PDA

View Full Version : PPL or NPPL>!


kileA
30th Nov 2005, 19:22
I only understand that the difference between a PPL and an NPPL is that one allows you to only fly around the U.K. But surely there are other differences.

My reason for asking is that i am thinking into to starting my PPL or NPPL. Just wondering which....:confused:

BroomstickPilot
1st Dec 2005, 08:27
KileA,

Apart from what you have written in your post, it also depends on what you want to do next. If you have ambitions to become a commercial pilot you must do PPL. If you do NPPL, you will be required to do PPL before you can proceed. Remember, PPL, CPL and ATPL are JAA licences; NPPL is a UK only arrangement.

I don't know the details of the NPPL, (I'm a PPL holder,) but I do know the required hours are less for the NPPL, which suggests the syllabus is also reduced.

If, however, the sum total of your ambitions is to be able to fly to Compton Abbas for a bacon butty on a Sunday morning, perhaps NPPL will be adequate and a bl***y sit cheaper than PPL.

Good luck,

Broomstick.

EGBKFLYER
1st Dec 2005, 09:30
You can find details of the JAA PPL in the LASORS publication which is available on the CAA website www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/lasors2005.pdf

The NPPL details are available on www.nppl.uk.com

Breifly, the main advantage of an NPPL is fewer hours to the licence and less stringent medical requirements. The downside, depending on your intentions, is that you are limited to UK airspace during the day - i.e. no licence 'add-ons' are possible, except for upgrade to flying 'complex' aircraft weighing less than 2000kg.

I would suggest you go and talk to your local flying school. I guarantee they will have had a lot of queries like this and will be able to give you some advice. I wouldn't worry about them being biased either - in my experience they'll be glad to see any new customer, whether for NPPL or JAR!

The private flying forum may also help if you do a search on there for details....

Best of luck.

scroggs
1st Dec 2005, 11:47
Before I move this from Wannabes, I should correct Broomstick on one error he has made. You do not need a PPL in order to go on to an ATPL. I never held any pilot's licence before I gained my ATPL.

Scroggs

markflyer6580
1st Dec 2005, 12:11
Not wanting to shoot you down scroggs,but unless you do an integrated course how do you aqquire night rating 150hrs etc required for starting cpl course without a ppl?

As a side track why not let pilots go on to cpl with an nppl,since most budding cpl's don't do any overseas flying or carry more than 4 pax whilst hour building.the saving would pay for atpl theory course and its the cpl/ir bit that counts when going for a job?

I know the s:mad: s at aviation house would be against it on the grounds of money but I think its a fantastic plan,shame I've already got a full ppl;)

date off waiter
1st Dec 2005, 18:44
Can you fly paras on a NPPL ? Day, VFR, up to 4 pax, less than 2T - or do you need a professional licence ?

dow

markflyer6580
1st Dec 2005, 21:15
It doesn't say you can't in LASORS,if you were not paid for it then in theory it should be ok? I'm sure there is probably some training req. to do it though.

http://www.nppl.co.uk :ok:

Lister Noble
2nd Dec 2005, 07:13
I'm doing a NPPL because of the less stringent medical requirements.
All the ground exams are identical to the PPL and most of the flying syllabus is exactly the same.
You can fly anywhere in the UK in VFR (good visibilty) conditions with planes that fly up to 140 knots and carry max 4 passengers.You can upgrade NPPL to PPL and take 30 hours with you if you go along that route.

Lister:D

Kolibear
2nd Dec 2005, 10:59
The hours required to get an PPL or an NPPL are minimum hours.

it might take one student 50hrs to get an PPL, but another may take 70 hours to gain their NPPL.

IO540
2nd Dec 2005, 11:50
IMHO the NPPL is a waste of time and money, unless done for medical reasons and then it needs to be seen as a dead end anyway.

The standard that's needed for proficient flying around UK airspace will be the same, PPL or NPPL. One may as well go for the PPL. Going abroad is one of the things that makes flying really worth while. Most of the people who stick to flying locally pack it up for good, very fast.

J.A.F.O.
2nd Dec 2005, 12:29
IO

Never have I heard such nonsense and to offer such as advice to an aspiring pilot is idiotic.

