NPPL - Just how are we supposed to teach this?

[FormationFlyer]

OK folks, this is what Ive just posted on the Private Flying forum....Im a little shocked at the NPPL syllabus and confused how on earth I can teach what they want taught in the minimal hours given...

www.aopa.co.uk - See news for NPPL syllabus...

Released 24 June 2002. In good time for organisations to view it then....:rolleyes:

The syllabus is um 'interesting' (if it were in the Comedy Store I would be laughing...put it that way). Lets see: S&L currently we spend 2 hrs teaching S&L over 2 lessons - one of the most important things you will ever learn...now they want exactly the same but over 1:00 instead...

um..pardon? How is that supposed to work then?

Now im just confused...can someone now post a link giving instructors a guide on how the hell we are supposed to teach the same amount in lower times....remember it takes 15-20 mins out of every lesson in taxying, TO & transiting to and from the training area.....so....they now want S&L1 & S&L2 both in about 40minutes.....yep sure I can show you once you may just about practice once but Ill have to hurry you to complete in that time....um...lets face it - that isnt workable...and certainly isnt in the students interest surely?

Other opinions...?

FF

[nonradio]

Steady! The hours breakdown is only a guide. All hours breakdowns are only guides (often from cloud cuckoo land it has to be said, and from days before crosswinds and RT) You are'nt required to teach it in those times and nothing will fall on you from a great height if you don't...
Actually, the syllabus of Airexs is fine IMHO
Carry on as normal and teach 'em to fly, but make it fun, right?

I'm not helping am I.....

[FormationFlyer]

hehehehehe....umm...no...LOL

You see if I just teach what I do now according to JAR it takes x time..according to NPPL it takes y....I know it actually takes a varying amount z depending on traffic, weather, student etc but to be honest x & z are quite close (albeit I can usually gain an hour or two by the end of the course...). The problem for me is that y seems to be not just x without the slack, but an aggressive reduction in time...

Follow that? :D

Now, the problem comes when both my CFI and *worse* the paying customer start asking me why we arent delivering in the timescales as expected...yeah yeah...I know 45 PPL - probably 50 hours, 32hr PPL - um...what 40hours? Thats gonna make them happy....oh well maybe im just overreacting but I cant quite see the breakdown of hours working and I cant really see NPPL coming in realistically anything less than 40-45 hrs anyway....

Given I am told the upgrade to a JAR PPL is 15 hours training (um...anyone got a syllabus for this upgrade training? ?) I cant see why anyone wouldnt just plump for the JAR PPL to start with and finish in 45-50 hours...

ho hum!

FF

[StrateandLevel]

Just teach them in the normal way, when they are good enough to pass the test put them in for it. Don't really see what hours has got to do with it; all hours are minimums, it takes what it takes!

Regarding the NPPL to JAA upgrade, as the test standard is exactly the same for both licences, spend 1 hour on radio nav and fly around in circles for the other 14.

You can take the JAA Skill Test at 35 hours, on completion of the training 25 + 10 hours; then send them off solo to 45 hours for licence issue.

[GT]

Formation Flyer, I agree with you, as I'm sure most do on this forum. As nonradio said, what AOPA have produced is merely a guide, as they have always done in the past for other licences/ratings, always at the minimum hours. It is up to us instructors/flying schools to give prospective NPPL students an honest and fair estimate of the actual flying hours likely to be required to achieve the NPPL, despite the 32 hours minimum being banded about the country without a word of any extra. If we don't, then the NPPL customer (and they are a customer) could have reason to question.

As I said in a reply to nonradio somewhere else (can't remember where) the main advantages of the NPPL seem actually to lie in the ancillary benefits. Such as, less stringent medical requirements, both in standard and frequency, licence for life etc. In the longer term, putting all the emphasis on the 32 hours minimum may manifest itself to be imprudent. Indeed, at a recent AOPA NPPL seminar at Sywell, that I attended, Martin Robinson stated (or at least it seemed to me that he stated) that the NPPL's biggest selling point was, in fact, the less stringent medical requirements.

Let's see how it goes. I mean, if we all coped with the arrival of JAR, then I'm sure we can manage this!

Regards, GT.

[drizzle]

.
FF.. Nicely said.

