CPL level knowledge comes from ICAO. You would certainly not become a FI in the majority of countries without that level of knowledge.<<

.... but not JAR CPL level knowledge (my main point).

I recently went to the ststes and showed a few instructors over there my JAR CPL training manuals. Thay were absolutely dumbfounded and couldn't beleive a FI candidate in UK had to endure a six month minimum theory course and subject matter in such (stupid) depth. They explained a system such as that would never be tolerated in USA.

BTW I'm not saying there shouldn't be a theory course or exams for a FI course candidate... just not JAR CPL !

Best regards,

UKPPL

[Noggin]

Dah Dah,

I am intrigued that schools who do not have a CPL course can quote how long it is going to take! As the JAA produced both the papers and the minimum course time one can still conclude that a CPL is one third of an ATPL course not, just about the same. It is less than a UK CPL theoretical course because it does not include any of the IR theory.

The absense of a school to run the CPL course is without doubt a major obstacle. The CAA will do nothing because it is not their job, their task is to provide exams for anyone who needs them, the exams are available.

The difference in theory between the JAA and FAA systems reflects a difference in opinion between Europe and the US. It is interesting to note that one airline has reported new JAA licence holders as being deficient in theoretical knowledge. It would appear we have developed an exam passing culture where little of the information is absorbed or related to the flying.

[SKYYACHT]

I whole-heartedly agree with you UKPPL.....join AOPA, join Action for Airfields, |Join PFA - in fact join anyone who will fight your corner!

Tailwinds

['I' in the sky]

dah dah.

' I don't want to wait 2 years... '

' I only ever want to instruct in a club environment ...'

'Want want want' comes to mind.

So you feel people who only learn in a club environment are not entitled to quality instruction ? Because I currently work in a club environment and every now and again you come across people who are the products of instructors who have not done any CAA theoretical exams, ie those with grandfather rights from the old system and also those who are products of 3 week PPL packages. Believe me it is horrifying what some qualified PPLs are capable of not doing and invariably it transpires that they just don't understand what is going on. Why ? Because the instructors haven't understood properly what they are teaching !

As an instructor your only interest should be in providing the absolute highest quality of teaching you can and that is exactly what you are, a teacher. If you think it is just a bit of fun then do something else.

What is the NPPL about ? A significant reduction in minimum training requirements and a nominal restriction of privileges of the licence holder - quite a dangerous combination really. Now you want to add to this a lowering of instructor understanding.

[dah dah]

‘I’ in the sky.

Interesting piece of vitriolic hyperbole, but if you are so keen on the current system I would have been more impressed by some reasoned argument as to why FI’s need the same theoretical knowledge as airline pilots!

Re. your attack on instructors with grandfather rights, I believe there are good instructors and bad instructors in both camps. We could play tit for tat on this subject for months and make no progress.

What is the NPPL about? In my view the NPPL is a stepping-stone to a more pragmatic approach to leisure flying in the UK. It’s about reducing costs whilst maintaining standards to an acceptable level.

I am pleased to be able to agree with you about instructor understanding. Yes I would like to see a lowering. In fact I believe that an instructor’s understanding of much of the APTL theoretical knowledge should be lowered to zero. :D

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: dah dah ]

['I' in the sky]

Okay dah dah, partial retraction if you thought it was a general attack on those with grandfather rights but here are two specific instances which came to mind.

An instructor of that ilk told a student who had abandoned a cross country flight because his carburettor heater wasn't working, that he needn't have done because you can't get carburettor ice with an OAT of 14 degrees. Second instance was a statement from an instructor of that ilk that with the exception of Fowler flaps, flaps only create drag and no extra lift. Same instructor for some reason teaches students on PA28s to take off with 10 degrees of flap, contrary to POH.
And you still want to see a reduction in Instructor understanding ?
It doesn't take much scouting around to realise that the attraction of the NPPL is that it will be 'good for business'.

No I will not defend the present system. I will not defend JAA. I will not defend any 'Euro' concept. We used to have a perfectly workable national CAA system but it was still full of whingers however I will defend it to the hilt.
I assume that when voting you have always ensured that prospective candidates have held no pro European views whatsoever before voting for them ?

