NPPL or PPL?

[OneDaySoon]

Hi all,

Have been looking at this forum page for ages but just plucked up courage to post my first message - that's right a pprune virgin!

I've got a question you might be able to jelp mne with. For a long time I've put off learning to fly because I've convinced myself I couldn't afford it - but I've recently decided to take the plunge (as it were).

Thing is, I've been reading a lot about the NPPL in Todays Pilot mag - they did a great article recently on the NPPL and those people who helped to create it. Now I can't decide whether to go for an NPPL or a PPL!!!

I don't want to fly overseas, I don't want to fly in naff weather and I don't want to fly at night so am I best with an NPPL?

When I've spoken to some local clubs there seems to be a stigma attached to the four letters 'NPPL' is it because the schools are going to lose out on cash because I willonly be studying for 32 hours and not 45 - or is there something flawed with this licnese that I don't know about?

I've really enjoyed readiung this forum over the last few months - hope you'll let me join in as I blunder my way through some sort of training?

OneDaySoon

[Keef]

Hi, and welcome to the list of "posters".

NPPL - there are two schools of thought on this. Some for, some agin, for a whole raft of reasons.

From what you say, the NPPL will probably meet your flying needs for a while, at least. if you decide later that you need to "upgrade" to a full PPL, you have the option to do that, although how many of your NPPL training hours will count is another matter.

You'll be doing very well to complete the NPPL in the minimum hours. You should probably plan on something more like 40 hours, depending on how well you take to it.

I did my PPL back in the dark ages when the "minimum" was 35 hours. I spread it over 2 years and took 44 hours. If I'd done it in an intensive course over a couple of weeks, I might just have got away with 35 (but I doubt it).

Some schools don't like it because they make less money out of you. 'Nuff said.

[foxmoth]

Rather than loosing money on the NPPL I think most schools don't want to bother with it too much because not many people will complete in less hours than the straight PPL, if you have medical problems then the NPPL is a good thing, but apart from this the syllabus is much the same, so most schools look on it as a bit of a con job to try and sell it as a cheap way to a licence.

[Evo7]

Hi ODS


Have been looking at this forum page for ages but just plucked up courage to post my first message - that's right a pprune virgin!


I was like that once - now look at me... :)

Firstly, welcome to Private Flying. Secondly, I'd say that if you are happy with UK and VFR-only then there's nothing wrong with the NPPL - but you should be very careful about thinking that you could be finished in 32 hours rather than 45.

I read the Today's Flyer NPPL article on a rainy day recently and had a chat with my instructor about it, and his opinion was that he had only taught one student who could potentially finish in 32 hours - and he was a very experienced glider pilot. Most (me included) could not do it in 45. For example, the syllabus in TF had the student going solo after 10 hours. Take a look at the recent 'how long to solo' thread, and you'll see that few people can actually do that (and AerBabe's a noodle-powered superhero anyway ;) ). I took 18, so 'my' NPPL is already 40 hours. Ultimately you need to cover the almost the same material as a JAR-FCL PPL(A) student, and unless you are of exceptional ability you aren't going to be able to learn it any faster - I'd be very surprised if, once the NPPL is established, there turns out to be much difference in the time to finish the two licences.

Anyway, don't worry about posting more - I've asked every dumb question going while learning, and people still talk to me... :) :)

[StrateandLevel]

The hours reduction for a NPPL is really a Red Herring. You can take a JAA PPL Skill Test after 35 hours (when all the training is complete) but nobody does! The 45 hrs is for licence issue!

As there is essentially no difference in the Skill Standard required to pass the test for both the NPPL and a JAA PPL; it must take about the same time to achieve that standard.

[BEagle]

Welcome to PPRuNE, OneDaySoon!

When we were busy formulating the NPPL, one of the things we were keen to avoid was the perception that the NPPL would invariably be achieveable after 32 hours of training. It could be that you would be ready for your GST after 32 hours, but in reality unless you on a full-time course of instruction, you should budget for a few hours more.

Most of your questions can be answered by reference to www.nppl.uk.com , the NPPL website. It would seem that the NPPl should meet your requirements, however, and the very best of luck with your flying future!!

[BEagle]

Then you upgrade your licence to JAR-FCL PPL when you can afford it! Assuming, of course, that you can meet JAR medical requirements.

Another virtue of the NPPL is that ths cost of licence issue is for a lifetime licence. Whereas, thanks to the CAA, the JAR-FCL licence has to be re-issued (at a cost) every 5 years....

[AerBabe]

Just out of interest, at what point does one need to decide? Can you start learning, and then make a decision before first solo? Is it possible to fly solo, then upgrade your medical and switch to a PPL?

