UK NPPL to France

[bern444]

Has anyone managed to do this (legally) ? A Dutch pilot in another thread suggests that pilots with their local equivalent just contact the relevant authority - the DGAC in this case.

I switched to the NPPL a couple of years ago to save money on yearly medicals, and though lunch in Le Touquet isn't terribly important to my lifestyle, stupid bureaucracy has always angered me. I suppose if I wait a while my licence will suddenly turn into a European recreational licence and I'll magically be transformed into a cross channel pilot again....

Bernie

[Put1992]

Well, I thought it was a clear restriction of the NPPL, so if you decide to take the NPPL, then you have to do so, knowing of the restrictions.

out of interest, is it possible to "upgrade" to a full PPL?

[bern444]

Yes, the upgrade is possible - I think LASORS has the requirements.

[tangovictor]

simple answer use a 3 axis microlight, with nppl m, you can then fly to most European countries

[bern444]

Yes, I know that. And if I use a TeamEurostar I can register it as a microlight and go anywhere in Europe with an NPPL M, or I can register it as a VLA and only go around the UK with an NPPL SEP. Exactly the same aircraft, and exactly the same me.

As I said, bureaucratic stupidity angers me. I assume from the lack of positive replies that no-one has actually done this by asking the DGAC.

[Rod1]

“As I said, bureaucratic stupidity angers me. I assume from the lack of positive replies that no-one has actually done this by asking the DGAC.”

I think this has been done. I have read several posts on various BBs, and I have bumped into people at fly ins who say they had done it, but as I have a CAA PPL I did not take too much notice. Why not just apply and see what happens, you have nothing to loose. The Micro license did have the same restriction but it got removed because the authorities were being inundated with requests and they won the right to fly.

The new European NPPL (based on our NPPL) is expected to come in next year and will give you the right to fly in Europe anyway.

The weight increase on a Eurostar VLA over a micro is very worthwhile, you could even paint it:)

Rod1

[Mark 1]

It most definitely has been done.

I know of one person who gained all the permissions to get from the north of Scotland to Portugal in a homebuilt with a NPPL, so that meant permissions for both aeroplane and pilot.

Unfortunately he only made it as far as France due to weather delays, but not for lack of the neccesary permissions.

[trevs99uk]

A friend has a letter from the DGAC which states basically that its the same as a NPPL(M)...

trevor

[moggiee]

stupid bureaucracy has always angered me.
Well, given that you CHOSE an NPPL to save money, you're hardly in a position to complain!

Also, remember what the "N" stands for - it's a "National" licence so it's bound to come with restrictions.

Any mutual recognition is a bonus.

[Rod1]

“stupid bureaucracy has always angered me.”


“Well, given that you CHOSE an NPPL to save money, you're hardly in a position to complain!”

I think that is a bit harsh. EASA are busy copying the NPPL as a better option than the existing PPL and seem to agree that the existing license is too OTT. Very soon we will get a low cost, Europe wide license for recreational flyers, hopefully with training on permit aircraft from unlicensed strips. Not good news if you run a flying school, but it will save people money and get more pilots into the air.

Rod1

[S-Works]

Which as well and good but I believe (cynically?) that it is an attempt to create a 2 tier system of licensing in order to keep us out of the way of the airlines. Part of me thinks that this will end up being bad for us.

[bern444]

Well, given that you CHOSE an NPPL to save money, you're hardly in a position to complain!

Any mutual recognition is a bonus.

Of course it is - I'm not stupid, and I knew all the goods and bads before I switched. Nevertheless - I get in a PA28 or an AT3 and fly wherever I want in the UK, but apparently turn into a pumpkin as soon as I cross the channel. And I did rather think that some enterprising person would have sorted this before me, which is why I asked. I had the feeling that the French wouldn't give a stuff whether it was an NPPL(M) or an NPPL(SEP), and it looks like it might be true. I'm quite happy to do research, but there's no point re-inventing the wheel.

A friend has a letter from the DGAC which states basically that its the same as a NPPL(M)...


What's the chance of a look at that letter?