A further thought on the NPPL. Perhaps until some consistency of standards has been established all skill tests should be carried out by independent examiners thus removing from School owners/CFIs the privilege of being able to hand out PPLs within their school. Does it still seem as attractive ?

[dah dah]

'I' in the sky,

I’d just like to make a few more points to try and convince you that an NPPL FI rating would not be all bad.

Rather than a lowering of understanding we could call it a re-focusing of understanding. FI’s that teach the PPL should know the syllabus inside out. If this means an extended FIC then so be it, but the ATPL is not the answer.

I like your idea about independent examiners and I would have no issue with this. I would also support ongoing regular assessment of instructors provided that this was done within a body such as the PFA so that costs could be kept down.

I assume from your earlier comments that you gained your ratings under the old UK system (which you support). Take it as a given that we can’t go back to that system. What should we do now? Accept the current JAR debacle or push for a better system. Or maybe you just don’t care because you’re all right jack!

[Whirlybird]

When I'd only done the PPL exams I knew that you could get carb icing at 14 degrees C, and also that flaps create both lift and drag. I didn't need an instructor to tell me; a basic book would do. Now I've done the CPL exams I've supposedly learned a lot of stuff about machmeters and jet streams, but since it'll be no use whatsoever to me as a heli instructor on R22s I'm proposing to forget it as quickly as possible.

"I", the instructor you give as an example is an idiot with a bad memory, but that could have happened just as much with a CPL qualified instructor who's forgotten all the stuff he learned on a crammer and churned out two days later for the exams. I've known a lot of instructors, both good and bad, and their qualifications seem to make very little difference either way; I can give you examples of both.

Don't forget, the requirement for instructors to have CPLs is VERY recent - were all PPLs before a couple of years ago badly taught?

[TheSilverFox]

Who the hell is DAH DAH??

And what planet is he/she from??

He/She wouldn't have a background in any of the following areas by any chance

Microlights,PFA??

These are the only guys that I have come across that so relentlessly persue the shortcut, easy option to a real licence.

['I' in the sky]

Silverfox.

Possibly a bit harsh considering his response to my last.I can accept the principle of an extended FIC course to compensate for less written exams. Having said that, even the current FIC instructors show a lot of variation in what they emphasise. There has to be a common core somewhere. Would people who did have all the writtens get a reduction in the extended course ?
However I will still take issue with the use of Private Cat aircraft. An aircraft used to teach members of the public for an NPPL is like it or not still being used to transport members of the public.

Unliceneced strips ? I can see no reason to differentiate between an aircraft carrying an NPPL student and the same plane carrying a PPL student.

[dah dah]

I like this forum, you get to converse with such charming individuals! I think I’ll join the pro hunting lobby. Tally Ho! :)

Permit A/C and unlicensed strips are way behind FI training on the priority list – but they are worthy of discussion.

[mickypitch]

Dah Dah You are completely right about this.
I have just got a class1 medical and have started contacting schools about the ATPL theory just to become an instructor. Having looked at the books the content is largely irrelevant to being an instructor.
Why did we gwt rid of the BCPL when we still have the IMC rating. This is not recognised in Europe-so what? I do not want to instruct in Europe!
People are I believe doing the full ATPL distance learning because there is nothing else available.
I understand there is a possobility that AFT may start a course soon.
Has anyone done the written papers and then the instructors course and not the CPL to instruct unpaid?
The current system is not logical and makes no sense at all.
I have not heard of microlight instructors killing themselves or students for want of 42 weeks worth of study! Many of the current aircraft in this category out perform 150/152s...............

[dah dah]

Mickypitch,

I have spoken to AFT and was told that they are considering a distance learning CPL. However; I quote them, “It will not be much less work than the ATPL. You might as well do the ATPL.” Noggin’s comments in an earlier reply question this – but as students, we can only be guided by the training organisations.

There is little or no incentive for trainers to provide a CPL – they obviously make better revenues form the longer ATPL course. A CPL course would also increase the admin overheads as they would have to maintain 2 courses rather than 1. Equally, the flying schools have little incentive to change as long as they continue to attract FI students with the necessary ATPL theoretical knowledge (which they will so long as potential airline pilots use this route to build hours).