For AOPA to qoute a 32hrs requirement is a deception and a lie.

The simple fact is that very very few PPL students would even be ready at 40 hrs and as we know most require 50 - 65hrs.

This seems even more cock-eyed than JAA !!!!!

Let us have a competition to guess when the new system produces a well trained pilot in 32 hrs !!!! Next year...... 2004.....2008 ???????

[BEagle]

FF - your CFI will be unlikely to query your judgement. Remember, for the NPPL, if students are capable of achieving the result in the time suggested, then fine - they can. But if they can't, then they should not pass forward to the next lesson until they've grasped the essentials of the previous exercise.

The JAR-FCL syllabus I've produced is also a fairly optimistic suggestion, when I manage to find a day with only 25 hours in it, I'll be producing a similar syllabus for the NPPL. But core skills will not be sacrificed - there'll be a few less hours of navigation and no radio nav, otherwise there'll be little change.

..and I actually helped formulate AOPA's syllabus as a member of the NPPLSC having previously been a sceptic!

[juggernaut]

As a PPL examiner I am somewhat bemused by the lack of information on the NPPL, at the moment I am training PPL's to JAR PPL standard and am uncertain of certain aspects, the information is not in LASORS or the ANO, yes I know there is a website giving info but where is the official word explaining how the cross country requirements are met and the content of the new skill test .
Also where are the forms we require for application for this licence and where are the guidelines telling us how much GP's and examiners supposed to charge for their services?
Am I the only one in the dark? not much point asking those at CAA as no-one is answering the phones between 12 and 2 pm and the rest of the time it is permanently engaged, the result of the crazy 30th June deadline for UK licences. I sent in my own licence application weeks ago and have not heard a word, with 3 weeks to go until NPPL this is a pretty poor show in my opinion:o

[nonradio]

I think the point here is the syllabus and hours breakdown are two separate things. The hours breakdown is not beyond the realms of possibillity and is based on the military experience of yesteryear - fit young men, entusiastic, eating living breathing flying 24 hrs a day, pre selected for aptitude! That and a system that required folk to reach certain thresholds along the way in a set time ie rate of knowledge and skill aquisition (quite right too if the taxpayer is to get value for money) The PPL is for folk who self select, have a wiiiiide range of abilities and potential for actually making an effort, and who have one eye, not unreasonably, on their wallet.
So, what we need is value for money for the fledglings - good, well planned instruction, with a structure and an aim - with a degree of honesty about standards of competency that need to be reached, the time taken of course dependent on many factors and varying with the individual concerned, which in my experience people have not found unresonable

This all sounds like a truism, sorry...I'll go fly as the sun is actually shining

[Lima Juliet]

Dear All

I know that I am an exception to the rule but I could easily haved passed the NPPL in the 32 hours required. My background? An experienced RAF Navigator, who having gone solo (at 10 hours)had to "Bore holes in the sky" on 3 hour navexs to get my hours up to the 45 hours required for the JAR PPL. I would have passed after about 18 hours (After my intro to instruments).

However, this does not have to be restricted to HMForces. I am sure there are a plethora of microlight, SLMG and Glider pilots who will be attracted to the 32 hours as well.

Good luck with sorting the new syllabus guys and I look forward to hearing about the 32 hour "specials".

LJ

[FormationFlyer]

Um..one thing...why on earth would a microlight pilot be attracted to an NPPL instead...

um..continued cost of flying is cheaper on ML, cost of training is cheaper on ML, Medical requirements are self-declaration (doc signature), the PPL (M) is INTERNATIONAL, modern microlights such as the new fixed wing composite models have TAS performance figures similar/in excess of many light aircraft, they require shorter landing strips, the cost of maintenance is a whole heap less...and so on..etc etc

so...have to ask...why on earth would it appeal.....?? I am curious to find out what would attract PPL(M) holders (or prospective holders) to light aircraft...

Curious,
FF

[StrateandLevel]

Because a microlight pilot only has to do 7 hours to get a NPPL and can then fly bigger aeroplanes. Didn't the BMAA do well!

Jugernaught - Couldn't agree more, but the NPPL is being dealt with by "industry" not the CAA, who are as uninformed as the rest of us.