B

[DFC]

Don't forget to get permission from the UK Authorities also. Many seem to overlook that requirement.

A failure to do so would be a lovely get out clause for the insurance company.

Regards,

DFC

[skydriller]

Which as well and good but I believe (cynically?) that it is an attempt to create a 2 tier system of licensing in order to keep us out of the way of the airlines. Part of me thinks that this will end up being bad for us.

I think Bose will be proven correct on this. Oh for the "equal access for all" attitude in the USA...

[homeguard]

The chap leading the CAA negotiations within EASA gave a presentation to the GAPAN/CFS seminar some weeks ago. He appeared gob smacked to be told that a great many private pilots used their private privileges seriously as a means of transport, throughout Europe, often on business. He was sent away with a flea in his ear.

DFC

Why should an NPPL ask the CAA if they can fly in France. If the french say yes then all power to the elbow. The CAA would be chuffed to bits, I should think. Their baby will have been recognised at long last.

[effortless]

Well, given that you CHOSE an NPPL to save money, you're hardly in a position to complain!

A bit unfair, there is quite a cohort of NPPLs who had no option. When you get older and your class 2 is harder to maintain, you may well be faced with a similar choice.

[DFC]

DFC

Why should an NPPL ask the CAA if they can fly in France. If the french say yes then all power to the elbow. The CAA would be chuffed to bits, I should think. Their baby will have been recognised at long last.

Look up the privileges of the NPPL in Schedule 8 of the ANO.

Note the bit about flying outside the UK.

Note also that the UK only extends to 3nm from the coast.

When you are 4nm south of St. Cathren's point heading for France you are outside the UK, not in French airspace and need permisison from the authority whose airspace you are in.

I am sure that it would be given without any problem but the laqck of such a permission could be used by an insurance company to avoid paying out.

Many pilots wrongly assume that ratings limited to the UK can be automatically used up to the FIR boundary. Unfortunately that is not the case when the FIR boundary is more than 3nm from the coast.

Regards,

DFC

[moggiee]

A bit unfair, there is quite a cohort of NPPLs who had no option. When you get older and your class 2 is harder to maintain, you may well be faced with a similar choice.
In a case where the holder is constrained by circumstance then they can moan! If it's an economic choice, then they have no case to answer.

Similar to my choice to save money on my car insurance by choosing TPFT - if I break a windscreen, I can't complain about not having a free replacement (as I would have done with comprehensive cover).

[bern444]

In a case where the holder is constrained by circumstance then they can moan! If it's an economic choice, then they have no case to answer.



Since it's me we're talking about here, I'd just like to say that it was easier to do the money part of the reason for changing, rather that the gall stone operation, the blood pressure problems, the age - 60 - so medicals every year, etc. There's always someone on forums who like to make glib comments, usually because they are loud mouthed and don't know the answer to the question.

I shall email the DGAC and see what they say - provided I can work out how to say what I want to say in French - and if I get a positive result, I shall put it to the CAA. And if people aren't nasty to me, I'll post it here.

B

[robinmincik]

Copy email ref flying to France on an NPPL, try and get a reply giving you blanket cover

Bonjour,
Afin de pouvoir vous répondre correctement, pourriez-vous m'adresser la
copie de vos licences.
Merci pour votre collaboration.

Yvette THOMASSET
DAC/N/D2AL
ORLY SUD 108
94396 ORLY AEROGARE CEDEX
Tél : 01 69 57 74 68/ Fax : 01 69 57 74 71
Mèl : [email protected]

[bern444]

Wow - thanks for that very terse post.

Can I assume that this lady is the correct person to ask, and that if I email her with a scan of my licences, she will maybe let me in?

Thanks for the reply

B

[robinmincik]

Yvette is the right person to contact, although on last contact she implied that they think the European LPPL is imminent, so may advise you to wait.

[bern444]

Thanks again, you've saved me much effort. I'll give it a try and see what happens.

[mixture]

a couple of years ago to save money on yearly medicals

I don't see where .....

stupid bureaucracy has always angered me

comes into it.