Add to the above the fact that an NPPL FIC is probably years away and it all starts to look a bit gloomy. :(

[Genghis the Engineer]

I hate to damage your illusions SilverFox, but microlights and gliders, who don't require CPLs for instructors, have only a very slightly poorer accident record than regulated FW GA, and an identical accident record to CofA RW GA. I've got both microlight and light aircraft PPLs and will say with absolute conviction that the average standard of instruction in a microlight school is much higher than in a light aircraft school.

So, I think that high hour PPLs becoming NPPL instructors will raise standards, not lower them. Who has most to offer, a 50 year old with 2000hrs of PPL flying in 50 types, or a 25 year old with 1000hrs, a frozen ATPL and perhaps a dozen types?

On another subject, there are many people who would benefit from a reasonably cheap CPL. For example, a LAME who wants to be able to do post maintenance air tests, an employee of a manufacturer who wants to be able to do delivery and customer demonstration flights, a flight test engineer who wants to become a test pilot. All of these would benefit from the easier CPL and would have no use at-all for an ATPL. So, why should they jump through so many unnecessary hoops? And why can't the training industry see the market?

G

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Genghis the Engineer ]

[TheSilverFox]

Hate to damage your illusions Genghis the Engineer, but some of the best instructors that I have come accross (at PPL level) have been CPL with ATPL level knowledge and only a few hundred hours!!! and only 4 or 5 types to their name!!!

By the way, I operate from an aerodrome that also has microlight operations, so I experience on a daily basis the level of their flying & airmanship-I won't expand on this point but the aerodrome records of incidents speak volumes!!!

[clear prop!!!]

Well, one way of looking at things would be to accept that those who instruct for a living, should be professionals, and should hold a professional, commercial, qualification in order to do that, …it’s called a CPL!!!

We are not talking about teaching people to drive here, and even that requires a commercial licence and course of training prior to starting the instructors course!!.

The restrictions applied to microlites etc put them well out-with the realms of what we are talking about here, so lets just leave that particular sport out of the equation ( I do accept that it has some very competent and enthusiastic instructors..in its field)

Mickypitch, to say that you have ‘looked’ at the ATPL course notes (there are around 17 manuals!!), and find ‘little of relevance’ for instructors is frightening…. in the extreme!!!

If you guys think that you know enough to teach after reading your Trevor Thom books and passing your PPL ground exams , then heaven help us all! The level of prior knowledge required to get through your FIC is a lot greater than you seem to think,in fact it is staggering,... and so it should be.

Now even under the old CAA system there was not a vast difference between CPL and ATPL ground exams so don’t think you are going to be in for an easy ride when someone finally does offer a long overdue CPL theory course, (and yes, there should be one, for the reasons outlined by Genghis)

Before you make any more assumptions about the level of knowledge required to teach effectively, sit down with an instructor and find out just how much he/she knows, and how often that knowledge is used.

[dah dah]

ClearProp,

I object to your suggestion that those of us that support a national FIC are looking for an easy ride. What we would like is course of training that is relevant to the job in hand.

Have you completed the JAR ATPL exams? If so, what percentage is actually relevant to teaching at PPL level? The JAA say only 30%. If you think it’s higher, can you justify your reasoning?

As a supporter of the current system, you might like to explain the logic behind CPL Flight Training in relation to remuneration. Surely an FI is either competent to instruct or he is not, and if he is, why shouldn’t he be rewarded?

Dah Dah

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm sure they speak highly of you too Silverfox. But nobody has a monopoly in poor airmanship, and with the costs of microlight and glider flying, I think you'll find they are flying about 4 times the hours of an SEP license holder on average, so may be more current and experienced than a lot of your club light aircraft pilots.

In the meantime, perhaps we should remember that ATPL knowledge is required of people driving airliners around the globe. What we are discussing here is instructors to train PPLs, who will fly simple aircraft, within UK airspace, in day VMC. There is much knowledge out there, it doesn't necessarily mean that everybody needs it.