The NPPL may not suit you but there are more ways to fly than in cloud at FL frozen to death from A to B.

If kile wants to fly for flyings sake and take that privileged view of the earth that only a few are allowed just for the sheer joy of it and has no ambitions that take him (or her) beyond the UK and to do all of that within a budget then the NPPL may be perfect.

The NPPL will not be appreciably cheaper at the start but the "running costs" could make the difference between someone who stays with it and someone who falls by the wayside.

You don't have to just bimble around the local area on an NPPL, nothing to stop you flying a thousand types of aircraft, learning aerobatics, touring the islands and highlands, landing on the beach at Barra, popping down to Bodmin, taking the family to Blackpool then down to Bexhill - and that's just the Bs. And doing any one of a thousand things that I've not mentioned.

Doesn't actually sound like a dead end to me.

IO540
2nd Dec 2005, 12:49
JAFO

The NPPL will not be appreciably cheaper at the start

Glad you agree.

the "running costs" could make the difference between someone who stays with it and someone who falls by the wayside.

What "running costs"? The difference in the cost of the two medicals, spread over two years' flying. Anything else?

Even instructors I know personally agree with me. They don't necessarily tell their customers that though, because a NPPL looks cheaper on their school price list, which is why the flight training industry lobbied for it.

Time to duck again.

effortless
2nd Dec 2005, 13:03
Having my priviledges curtailed due to blood pressure, I have to say that an NPPL looks very attractive. I cannot take advantage yet but if I get fitter I'll certainly give it a go.

J.A.F.O.
2nd Dec 2005, 13:12
No need to duck, IO; we just have differing views on a couple of things.

Not everyone has lots of money to throw at flying (I wish I did, but there you go) and if someone flies a PFA type - already day VFR and mainly UK only - at, perhaps, £40 a month and £40 an hour, then you can actually get a fair amount of flying in for not a lot of money.

To stay current they also need to fly an hour with an instructor, if that's paid for because you're not having to pay for the medical then that's one less thing to worry about when the family are complaining that they need luxuries like food and shoes.

Perhaps it doesn't seem like much but it could tip the balance.

But I definitely agree with you on the initial costs - if it's going to take you 60 hours then it's going to take you 60 hours - regardless of whether there's an N on your licence or not.

muffin
2nd Dec 2005, 14:10
I have had a CAA PPL(A) for 25 years or so. Were it not for the fact that I also have a PPL(H) and need the Class 2 medical for that, I would swap to an NPPL without hesitation. Day VFR in the UK suits me fine as I have no wish to ever fly abroad. As I am on annual medicals the hassle reduction would be very well worth it irrespective of the cost.

Consequently I am of the opinion that the NPPL is an excellent innovation and far from a waste of time.

Say again s l o w l y
2nd Dec 2005, 14:21
In reality, all the people I know who have gone for the NPPL, once they have realised that the medical isn't such a problem, they've gone straight over to the 'standard' PPL.

It really doesn't seem to have made any difference apart from those who weren't able to get a class 2 medical.

It isn't a waste of time, but it is far from being the panacea that many seemed to expect.

Lister Noble
2nd Dec 2005, 17:36
IOS54,what a load of rubbish.
I don't know how many hours you have but I have pals with 1000's of PPL hours and they enjoy flying interesting planes in interesting company in the UK.
There are some absolutley stunning places to fly to and around in the UK.
Lister:cool:

dublinpilot
2nd Dec 2005, 19:46
A lot of it may depend too, on where in the UK you live.

If you live in the south east/south coast, not being able to go to the near continent would be a serious limitation.

If you lived on the west coast, you may very well want to be able to take a trip over to Ireland.

On the other hand, if you lived in the East, North East, or North of the UK, then you might be quite happy to stay in the UK, given the distance from foreign shores.

If a candidate decided to go for an NPPL, and had reached 45 hours of training before being ready for a skill test, can they change their mind at that point, get a class 2 med, and take a JAA skills test instead?