[BEagle]

So long as you have covered all the training requirements for the JAR-FCL PPL with SEP Rating (not just the hours requirements), including the 150nm cross-country, it should only be a matter of upgrading the medical, passing the JAR-FCL PPL Skill Test and paying the licence issue fee. But see the website for the definitive answer; I will raise the issue at the next NPPL Policy Group meeting.

[FlyingForFun]

First of all, welcome to the forum! Evo quoted you as saying "Have been looking at this forum page for ages but just plucked up courage to post my first message," and admitted having been like that once himself. I was never like that - I think it took me all of about a day to pluck up the courage to post on a subject I knew nothing about. And nothing's changed since!

As for the PPL/NPPL choice, as others have said, there is nothing wrong with the NPPL. But it won't be very much cheaper, for 2 reasons. The obvious one, as most have pointed out, is that you're unlikely to complete the training for the NPPL in much less (if any less at all) time that the PPL.

But here's another way of looking at it. Flying isn't just about getting a license, it's about continuing to fly after that. I don't know what your budget is, but let's imagine you can afford to fly an hour every 2 weeks on average. Say you do a PPL, and it takes you 50 hours (which would be pretty quick if you're only flying every 2 weeks). 2 years later, you have a nice shiny PPL, and it's cost you £6000. (That's based on £120/hr, and excludes all the other costs you'll incur such as books, charts, airfield guides, your own headset if you choose to buy one, exam fees, test fees, landing fees......)

Now, let's look at the alternative, the NPPL. Let's say you can do that in 40 hours. As I've said, I'm not convinced that it can be done in 20% less time than the PPL, but let's assume it can, and bear with me. So you start your training, and after about 21 months, you have a nice shiny NPPL. The cost was £4800, again based on £120/hr, and excluding any "extras". Now what do you do? Well, hopefully you go and fly with your nice shiny new license! Over the next couple of months, assuming you continue to fly every 2 weeks, you'll log about 10 hours, which will cost you £1000 (assuming £100/hr - slightly cheaper than the training because you're not paying for an instructor.)

So, at the end of 2 years, whichever path you take, you have 50 hours in your logbook, and a license. And if you do the NPPL, assuming a very optimistic 20% reduction in your training time, you've saved yourself the grand sum of £200, or 3%. Wow!

The NPPL seems to me like a very useful license. It frees UK pilots from a lot of the bureaucracy of the JARs, and it's especially useful for pilots who are unable to meet the unnecessarilly strict medical requirements for a JAR PPL. But I'm not convinced that it would be useful for most of us. Give yourself the option of adding ratings or flying abroad if you want to, and get a PPL.

But whatever you do, good luck, and have fun! :)

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

[englishal]

On the other side of the coin....You may as well get an FAA PPL ! The costs to maintain are significantly cheaper, ie. Licence is free, a BFR every two years which can be done in the UK with an FAA instructor, and gives you the same freedom as a NPPL in a UK reg aircraft. If you fly an N reg A/C, you can fly at night without a NR, fly abroard if you fancy a trip to LFAT and don't need an RT licence. Medical requirements are far less stringent, and can easily be gained in the UK. PLus the medical is valid longer than the almighty JAA class 2...Oh and training costs in America are far less, $80 / hr including instructor in a C152......

So as you see there are plenty of options. In your situation if you are 100% sure you do not want to fly around abroard, or in IMC, then the NPPL is probably right for you.

Cheers
EA:)

[Who has control?]

OneDaySoon - Hi & welcome to Pprune. Its a bit like a flypaper - once you are on it, you can't get off:)

Before you decide which way to go, have a word with your GP. I had my medical yesterday with an AME (Aviation Medical Examiner) and passed it so I'm legal for 2 more years, he was saying that the average GP (a) knows nothing about the NPPL and (b) doesn't want to do it, even though it is purely a declaration of health & doesn't involve a physical examination.
I previously made enquiries at my GP about an NPPL medical and it was obvious that he wanted nothing to do with it even though he was the only one who could sign off the certificate.
So if your GP doesn't want to do it - you are stuffed!

[BlueLine]

F4F

Very well put, but:
__________________________________________________
The NPPL seems to me like a very useful license. It frees UK pilots from a lot of the bureaucracy of the JARs
_________________________________________________

Assuming you now have a PPL of some sort, what exactly is the difference in beaurocracy between a NPPL and a JAA PPL?

Reading the latest ANO Amendment to Schedule 8, I simply cannot work out the variable revalidation requirements for a NPPL; there is a test with 24 month validity; a rolling 12 months; and for those with existing Microlight and SLMG licences (Now part of the NPPL) a rolling 13 months! The JAA system seems infinately simpler!

The 5 year JAA renewal appears to be the only beaurocratic difference! If there are others what are they?