[RVR800]

Now all we need is the NCPL and the NATPL
Regulated by the FAA

[solent01]

Formationflyer

"Um..one thing...why on earth would a microlight pilot be attracted to an NPPL instead..." well I can shed info on this

you said
the PPL (M) is INTERNATIONAL................ no its not, but with permission from the authority of the country we want to fly in, its normally tolarated, except France, who allow us passage as a right, as long as the aircraft is permitted and we as pilots are current etc etc.

you also said
modern microlights such as the new fixed wing composite models have TAS performance figures similar/in excess of many light aircraft, they require shorter landing strips, the cost of maintenance is a whole heap less...and so on..etc etc

so...have to ask...why on earth would it appeal.....?? I am curious to find out what would attract PPL(M) holders (or prospective holders) to light aircraft..............well this one is easy, most 3-axis microlight aircraft only have two seats and a MAUW of 450 (the rest are single seat with a lower MAUW), so when you want to fly the family or friends to the sea side or out for lunch your stuck, and up till now there has been no cross credit of time towards a SEP rating, but now we can have the best of both worlds.

I on the other hand I fly and teach on Microlights with a JAR PPL(A) with a microlight rating, and 3-axis Microlight FI rating, what I want to know is will they bring back the old instructor route to teach NPPL SEP i.e,
x amount of P1 time, AFI course completed and AFI rating awarded........no need for the ever expensive CPL

One thing that amuses me though is the fact that our rotory brothers and sisters have been left out of the deal !!!!!!!

Strateandlevel

Yes we did didn't we, but when you think about it and this is really only relevent to 3-axis Microlights, the way we fly Microlights is almost exactly the same as a heavier SEP, the only thing we do different is on descending in whick case we use APT not PAT, so the extra hours required should be used to appriciate the differences on glide performance for engine outs etc, and also radio navigation, as Microlights don't have DME, ADF and to some extent VOR and Transponders

Sol

[FormationFlyer]

Solent01

Yes, you are right about the PPL(M). Although the fact of the matter is that it never stopped our guys from flying to france every year and training has been down in spain and south africa for the licence for almost as long as I can remember.

No cross crediting - there used to be. I got a group D licence then went to Group A - time for Group A - 19 hours...now that may have been lost under JAR...however the cross crediting is not entirely new - so for what 2-3 years the cross-creditation hasn't been there. But yep the BMAA did do us proud on that one.

Re: instructing...there is no need for a CPL now...unless you want to be paid. I believe that the current system of 'if you want paying you must have a CPL' is perfectly valid. Microlights have always been different however, and that was because they were an exception to the rule as there is no CPL for microlights.

Yeah..the helo folks certainly seem to have got the bad end of it.

Why APT? What sort of aircraft are you training on? AX3/2000? T600?

As an FI(A) and Microlight AFI Ive always taught PAT for the descent. Yeah sure there is an inertia difference and you have to set the descent attitude fairly quickly..but ive never found it to be a problem - even glides where you set idle havent been a problem. If I recall I was taught PAT as well (i think...memory could be hazy on this one!!). I'm curious...help me out..

[solent01]

Formationflyer

Yes you are right about the CPL but I would not instruct for nothing (have to pay the bills some how).

The issue of training in spain and else where is as I am sure you are aware, at the discretion of the state you are flying in, but it does show how highly regarded we are as pilots (not many countrys say no!!!!!)

Cross crediting.........
You are right with this aswell, I was relating to JAR and cross crediting so this is now great for upgrades.

You said
As an FI(A) and Microlight AFI Ive always taught PAT for the descent. Yeah sure there is an inertia difference and you have to set the descent attitude fairly quickly..but ive never found it to be a problem - even glides where you set idle havent been a problem. If I recall I was taught PAT as well (i think...memory could be hazy on this one!!). I'm curious...help me out..

for group A, PAT, but for most 3-axis Micro's (Thruster, AX etc etc)the correct proceedure should be APT, its the inertia issue again, but that said, I'm sure that these new hot ships (CT2K, Eurostar etc etc) will need to adopt PAT, as these birds are rather slippery, if you see what I mean...........

I train in the Thruster Sprint Jab power, great little engine but I think 80 horses is alittle overstating the power output.....

Sol