As for the usefulness of the PPL vs the cost saving of an NPPL, then I think IO540 has it right. In the longer term people need something more than bimbling to keep them interested. For some it will be aeros, some touring, some grass strip flying etc. But apart from someone who's passion is aeros (which one can do quite happily forever in the UK) everyone else will increase their enjoyment of flying greatly if they can leave the country. The ability to travel abroad is one of the great freedoms of flying.

[QUOTE]IOS54,what a load of rubbish.
I don't know how many hours you have but I have pals with 1000's of PPL hours and they enjoy flying interesting planes in interesting company in the UK.
There are some absolutely stunning places to fly to and around in the UK.
QUOTE]

Lister Noble,

I don't mean to be patronising; please forgive me if this sounds so. But your profile says that you are just learning to fly at present. I agree that there are lots of interesting places to fly in the UK, but wait until you have 150hours, then think about it again. You will realise by then, that you've seen ever where you want to see that is within 1.5 hours flying time. When you start to think about going somewhere a bit further, you may very well decide that where you'd most like to go is only 2.5 hours away, but is in a different country. You might form a different opinion then.

dp

Lister Noble
3rd Dec 2005, 07:19
Dublin.
You are not being at all patronising and indeed I have only around 30 hrs as a student.
Sorry if my post was a bit inflamatory but I thought the reply to the original question posted re NPPL v PPL was not exactly constructive,bearing in mind I was asking the same questions a few months ago.
I do belong to two clubs that fly vintage aircraft from grass strips and have very experienced pilots,I also have friends who are commercial pilots none of whom told me that the NPPL was rubbish when I was asking around at the start,and of course it can easily be upgraded if required and the medical requirements are met .
The NPPLwill allow me to obtain a licence to fly in the UK and build up my hours,I want to fly vintage aircraft in the UK and will see what happens after that.
Lister:D

IO540
3rd Dec 2005, 08:02
I am well aware that I am outspoken on occassions :O but just for the record the reason I bother at all is because I think it's a shame to see the number of people that blow away £8k or so at their school, only to chuck it in very shortly afterwards.

We could all differ on the reasons why but not having a qualification that's useful (which, never forget, is not a commercial driver for the school) has got to be a pretty common reason.

The NPPL takeup is a witness to this. According to recent press reports most of the people that do it are previous/existing PPL holders who cannot pass the CAA Class 2. In that respect the NPPL is a very good thing (because IMV the medical requirements are much too onerous; the probability of 3rd party injury/damage is far far less than in a car) but medical issues aside it is very hard to justify it on the reason that was originally used to push it: lower cost.

Very good point made about Permit aircraft offering much cheaper flying than certified aircraft, but you can fly both on a PPL, and get much better privileges.

S205-18F
3rd Dec 2005, 13:54
Hi guys I must add my view to this topic. I have just completed my NPPL and so far have not found the so called restrictions a problem! I love flying and have bought into a share of an aircraft and when I complete my differences training I can fly the plane on my own. The main reason for going the NPPL route was mainly the medical along with the number of hours to maintain the validity of the PPL, less for NPPL. I have no intention of flying in cloud probably wont go to Europe although I am under the impression that a recreational license similar to ours is in the pipeline and hopefully be reciprical. Basically I am a fair weather flyer, as it would appear a big percentage of UK GA flyers are, and the NPPL allows me to do what I want in flying. I dont have a problem with the them and us mentality of some of the PPL fraternity and as I have said the NPPL allows me to do what I want thats the bottom line.

John.

J.A.F.O.
3rd Dec 2005, 14:24
In my opinion the main reasons for low take-up of the NPPL are:

1 - Commercial aspirations - obviously of no use there

2 - Misunderstanding of the NPPL - plenty of evidence of that

I have an NPPL, I've also had a PPL(A) - old-fashioned CAA type - my reason for taking up the NPPL was not medical it was the fact that it allowed me to do all I wanted to do with the least possible hassle. I've not changed my mind, yet.

Rod1
3rd Dec 2005, 15:16
Permit aircraft offering much cheaper flying than certified aircraft, but you can fly both on a PPL, and get much better privileges.

The PFA permit to fly is restricted to daytime VFR in the UK. In practice agreements have been reached to give access to most of Europe without having to get specific permission.

