That Instructor Flight (NPPL 24 Months)

[charliegolf]

and have completed an instructional flight of at least 1 hour in the preceding 24
months;


Does this quote from Lasors mean the instructor flight needs to be (like the 6 hours in 12 months for validity) in the 24 months preceding the flight? Is it 'rolling'?

And, can the hour be aggregated over 2 instructor flights?

Thanks

CG

[FlyingForFun]

Just my understanding (I had to ask questions on this forum about that same instructor flight not so long ago, so I'm a very long way from being an authority), the answers are Yes and No. Yes it has to be rolling, and No it can't be aggregated.

FFF
-------------

[jgs43]

Confirm that.

1 - YES

2 - NO

Training flight must be single flight of at least 60 minutes and must be signed of as the training flight within your log book by the instructor.

:ok:

[charliegolf]

Well two's a concensus- thanks for that guys.

CG

[BEagle]

Hopefully these will change to much simpler requirements when the draft ANO amendment is finally agreed!

- The Rating validity will no longer be 'rolling', but will have a fixed expiry date.

- The training flight requirements will change to 'one hour of flight training', meaning that 'aggregated' training will be OK.

- Revalidation for people with multiple Ratings (Microlight, SLMG and SSEA Class Ratings) will be such that hours on any will count towards renewal of all, with a minimum requirement (to be finalised) for each Rating held.

We're getting there - albeit slowly!

[Irv]

The Rating validity will no longer be 'rolling', but will have a fixed expiry date.
Any idea how they will 'start it off' for the 'rollers'?

Also, if they are updating the ANO, are they going to use phrases which people can and will argue over eg: 'one hour of flight training' when they could be much more specific?

[charliegolf]

BEagle,

You are clearly 'in the loop' regarding these issues: any idea when the changes will be made?

Crystal ball maybe?

CG

[BEagle]

The aim is to get the ANO amendments before parliament early in the next session.

[Irv]

The aim is to get the ANO amendments before parliament early in the next session.
And when can 'the public' see them, word for word? (I'm thinking back to the 2002 changes when a lot of the problems could have been avoided in advance with a bit more openness 'in time')

ps: What's been decided on how to bring current SSEA 'rollers' into the 'expiry date' system?

[BEagle]

There is a time/benefit balance to be struck with the ANO amendment process. Since all the changes have been demanded by your industry representatives (BGA, PFA, AOPA, BBGA, GAPAN etc) to correct the earlier errors made by the CAA, the aim will be to minimise the delay - and, as those who have strong views about the NPPL have had plenty of time to make them known to the NPPL P&SC, things should progress fairly quickly. We hope!

Once these amendments have been put in place, the NPPL P&SC should be able to move forward to work on the other major aims of the recreational flying industry.

As for the SSEA 'rollers', it should be possible for anyone with a valid SSEA Rating to be able to have the Rating page in their licence signed up for a 2 year period by an Authorised Examiner as soon as they present it to him/her once the new system starts. At least, that's what I'm going to suggest!

[Irv]

and, as those who have strong views about the NPPL have had plenty of time to make them known to the NPPL P&SC
Sorry, this is the 'old-thinking' mistake they made in 2002 - only looking for inputs into committees, not willingly showing all the detailed 'outputs' from the committees to 'test' them until too late.

I'm not suggesting that any brand new extra ideas should be input at this stage, merely that the committee outputs are subject to rigorous open testing, ie: constructive comment, loophole, ambiguity, and error detection before they go live.

I'd have thought the scheme to convert existing 'rollers' to fixed dates shouldn't still be up for 'suggestion' at this stage! It's a vital part of cut-over - the committee should publish now to test the proposals to see if anyone can spot any loophole, ambiguity, etc missed.

[BEagle]

Have you spoken with your industry representatives?

The committe's decision was incorrectly translated into the ANO in 2002, so all the 'output testing' in the world wouldn't have made a scrap of difference to the actual outcome.

[Irv]

.Have you spoken with your industry representatives?
Once the original draft of the 2002 ANO changes were released for people outside the 'committee' to read, I spent (wasted) a LOT of my own time in 2002, prior and post 'ANO' approval, by email and phone, just trying to highlight to members of the committee and CAA that not only were there straight and very obvious errors in the ANO draft, (and subsequently in the ANO once it was 'in') but that they hadn't covered all the bases and not considered some consequences for some situations either.

I was just banging my head against a brick wall - it felt really good when I stopped. However, i didn't stop until I finally felt I made someone involved understand the points, sometime in 2003.

I'm beginning to feel that brick wall again -the obsession by INPUT. I don't want to introduce new items to be included, I'm quite happy the committee has done that very well - there's no doubt they've done a LOT of hard work and spent masses of time, some of them personal time and unpaid. The point is that it's their output from all their hard work that which needs to be seen and 'tested' in time to avoid any further potential embarrassment.

For example, as well as deciding about the ' expiry date rollers', are they really going to phrase the ANO vaguely enough to ensure endless arguments about whether an hour's training has to be one flight or multi?

There's a huge analogy with the I.T. industry. You know how systems sometimes fall over on a new 'upgrade' even though its been 'tested'? It's usually poor testing by the people directly involved. It's hard for I.T. guys to see 'bugs' in their work, either logical or physical, just prior to installation. The problem is that they have spent months immersed in it, and as they know what they intended the program to do when they wrote it, this colours their testing.

The solution is to show it to another I.T. guy who hasn't been involved at all, talk him/her through what they intended to do, and bingo, loopholes and problems suddenly become apparent. The same thing applies here.

How about some 21st Century 'new technology, new ideas'? When EASA came out with the 16 major points for comment in a short space of time (last year?), on request, Flyer were good enough to donate a complete subsection of their forum machine to me. Each of the 16 EASA items went up there as 16 individual posts so people could not only see the ones that potentiall 'hit' them, but pilots were able to discuss what each would mean and point out consequences that other pilots had not seen in the straight text. Result - more quality feedback in what seemed initially an impossible time frame.

Publish to actual proposals and ANO draft in a similar 'forum' way, and just limit it to 'what are the loopholes, ambiguities and unforeseen consequences of these sentences going into the ANO?' - you'd have any potential embarrassments sorted out in hours - you have 1000s of pilots out there just wanting to help to get it right BEFORE it goes in. They'd still appreciate the masses of work that had been done getting to that point.