Surely "a couple of years ago", you must have done your homework and found out about the limitations of an NPPL.

If you don't like the limitations of the NPPL, then the PPL remains available, and the "stupid bureaucracy" of not being able to fly abroad suddenly disappears.

Sorry, but I don't see why you should have the best of both worlds. The CAA introduced the NPPL to enable people like you to save a bit of cash here and there, and in return I think it's only fair that the license should have the restrictions it does. Otherwise keeping the PPL license scheme running would be pointless, because everyone would just get an NPPL to save a bit of cash.

[bern444]

Sorry, but I don't see why you should have the best of both worlds. The CAA introduced the NPPL to enable people like you to save a bit of cash here and there, and in return I think it's only fair that the license should have the restrictions it does. Otherwise keeping the PPL license scheme running would be pointless, because everyone would just get an NPPL to save a bit of cash.

What a strange way of looking at life. The only point of any regulation is safety - all else is just lining the pockets of bureaucrats. If you employ people to make rules - and I'm strongly in favour of good rules - they tend to make some rules, then, in a fairly stable world like aviation, they have nothing to do when they turn up at work each day. So in order to avoid being laid off, they make more rules. That's it - that's the way life works.

So, some sensible people saved a few of us from a bad regulation - or did they just get annoyed that someone else made a regulation that they weren't in control of? Either way, there's a NPPL, and they have them in other countries in the EU for the same reason - the JAA licence is over-regulation for the average private pilot. And surprise - EASA appears to agree, so there's almost certainly going to be a Europe-wide version of the NPPL very soon, and everyone who doesn't want to be a 747 captain will be able to have an NPPL, just to save a bit of cash. Hooray.

B

[DFC]

Sorry, but I don't see why you should have the best of both worlds. The CAA introduced the NPPL to enable people like you to save a bit of cash here and there, and in return I think it's only fair that the license should have the restrictions it does. Otherwise keeping the PPL license scheme running would be pointless, because everyone would just get an NPPL to save a bit of cash.

Flying outside the UK on an NPPL is not having the best of both worlds.

The NPPL does not have a limitation prohibiting flight outside the UK - the limitation is that permission must be obtained before flying in any airspace outside the UK.

The ICAO PPL does not have that requirement.

Please explain why microlight pilots should not be allowed to fly outside the UK if they obtain the required permissions / exemptions?

Regards,

DFC

[mixture]

The NPPL does not have a limitation prohibiting flight outside the UK - the limitation is that permission must be obtained before flying in any airspace outside the UK.

Indeed, hasty post, should have double checked .... :ouch:

The ICAO PPL does not have that requirement.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make .... either you save money, knowing full well that you're getting a restricted license, or you pay the difference in training costs and get an ICAO recognised JAA PPL.

Please explain why microlight pilots should not be allowed to fly outside the UK if they obtain the required permissions / exemptions?

I don't know enough about microlights to comment, however a quick perusal of the ANO would suggest you are mistaken re NPPL microlighters :

"he shall not fly :
(a) such a SSEA or a microlight aeroplane outside the United Kingdom except with the permission of the competent authority for the airspace in whch he flies"

If you're mad enough to want to cross the channel (or an other expanse of water) in your microlight, then good luck to you ....but if you take it accross the by other means, then it looks like there's not much stopping you except the slight planning required to write a nice letter to the local authorities prior to setting out, which in the scheme of planning for an average international flight, should not be much of a problem I would think... :cool:

[DFC]

mixture,

You missed my point.

The NPPL is a licence.

That licence has various restrictions placed on it.

Various ratings can be included in that licence of which 1 is SSEA.

Many pilots obtain their NNPL on an aircraft other than an SSEA and have no intention of flying an SSEA.

Should they have the option of staying in the UK or getting a JAA PPL in a C172 (which they don't want to fly)?

The territorial restriction on the licence simply provides for the fact that the licence is sub-ICAO and before flying outside the UK, the authorities of the airspace within which the pilot will fly must have the option of not permitting such flight.