The NPPL is restricted to daytime VFR in the UK. There is the possibility of a similar European RPPL, which will remove the restriction on UK only and replace it with Europe only.

So there are no “big advantages” to flying a PFA type on a full PPL over an NPPL.

Rod1

IO540
3rd Dec 2005, 15:26
There is the possibility of a similar European RPPL, which will remove the restriction on UK only and replace it with Europe only.

There is the "possibility" of all sorts of things, but it takes years to get pan-european agreements.

I am still looking for a straight summary of the savings on the ongoing costs of keeping the NPPL versus the ongoing costs of keeping a PPL. Assuming a similar aircraft and thus the need for similar currency.

S205-18F
3rd Dec 2005, 15:47
The currency issue is you only require 6 hours ayear for NPPL and the license is for life similar to your car license making it cheaper to keep it current.

Say again s l o w l y
3rd Dec 2005, 19:09
Hi John!

One thing about the 6 hours a year for the NPPL, is that it is no less over 2 years than a 'normal' PPL. Since you need to do 12.

So there is really no saving if you are only going to fly the absolute minimum hours, and let's face it, if you are only flying the bare minimum, you are hardly going to be a complete genius in the air anyway!

The more you fly, generally the better and safer you become.

S205-18F
3rd Dec 2005, 20:14
I agree that to fly only the minimum is not very good but if circumstances change and you cant afford to fly it makes it a little easier! That said I intend to fly alot more and so far in the past 20 months I have flown 80 plus hours. I plan to hit the 100 within 24 months if this infernal weather will let me!!!

John.

DFC
3rd Dec 2005, 21:56
I have to agree totally with what IO540 says. The only people I would recomend to get an NPPL are those that can't pass the JAA medical.

If one wants to remove the UK only limitation from an NPPL then start flying Microlights - some cruise at 140Kt these days and that is a nice speed to take someone across to France!

Everyone who thinks that the NPPL hours are automatically accepted for the JAA-PPL are correct - for the time being. There are moves to have NPPL instructors. When this happens, there will not be the automatic transfer of hours unless the instructor used was a JAA qualified instructor and the JAA sylabus was followed and the training establishment was registered for JAA trainig.

The training hours for the NPPL are less than the PPL - they simply got the PPL sylabus and reduced many of the lessons from 1 hour to 45 minutes. One still has to learn the same exercise so guess how long it is going to take you? - Yes you guessed it - 1hr 15min+

When the JARs arrived, the established UK schools claimed that JAR flying was far more expensive than CAA flying. Thus they hiked up their prices. Of course European and US flying prices remained the same post JAR and the UK schools needed a way of backtracking on price while at the same time saving face.

The result they came up with was the NPPL - they got to advertise lower prices while still charging the inflated prices.

Regards,

DFC

J.A.F.O.
3rd Dec 2005, 22:43
Why can't people see that it's just horses for courses. Come on, anyone who is able to get a licence - of whichever type - is capable of weighing up the pros and cons and deciding what's best for them.

If you don't actually want any privileges beyond the NPPL then why not choose that?

If you want something more, then don't.

It ain't difficult.

IO540
4th Dec 2005, 07:56
JAFO

The problem is that you are wrong.

Most people entering flight training haven't got a clue as to the details of privileges etc. I certainly didn't, and I am not completely stupid. There is zero commercial incentive on the part of a training establishment to make what one might call a full disclosure.

The GA training industry also contains far more than its fair share of less than straight people.

If every punter who walks through the door was sat down and asked when sort of flying (if indeed they know at that stage) they want to do, and had the full costs presented at that stage, and was informed as so the available aircraft options, a lot of them would walk straight out.

In reality, a lot of people get a PPL and then they start learning. Not so much (as the saying goes) using their license to learn to fly, but learning how to get their hands on a plane which isn't falling to bits, etc. I started looking for a share to buy very early after starting flight training, because it was really really obvious that would be the only way to continue flying at that particular airport. But instructors did their best to discourage me.

So I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing this.

J.A.F.O.
4th Dec 2005, 09:47
Why can't people see that it's just horses for courses.
The problem is that you are wrong.

No further questions, your honour.