[Troy Tempest]

Intersting point about the medical - I'm only doing the NPPL for that reason and I am also experiencing difficulties with the GP in getting the declaration sorted. They don't know what it's about and have no idea what to charge or where you fit in to their busy schedules! I've finally got an appointment next week but still have a GP who is not clear on what needs to be done - still it's probably teething troubles and will eventually sort itself out. Now if we could lobby for previous hours to be counted towards the licence............:)

[BLW Skylark 4]

This is a very interesting thread since as a Glider Pilot I have been considering the JAR PPL v NPPL argument with interest.

I recall that a few years ago, if you had a 'Silver C' gliding certificate excluding the exams and medical etc. you only had to fly a minimum of ten hours instruction to convert to a PPL. With the good old European harmonisation (JAR) I understand that this concession went, but I gather that this has now returned with the NPPL.

I fancy the idea of getting a PPL and I'm encouraged by the suggestion that you can 'swap over' halfway (subject to meeting the JAR medical requirements etc.) but I believe that you cant evert convert an NPPL to a JAR PPL without starting again at the beginning. Can anyone (Beags..??) confirm please.

I have been gliding for eleven years, hold a Silver C, 1/3 Gold and have about 160hrs to my name but would not for a minute wish to assume that going down either route is a mere formality. After all, the lever I hold in my left hand in a glider causes me to go up or down whereas on a powered aircraft...oh I diunno, I suppose the throttle kinda does the same thing!

'BLW'

[OneDaySoon]

Wow - thanks for your advise and words of welcome guys!

Have been steadily watchingthe number of replies rise while I was at work but had to wait til I was home tonight to post in reply(we're not allowed to post to forums from the office!)

I'd kind of made up my mind on an NPPL mid afternoon so I called my GP as you suggested - surprise surpise but I can't get an apoointment for 14 days! The girl on the desk hadn't heard of the NPPL (not really surprising) so couldn't even tell me if I'd be waisting my time going for the appointment. Oh well, have to suck it and see I guess.

I'm based in the midlands so there are plenty of schools around - just need to find out which are prepared to do the NPPL course.

Actually - I've just been on the Todays Pilot website and it says they are GIVING away an NPPL in the next magazine!! How cool would that be? Can't wait to enter that competition - but I think I'll start training as well - you know, just in case I don't win!:D

Again thanks for you help - I'm looking forward to joining the 'gang'

ODS

[BlueLine]

BLW,

You are one of the people the NPPL will be attractive to however, the swap over to a JAA PPL will not exempt you from anything that you would have to do if you went straight to a JAA PPL.

The nonsense is that you could be quite competently flying your SEP with up to 3 passengers on a NPPL but, have to do X hours DUAL with a FI before you could be deemed safe to fly the same aeroplane with a JAA licence. Nutts! isn't it. And some say it has reduced beaurocracy!

[sunnysideup]

'Ello.

Welcome to the world of square-eyes, bashing the screen with a hammer, getting wound up at the slightest hint that someone doesn't agree with you, no social life, wasted work time, addiction and rye smiles when you get away with posting some vaguely rude comment.

Its bloody great, this pprune thing!!!:D

The NPPL is a great marketing tool to get people into the world of GA. Its not much more in practice.

The exams you'll take are JAR ones, the instructors that you will have are JAR ones (at the moment, at least) The course layout, although covering less MINIMUM hours than JAR, is almost identical.

As you do not have to declare which one you're doing when you start, keep you're options open.

Chances are, it will take you close on 45 hours to learn to fly safely and properly. May as well have the JAR one then in case you do want to fly in Europe or do Night or IMC ratings etc (not currently available under NPPL).

If if it takes you 40 hours to learn to fly, only thirty of them will be allowed against upgrading from NPPL to a JAR licence. Better to get five hours out of the way now than fifteen (or more, if you've developed bad habits) in a years time.

The only people I know who are specifically doing NPPL are those who can get the required DVLA HGV medical but not a JAR class 2 medical for a JAR-PPL. There are some stupid reasons why you can't get a JAR medical, but some good ones aswell.

If the medical criteria applies to you, think carefully about what exactly is wrong with you. You may be able to get an NPPL, but you still have to pass a check flight and the scrutiny of any club you may want to rent aircraft from.

[flying snapper]

I too am in the same boat regarding the NPPL. I couldn't get a class 2 medical because my uncorrected vision was a teeny weeny bit over the arbirtary point the JAA med people thought was appropriate.