Want to ensure that they can't say no then get an ICAO PPL and fly an aircraft with a C of A etc.

Willing to risk being restricted to the UK - then NPPL and non-certified aircraft.

If you want to argue the money side then it is comensation for the risk of being kept in the UK rather than actually being kept there.

Regards,

DFC

[mixture]

DFC,

Not entirely sure I know what you're trying to get at ?

My original question still stands :

If you want an NPPL holder to have the same rights as a JAA PPL holder, then what's the point of running the two tier system ?

AFAIK, the CAA introduced the NPPL for the average "weekend flyer" ... man/woman who wants to fly themselves and perhaps a couple of friends around the UK for pleasure. The CAA looked at the JAA PPL syllabus and said, "fine, we'll make it easier for you to get a license".

However to reduce the licensing cost, they've taken a scalpel to a few bits of the syllabus and introduced a few, very reasonable, restrictions.

I still don't see what the problem is !

And to the person who said the JAA PPL is over-regulated, I don't see where ?! Over-regulation comes with the commercial stuff .... :rolleyes:

[homeguard]

The NPPL came about because the CAA cocked it up in rushing into the JAA scheme of things without much thought to GA and private flying.

Having persuaded the Dept. of Transport to rewrite the ANO to comply with the JAA thing, they found themselves in a bit of a pickle. Just about all differences between NPPL and JAA PPL are phoney, deliberately designed to appear to be different. The NPPL was the CAA way of getting themselves off the hook by asking for yet another rewrite of the ANO. The most sensible thing of course is the NPPL medical which makes much more sense for the private pilot than a JAA medical without history, done by a stranger to you. Some value I believe will come from this innovation.

It is not surprising that the EASA committees are struggling to come up with a new name for the Private Pilot Licence. 'Leisure' pilot, 'Recreational' pilot and maybe yet another name is being concocted as we write, in fact we know it is!. It is all such nonsense and it is no wonder that the pragmatic french have no problem approving an NPPL to fly into France. Liberte', Egalite' et Fraternite', we could do with some that over here rather than resorting to the attacking of NPPLs as being cheapskates.

[DFC]

DFC,

Not entirely sure I know what you're trying to get at ?

My original question still stands :

If you want an NPPL holder to have the same rights as a JAA PPL holder, then what's the point of running the two tier system ?



Microlights are outside the JAA system

The NPPL is the only way for a microlight pilot to fly (unless they are round since before the UK stopped issuing national PPLs).

IS your complaint that NPPLs are not restricted to the UK or that the SSEA rating is available for the NPPL?

Perhaps you want a 3 tier system

JAA PPL

NPPL - microlights, SLMG - can ask for permission to fly outside the UK

xPPL - SSEA restricted to UK

Regards,

DFC

[bern444]

If you're mad enough to want to cross the channel (or an other expanse of water) in your microlight, then good luck to you ....

A holder of an NPPL(M) in a microlight can fly across the channel without special permission as there's a blanket agreement for microlights, but an NPPL(SEP) can't.

So take one TeamEurostar and register it as a microlight and get an NPPL(M) and you can go where you like. Buy the same TeamEurostar, register it as Class A and get an NPPL(SEP) and you can only fly in the UK. That is what I called further back up this thread "stupid bureauocracy". Just writing down annoys me. Roll on some common sense......

B

[Rans Flyer]

I've got an NPPL and my Jabiru was registered as an SP-450 (A - License).
I want to fly to France, so it's be re-registered as a microlight.
No change to the plane, same weight limits etc.
The only difference is that I can now fly to France and my landing fees have halved ;)

ex Rans Flyer.
www.FlightForLife.co.uk

[mixture]

It is not surprising that the EASA committees are struggling to come up with a new name for the Private Pilot Licence

It's not just all in the name !

The PPL is 45 hours, the NPPL is 32 hours ..... do you honestly think people on the PPL course are throwing money down the drain for those extra 13 hours of flight time ?