S205-18F
4th Dec 2005, 10:21
I have to disagree as to the type and cost of training! The NPPL course is the same as the JAR PPL up to the point of instrument flying where in the NPPL it is instrument appreciation and consists of 1 hour also we get to do a shorter XC qualifier 120nm as opposed to 150nm and we also get to do the GFT in 2 parts, which I thought would be easier till it was pointed out that it meant I had to repeat all the ground work planning walk round etc.I supose this made the chance of errors and hence failure a little bit greater. As was pointed out it is horses for courses and so far I am still happy with my choice.
As a foot note IO540 I was fully aware of the differences in privileges before I went to speak to the flying school!

Rod1
4th Dec 2005, 11:02
The main difference between the NPPL syllabus and the current “full” PPL one is the radio nav has been taken out. Those of us with CAA PPL (A) licences did not do this anyway.

IO540 is quite right when he says things take years. The PFA aspiration for the NPPL was to have a grass roots recreational licence. Training would take place on permit aircraft (in place now) using the existing PFA coaching scheme, on a non-commercial basis, from unlicensed, but “approved” strips. The theory exams would be changed to reflect the “recreational” nature of the licence. In essence, you would have non-professional enthusiasts, teaching other enthusiasts; in much the same way as the inspector system works for building a permit aircraft, or the BGA train pilots now. Work is still continuing on several aspects of the above, but progress is slow. The “full” PPL would stay for those of us who want to go the professional route or fly aircraft >2000kg.

EASA is actively investigating an RPPL, which is currently based on our NPPL. This will obviously have an impact on the original PFA view and I am not up to date on this aspect. The original idea, if fully implemented, would have slashed the cost of a recreational licence and vastly increased the number of pilots.

I do take issue with the “most pilots do not know if they want to fly commercially or not”. Obviously there are exceptions, but I think most people who start flying for fun, stay flying for fun. Such people are probably too far down their chosen career path to want to start over. I started off building control line models at 11 years old, but I never aspired to professional aviation and will ditch my current “full” PPL for an NPPL if the UK only restriction is lifted.

Rod1

porridge
4th Dec 2005, 12:13
I seem to recall that the NPPL take up was mainly due to medicals - either that someone could no longer get a class 3 or couldn't get a class 2.
In my experience people are not saving much on the hours as they end up doing pretty much the same as everone doing the straight PPL anyway.
The one big advantage is that the NPPL training can be done from airfields that would normally not be approved for ab initio PPL training - e.g, BGA approved sites, reducing the costs for operating there by not having to have fire cover. Of course there is the opportunity to upgrade to a PPL out of the NPPL relatively simply as long as one can get the Class 2.
Why we cannot have the class 3 back beats me - the FAA has thousands and thousands of pilots with class 3's and they can fly IR, instruct and do many other types of flying with only a class 3 safely!

IO540
4th Dec 2005, 17:32
How long since there was a CAA Class 3?

An FAA CFI or CFII cannot instruct with a FAA Class 3 medical if the flight requires him to be PIC.

This may seem odd because an instructor in a G-reg is automatically PIC even if the PUT would be legal on the flight if flying solo, but the FAA quite reasonably allows it, and with U.S. Class A starting at 18000ft it is quite feasible to do the FAA IR 250nm x/c flight under ATS direction without going into Class A. Whereas any such training in Europe (esp. in the UK) makes Class A practically unavoidable so the CFII needs a Class 1 or 2 medical.

porridge
5th Dec 2005, 20:36
I have a Class 3 FAA and I instruct at a Part 141 school. In fact a FAA Inspector told me never to get a medical of a class higher than you needed. A FAA CFI doesn't even need a medical to instruct as long as the student has one and is qualified on the aircraft. Nonetheless one can instruct ab initio with a class 3. Trust me I know! Oh yes and one can be a Pilot Examiner too with a Class 3.

speke2me
10th Dec 2005, 18:39
I think, as somebody posted, it is a 'horses for courses' thing.

I'm learning to fly at the moment, and I've elected for the JAR course.

I only intend to be recreational, 'too far down current career' to make ATPL an economic proposal.