G

[mickypitch]

Clear Prop,
without wanting to get in to an argument about this but....
Having looked at the ATPL syllabus and manuals a lot of what I saw did not appear relevant to flying light aircraft or teaching people to do so. I have a PPL and IMC and fly regularly around the country, now if I did not recognise some of the content in the course and have not required that knowledge to fly safely to date, then why on earth should I need it to teach people to fly in a light aircraft!
Not everyone wants to be an airline pilot or learns to fly to become one.
If the BCPL knowledge was sufficient two years ago why in your opinion is it not now?
It seems to me that as DAH DAH has rightly (in my opinion) pointed out that the whole thing is well overdue a rethink. People posting on this site are airing their own veiws but what great experience do you have to consider them not worthy of discussion or dangerous.......?
Cheers

[Tiger_ Moth]

Is this proposition for a FI teaching only PPLs that will get paid WITHOUT holding a CPL?
I would be in favour of that.

Currently if a PPL with an FI rating but no CPL teachs someone I know they cant be paid but can they make the student pay for all of the flight or do they have to pay for some of it?

[Whirlybird]

The CPL(H) exams, which I passed earlier this year, are almost identical to those for fixed wing. A large proportion of what you learn is completely irrelevant to someone teaching people to fly light aircraft, fixed wing or rotary. The course is very much based on flying for the airlines. Now, these were the old CAA exams, but JAR hasn't changed them that much. If anyone wants to know about this in more detail, with examples, unfortunately I still remember most of it and can bore you for hours if you really want me to! But the fact that I can do that will not in any way make me a better instructor.

[TheSilverFox]

Guys, I think that you are missing the point here!

In order to teach anything (successfully) it is necessary for the teacher/instructor/lecturer to have a substantially higher level of subject knowledge that the level at which he/she is teaching.

I'm sure that you high hour PPL wanabee instructors have an enourmous amount of useful hints & tips that you could pass on to your students based purely on your own experiences over the years.

However, instruct for long enough and your students will inevitably ask you questions which are not directly covered in the PPL syllabus, but are none the less perfectly reasonable questions for the astute student to ask. There are now three options open to you.

1) Answer the question and offer an explanation as to why that this particular example will not directly effect his PPL VFR flying.

2) Tell him that you don't know the answer because you were not trained to that level of theory.

3) Lie!

Guess which is the prefered option?

I'm sure that if you polled a cross section of PPL sdudents and asked them the following:

"Given the choice, would you prefer your instructor to have been trained to a PPL level of knowledge or a Commercial level of knowledge"
the majority would opt for the latter.

In fact, what I shall do this week is carry out just such a survey and then report back to you ( You have my word that this will be a completely unbiased survey and I will not try to influence the students in any way ).

[clear prop!!!]

My sentiments entirely Silver.

As in any teaching situation it is the ability to understand the big picture which lets you teach the smaller one effectively.

Those who currently teach the FIC have a hard enough time teaching the syllabus to those with knowledge at CPL/ATPL level. Just how long will it take to train would be instructors with only PPL knowledge?

To look back at Trevor Thom books having done ATPL, makes them look like ‘my first book on planes’!! That is how it should be. Full understanding makes teaching easier and more effective. Yes there is a load of stuff you will never use, but you can say that of any subject. How often do you use most of your university syllabus??.. but you still needed to do it to graduate.

I can guarantee that a good instructor with CPL knowledge will give better ground instruction than one without, simply because he can.

Dah Dah, Sorry if you thought that I suggested that you and the National FI activists were looking for an easy ride.
If you read my post you will see that I was pointing out that the difference between ATPL and CPL theory exams were not that great under CAA, nor would the new ones be under JAR. Therefore anyone thinking that CPL would be an easier ride was mistaken. However there is a need for CPL ground school courses and the JAA/CAA should get their finger out fast!

Now, this NPPL thing. What is the point? …To save money??
As I understand things, there will be a reduction in training hours (5 is it?), for a restricted licence. I suspect that when Mr Joe public realises that he is not going to save vast amounts of money he will opt for a full PPL. If this is the case, NPPL FI's will find themselves with very few pupils and unable to instruct full PPL.

At any rate what areas of instruction can be safely left out of the NPPL?