There is a difference !

attacking of NPPLs as being cheapskates

Never said they were. I love flying, I'm all for more people learning to fly and catching the flying bug. I think it's a great thing that there is a cheaper option, but I don't see why NPPLs should expect the same rights and privileges as those who have invested the extra time and effort into a full PPL.

[moggiee]

we could do with some that over here rather than resorting to the attacking of NPPLs as being cheapskates.
It was the original poster who mentioned that he switched to an NPPL to save money.

I switched to the NPPL a couple of years ago to save money on yearly medicals,

My point (and the same point is made by others) is that if the financial considerations were all that mattered, then the trade off is the restriction of privileges compared to a full PPL. Life's like that - swings and roundabouts - and where an NPPL holder can save 13 hours training towards licence issue and have lower recurrent costs, they have to accept that there are restrictions.

This is not attacking NPPL holders, especially as they knew the situation when they got into it. I'm not saying that they rules make sense, but those are the rules and no-one should be surprised that they find themselves restricted by their NPPL.

It's similar to getting an "automatic only" car licence - it takes less training, saves money and gives you an easier test. However, you can't drive a manual car until you pass a full test.

I have sympathy for someone who, for medical reasons, is unable to obtain a full PPL, although it could be argued that if it wasn't for the NPPL they would have nothing.

[homeguard]

Explain the difference in the flight training for a NPPL and a JAA/EASA licence, that matters.

The mandatory training for the JAA is 35 hours, the other ten hours can be anything and include the Skill Test. The NPPL is 32 hours but dosn't include Radio Navigation, so what, Rad. Nav. wasn't required prior to JAA.

Other than a cursary look at Radio Nav, the sum of the tests JAA v NPPL are exactly the same. The written exams are exactly the same. The QXC is a tad longer for the JAA candidate but an extra few minutes enroute matters little. The NPPL is required only to have 4 hours solo nav (same as the old UK) but does the JAA extra hour total up, to mean much. The dual nav required is exactly the same for both JAA and NPPL.

By the way, why don't either of you consider yourself free men in a free country? Restrictions shouldn't be automatic based on the price you pay. A first class or second class seat. The idea might work for an airline or train journey to grab a few bob but should the same principles be applied to your freedom to hold a pilots licence. If you pass the same tests then you should have the same freedoms whatever the cost.

[mixture]

It's similar to getting an "automatic only" car licence - it takes less training, saves money and gives you an easier test. However, you can't drive a manual car until you pass a full test.

What an excellent comparison !!!!! :D


I have sympathy for someone who, for medical reasons, is unable to obtain a full PPL, although it could be argued that if it wasn't for the NPPL they would have nothing.

Indeed. I too have sympathy for those unable to get a class 2. But at the same time, I would argue that we should be careful in relaxing the medical requirements too much, afterall, it's not like you can stop by the side of the road if you're feeling a little ill.

[mixture]

Explain the difference in the flight training for a NPPL and a JAA/EASA licence, that matters.

I believe (don't quote me) .....

Less instrument time
Less cross-country navex time
Shorter qualifying cross country.

Probably more, but I don't have the time to look it up at the moment, it's unlikely that the 13 hours is just padding !

Restrictions shouldn't be automatic based on the price you pay. A first class or second class seat. The idea might work for an airline or train journey to grab a few bob but should the same principles be applied to your freedom to hold a pilots licence.

Going by this argument, you would probably say ... "I've learnt to fly, I've got a PPL, I can call myself a pilot .... so let me fly this Boeing and have the same rights and privileges as someone who spent a lot of money on CPL/IR/ME".

[homeguard]

Mixture

I won't qoute you I promise. I teach both NPPL and JAA and i've been a Flight Examiner for 20 years. You appear to be making assumptions but are not asking questions while you admit you do not know.

The instrument training is the same for both JAA and NPPL. I explained the nav differences in my previous post. With the exeption of Radio Nav all other training is exactly the same. The same standards are met on test including the writtens.

The automatic v manual has no bearing at all and is a poor example. As already explained to you there are no material differences in the requirements of both.