My reasons for JAR is that I may want to fly abroad. Would love eg, to be able to hire, say, in Mallorca, and do a return trip down the Spanish coast as far as Gibraltar (refuelling stops appreciated!).

But that's just what I feel I may one day want to do. For the people who just want to fly in UK - good luck to you. That's what you want to do - what's the problem?

I can also appreciate the medical aspect. Better to fly in the UK on the lower NPPL requirement than not fly at all.

Financially, not much difference to me. Only 5 hrs more for JAR - and that's only if you qualify in the minimum time - so, no real difference. And you get some radio-nav training (JAR-PPL) thrown in on the deal.

An RPPL, as mentioned, would probably do for Europe. But will it allow addition of IMC and night ratings? Does the NPPL?

Better for me I think to do JAR PPL, then IMC and Night, and then Europe might one day recognise the IMC/Night as being valid throughout Europe. Maybe pigs will fly, but surely the same Euro pigs will have to take off before the NPPL becomes a RPPL?

Now, Euro recognition of IMC/Night would impart REAL freedom to a JAR PPL to fly to/from/within Europe on a private licence IMHO.

Just my thoughts :D

IO540
10th Dec 2005, 22:27
There is close to zero chance of Europe recognising the UK IMC Rating.

There is some work on reducing the theory content of the JAA IR for PPL candidates (being done because nearly all private IR pilots are going the FAA route) but even that is dragging along very slowly.

However, if you have plenty of time on your hands, and can otherwise navigate fully IFR, you can get around Europe well enough under VFR rules.

Go Smoke
12th Dec 2005, 13:41
I got an NPPL a couple of years ago.
It was perfect for what I required.
Couldn't afford to do a PPL.
I'm an experienced glider pilot and instructor and my qualifications and hours counted towards reducing the number of hours required to obtaining the NPPL.
I had to fly ten hours to do it!
I happen to be a pilot with apptitude, awareness and ability and it was a breeze and all well within budget.
I now have a share in a smashing RF4 and couldn't be happier.
Cheap flying and aerobatics as well.
For some situations it's the perfect solution.

terryJones
15th Dec 2005, 20:16
My question re this 'difference' PPL/NPPL is the 140 knots limit. I can understand the IMC/VFR difference, but I fail to see why a NPPL pilot should be considered 'unfit' to fly above 140 kts. Perhaps someone could give a rational explanation for this, apart from the blanket statement 'That's what the CAA say'
This may be ok for the C152 types, but a lot of home built machines are faster than this. The Cozy for example is quite capable of almost 200!

BEagle
15th Dec 2005, 21:14
You may fly an aeroplane with a speed greater than 140 KIAS on a NPPL SSEA Class Rating if you receive 'differences training' with an instructor. A PFA CRI will be fine.

Whirlybird
15th Dec 2005, 21:28
If I ever stop helicopter flying and instructing, I'll go for the NPPL for my fixed wing flying. Why not? It'll save me a fortune on medicals, since I'd need a Class 2 every year. As for the great advantages of flying on the continent, this is only practical if you live in the south and/or have a very fast aircraft. From anywhere north of Birmingham, it's a long trip. I've flown to France, and to Ireland, and I might go again. But it's a once a year holiday/major expedition, and it would hardly be a big deal if I couldn't go. There's the Highlands and Islands, the Orkneys and Shetlands, Cornwall and the Scillies, and loads of other places in the UK. If I get fed up with that, I could do a tailwheel conversion, or learn to fly gliders or microlights or gyroplanes. Or take up aerobatics, if I could stop getting so sick if turned upsidedown. Or just bore holes in the sky on a local flight on a lovely day, without the need for a huge challenge...as I did last Monday.

So, you see, for some of us there would be a lifetime of aerial things to do with "only" an NPPL. But for others, that wouldn't be enough, it seems. We're all different. But how on earth can you argue about this, when it's down to personal preferences? However, don't let me stop you. :)

IO540
16th Dec 2005, 17:36
I'd say that the difference between an IAS (not TAS, I believe) of 140kt, and the speed of just about anything with pistons in it as seen by ATC radar and allowing for less than well known winds aloft, is not a problem :O

Or is it the max published cruise speed of the aircraft that's limited?