Given that the vast majority of PPLs take at least an additional 6 hours to complete with fully qualified instructors, I believe that the new NPPL if it happens will end up costing as much,..for less.

In the mean time this is hurting our industry badly. There is a definite downturn in the uptake of PPL training. How much of this is down to potential students holding back, thinking that they will save a fortune?

[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: clear prop!!! ]

[dah dah]

To All,

This has proved to be an interesting debate and I think there have been some very strong arguments put forward from both camps. However, I don’t think we will reach a consensus!

Thanks to everyone for their input. If having read the various replies, you still feel that the current system should be changed, then please contact me.

Finally, let’s NOT turn this thread into a general debate about the NPPL.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis' further thoughts...

(1) BREADTH of knowledge is largely irrelevant to a PPL instructor, what is needed is great DEPTH of knowledge about PPL type flying. This is not the same as ATPL theory. One example, many PPLs fly PFA permit aircraft, yet the JAR-PPL syllabus covers none of the air-law pertaining to a permit, and neither does the ATPL.

(2) To somebody with a family and mortgage, but trying to realise a long dream of learning to fly, another 10hrs on a PPL syllabus is a lot. I know, I was there.

(3) If as an Engineer I decided to take leave of my senses and do an Art degree, it would be rightly pointed out that I know very little about art. The solution is a "foundation course", and I can't see any reason why a PPL wanting to become an NPPL instructor couldn't have to do the same - a bridging course prior to the FIC covering the elements of CPL theory that they need. This need not include ME theory, airliner systems, INS and many other things of no relevance to training a PPL.

(4) CAA Rules for PPL training restrict flying to licensed airfields. If somebody is going to then buy a kitfox and fly from a farmstrip, the school should have had the option of teaching the chap from his farmstrip. It would make him a much safer pilot.

G

[Whirlybird]

I agree with every word of that Genghis, and can't even think of anything else to add.

Congratulations on being one of the few people to leave me speechless! :D

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm honoured.

G

[SKYYACHT]

Genghis,

I second the comments made by Wirlybird.....I agree with the NPPL, and IMHO there are many excellent PPLs who are very good teachers. I have had the privilege of flying with some of them. I have learnt lots.

Tailwinds!

[BEagle]

At the last NPPL Steering Committee meeting, it was obvious that the whole concept of the remunerated NPPL-holding FI is a very hot potato indeed. Whilst their are pros and cons - and perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel regarding aerodromes and aircraft - remember that the CAA must also ensure that the public at large are protected from the dangers posed by the unscrupulous. Both the BGA and BMAA have some very good self-policing measures and an acceptable accident record; however, were the doors to SEP instruction by low-hour NPPl holders at unlicensed strips using private category aircraft to be opened, you could guarantee that a number of dodgy operators would rush in to take advantage.

No - the NPPL FI will have to wait for a while yet, if at all. The NPPL itself will first have to be proven to be safe before any other ratings can begin to be considered.

[ 16 September 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Genghis the Engineer]

You make a good point there Beagle.

There are four hot potatoes in-fact...

(1) The NPPL
(2) Training at unlicensed airfield
(3) Training in aircraft without a Public Transport CofA
(4) The NPPL FI.

Perhaps it must be accepted that none of these issues will get resolved unless they're dealt with one at a time. The order is perhaps immaterial - other than (1) comes before (4). The mesh of interlocking problems that will come with solving all four at once may not be surmountable, and I suspect we shouldn't try.

G

[UKPPL]

Good to see some positive debate about the NPPL FI issue.

...Unfortunately the matter is now in the hands of the CAA.

BEagle you wrote >>remember that the CAA must also ensure that the public at large are protected from the dangers posed by the unscrupulous<<

... The CAA, the same organisation that 'protects' the general public by insisting on smoke hoods being available for passengers, water mist systems on airliners being installed, realistic seating spacing for escape routes being provided, safe carry-on cabin luggage policies being enforced and (dare I say it) 'high level' security on commercial flights and airports.

We'll have a bloody long wait I fear. They'll probably commission a study on the NPPL FI's long terms effects (two to three years minimum) and then do nothing.

Yawn!