The DVLA medical requirements are just as stringent as the JAA with regard to many deseases such as Epilepsy, Diabetes, etc and of course the many heart conditions. However even on all of those the NPPL's own Doctor is able to make a real assessment from the knowledge of the patients full medical records. The JAA medical standards are a rigid set of rules and you fall on the good side or the bad. When will the doctor produce the highest level of safety? Is it during normal surgery hours assessing a NPPL applicant (his patient) with reference to the full medical records or when he is an AME later that evening doing a JAA medical on a stranger without any records at all.

[S205-18F]

I must say that although the hours are less I dont know anyone who has completed the NPPL in the minimum 32 hours!! Granted that the instrument training and the Xcountry requirement is less, I did a Xcountry well in excess of the required even for the PPl and did a lot more instrument training so I dont think that can be an issue!
Now the point is that if you chose an NPPL then you know the restrictions and you must live with them! I for one cant see the point in going for a PPL as I can do all I want with the NPPL!

[moggiee]

I must say that although the hours are less I don't know anyone who has completed the NPPL in the minimum 32 hours!!
In which case, they may as well have gone for the JAA version (after all Homeguard tells us that the testing and training is the same, despite having 13 hours less experience).

I for one cant see the point in going for a PPL as I can do all I want with the NPPL! Well, if your first point holds water, then you may as well have gone for the JAA version and not missed out on privileges.

For Homeguard, I do not regard myself as "restricted automatically" just aware that experience counts for a lot. The JAA PPL asks for an extra 13 hours but in exchange gives a greater range of privileges based on the extra experience gained.

An extra 13 hours adds just over 40% extra experience - and in my book that is a hell of a lot more potential to learn airmanship skills which are invaluable. If you don't believe that experience matters, think on why pilots are required to hours build before starting a CPL.

[mixture]

Homeguard,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm afraid I'm with moggiee on this one, even if you happen to be correct that the 13 hours is nothing but experience time (which I seriously doubt !), those 13 hours are highly valuable to a rookie pilot and it's therefore only fair that the extra privileges available to a JAA PPL holder are only available to those who have gained the extra experience.

[Maoraigh1]

Most of the NPPLs I know are experienced PPLs, who chose to downgrade their medical, on cost grounds.

[bern444]

Most of the NPPLs I know are experienced PPLs, who chose to downgrade their medical, on cost grounds.


I'm one of those - mostly, apart from a few minor problems, now past, and I'm also the original poster.


An extra 13 hours adds just over 40% extra experience - and in my book that is a hell of a lot more potential to learn airmanship skills which are invaluable.

There's no substitute for experience, no-one can deny that - so I'd like to propose a new licence type for new PPLs, called the Super-JAA. You need 70 hours total, with 15 solo and a Class A medical. That sounds good, and gets in lots of useful extra hours before you can go off on your own.

Any takers?

I thought not.

Yes, extra hours are good experience, but where do you stop on safety issues? Should we all fly in cotton wool balls? Someone out there decided that 32 hours was a good enough minimum, though I rather expect that most do a few more. There should be enough statistics in now to see whether the lower number of hours kills people or not.

And at the end of the course, what are the difference in priviledges? As a fair weather PPL myself, the only lack I've felt is not automatically being able to fly abroad, which was where I started this thread. I didn't do very much in the way of trips abroad when I had the UK PPL anyway (which actually I still have, though lapsed) so it wasn't a big deal not being able to go, just stupid bureaucracy. In return, my NPPL means no yearly medical, and no silly "twelve hours in the second of two years" (who on earth thought that one up?). I didn't know that the NPPL course doesn't have radio nav. Neither did my UK PPL course.

B

[homeguard]

M & M

I doubt whether the JAA candidate does finish with more experience than the NPPL applicant. What I don't think you understand is that the NPPL requires 22 hours dual plus 10 hours solo totaling 32 hours. The JAA/UK requires 25 hours dual plus 10 hours solo totaling 35 hours. A difference in training of just 3 hours.

But the JAA pilot must have done sufficient Radio Navigation training to pass the Skill Test (no minimum hours set) and have done 1 hour longer flying solo navigation and that is the only difference in hours. The rest of the training and syllabus element minima is exactly the same!

However the JAA PPL applicant must have a minimum of 45 hours experience as a pilot of aeroplanes. If they can't claim credits from other types of flying then the extra ten hours is usually taken up by the pre-solo time bashing the circuit, revising weak points and Skill Test preparation, which is just the same for the NPPL. I always recommend that our NPPL students do the same QXC (a few extra minutes) as the JAA PPL student which makes any later upgrade simpler and cheaper.

Unless the new student is not able to meet the JAA medical requirements I do stress to them from the onset that they might as well go the whole hog and gain the JAA PPL first, perhaps change to NPPL later.

The majority of NPPL holders have migrated from Microlites, SLMG and gliders because the NPPL offers considerable exemptions to them. Many will already be UK/PPL holders. In all these cases they will already be very experienced pilots and many will be qualified flying instructors.

You both sound like you weren't around at the birth of the NPPL and perhaps remain unaware of the angry debates surrounding the onset of JAA and therefore the true purpose of the NPPL. The advantages with regard to costs are different from what you both appear to understand.

[mixture]

You both sound like you weren't around at the birth of the NPPL

Nah, probably just too busy enjoying the privileges bestowed on us as ICAO/JAA holders :p

I'm not going to try to extend the debate any further, unless moggiee tempts me ... :cool:.....All the best, and happy flying ...

[moggiee]

M & M.......
You both sound like you weren't around at the birth of the NPPL and perhaps remain unaware of the angry debates surrounding the onset of JAA and therefore the true purpose of the NPPL. The advantages with regard to costs are different from what you both appear to understand.
I've been a professional pilot for a quarter of a century, an instructor for nearly two decades and was quite definitely there at the birth of the JAA. I am currently instructing at an FTO that covers all flying training from trial lessons, through PPL, CPL, IR and MCC as well as FIC.

That, good sir, is the risk you take when you assume and patronise.

The fact that I disagree with you (and I'm not alone here) does not make me wrong - just of a different opinion. In my opinion, mountains are being made from one smallish mole hill in complaining about the restrictions on the NPPL.

To discount the value of the extra 13 hours is to miss the point that when you are at the bottom end of the experience curve then ANY extra experience is disproportionately valuable. After all, if experience doesn't matter, why does the CPL set a minimum experience level before a student may commence CPL training?

The JAA PPL is both a licence in it's own right (for those who only want to go that far) and a stepping stone to additional ratings and a CPL (for those who want to make a career from aviation). It sets higher experience requirements because, in all honesty, that extra experience is essential when moving forward to those additional ratings.

If, as is claimed, few NPPLs get by with the minimum hours then choosing an NPPL over a JAA PPL in order to save a few quid is an error of judgement. If it's going to take them 40+ hours then they may as well go for the JAA version and avoid being restricted. You also then may add an IMC, Night or even instrument rating. The extra experience gained from the JAA PPL is very useful when working towards those additional ratings.

No such ratings are available under the NPPL scheme - a fact which NPPL holders must accept as the trade off for holding the licence that they do.

30 hours of the NPPL training can be carried forward towards the JAA PPL, so an upgrade only incurs the loss of 2 hours training and should thus be a straightforward process. However, if the NPPL student takes more than 32 hours to achieve the required standard, then that surely makes the case for the value of the extra 13 hours in the JAA syllabus.

As I've said previously, my sympathies go to anyone who is limited to NPPL for medical reasons - but I suspect that if this is the case then they would have failed to pass the medical for the old UK CAA PPL, so the NPPL does them a favour. However, if you choose the NPPL for purely economic reasons then you quite literally get what you pay for.

[mixture]

moggiee .....

:D

You also then may add an IMC, Night or even instrument rating

And we all know how valuable IMC/IR is in the UK !

[S205-18F]

I have flown 8 different types and converted to tail dragger, constant speed prop over 200 hours in 3 years all on an NPPL I am not complaining. I am happy and enjoying my restricted??? privileges