My GP also had never heard of the NPPL but he did know about the DVLA requirements. I took along the information from the NPPL website entitled "information for GP's" and he was quite happy to sign the form on that basis. The NPPL medical is exactly the same as the DVLA HGV drivers declaration without the uncorrected vision limits. Tell your GP that and he will understand what he has to do, oh and by the way my GP signed the form for nothing! what a refreshing change to everything else in aviation:D :D

Now all I need is some decent weather and maybe I can go solo, 55hours and I am more than ready:p

[englishal]

Crazy isn't it ! JAR dictates you cannot fly due to slightly impared vision....yet, the CAA are quite happy to let you take to the same skies, in the same aircraft, with said vision. So what this really means is either that a) The NPPL medical standard is too low (I don't think) or that b) JAR medical standard is far to high for PPLs (I do think). You can do a lot of damage in an 18 wheeler if you keel over and cark it at the wheel, in a light aircraft you'll probably leave a dent in some farmers field....!;)

Oh well, I suppose these standards were laid down by the same people who reckoned British cucumbers were too bent, british chocolate is not chocolate, and banana's had to have X° of bend to be considered a banana !:D

Cheers
EA:)

[BEagle]

BLW - look under 'Licence Allowances' at www.nppl.uk.com . You'll find that, with a BGA glider pilot's licence, you'll need not less than 10 hrs dual instruction, the exams, the medical, the 2 skill tests and that's about it!

To go from NPPL (SEP) to JAR-FCL PPL after qualifying for the NPPL (SEP) via this route has yet to be resolved; I will raise the point at our next NPPLSC meeting.

[Fly Stimulator]

BEagle,

Please could you see if you can get an statement on the requirements for those who want to upgrade an NPPL SEP gained on the basis of cross-credited microlight hours to a JAR PPL.

I passed my NPPL SEP tests a fortnight ago, but since my original microlight training was not done by JAR instructors I don't get the 30-hour credit towards the JAR licence. I have asked the CAA but haven't found anybody there who can tell me what I would have to do to upgrade.

Many thanks.

FS.

[BEagle]

Yes - I'll do that.

My proposal will be that the upgrade for NPPLs obtained through non-ab initio SEP training with JAR FIs (such as those with glider, microlight etc accreditation) should follow the same requirements as PPLs from non-JAA member states applying for the JAR-FCL PPL.

[Future Pundit]

BEagle, I would be interested on your view as an examiner on my comments below.

I have recently completed a JAR PPL with the 10 hour credit that I am eligible for as a Silver C +500 hours glider pilot. I have considerable cross country experience (about 1000km per year) and also hold an instructors rating.

My JAR PPL was completed in 38 hours. That is 3 hours above the minimum and most of my flying was concentrated in a 3 week period, so no backtracking.

My points are:-

1. As an experienced (glider) pilot, I still had to complete key lessons to a suitable standard therefore the 10 hours conversion for a glider pilot is a red herring. No flying school will let anybody take an aircraft away solo without the basics in place.

3. As I took 38 hours before my skills test doing everything 'Right First Time', 32 hours training for a NPPL is impossible. Flying schools will still train to a standard.

4. A beginner will take at least 45 hours to complete all lessons to the required standard, which is the JAR requirement.

Conclusion.

If health is not a problem, the cost of a Class 2 medical is small compared to the cost of flying. Therefore the better licence would be JAR for both Silver C glider pilots and beginners.

P.S. Try putting a TMG rating on a JAR SEP licence and you really hit a brick wall. No JAR TMG instructors and JAR TMG examiners are like gold-dust.

[Cusco]

One thing in favour of NPPL is that the medical requirements are not so stringent.

The NPPL medical can be done by your GP and equates IIRC to the standard of one of the HGV driving licences. (Don't know which but someone on PPRUNE will know.)

This might be useful if there is any doubt about getting the full medical from an AME.

Still the LFAT Channel Islands idea mentioned earlier is very appealing once you've clocked up a few hours especially if you are based darn sarf, so don't bin the PPL idea without serious thought.


Whatever you choose, one thing is certain: you are guaranteed to love it and be hooked for life.

[dublinpilot]

Hooked for life???

You mean there is no hope for us!!!

[BEagle]

FP - I'm a little surprised that a Silver C holder took 38 hours to complete the JAR-FCL PPL. That's no reflection on your skills, but 5 years ago you would only have needed about 10 hours plus the NFT/GFT for a UK PPL if I recall correctly. Perhaps you were being trained to a somewhat 'gold standard' rather than a 'bare minimum' standard - but no doubt you have benefitted (apart from financially!) as a result? Some schools will train up to their own standards, others down to the base level - and regrettably it'll be a case of people 'paying their money and taking their choice'. But that's what industry said that they wanted, so that's what we've delivered - and the CAA are happy with it.

I have always viewed the idea of 32 hours plus NPPL NST and GST as very optimistic; originally it would have been even less and some of us thought that the original proposals would have been tantamount to fraud. But 32 plus tests was the absolute minimum that we were all happy with - so if someone can complete their NPPL in that time, then good for them!

I note that in 1968 it took me 20:20 dual and 14:40 solo between 25 Mar and 19 Apr to obtain my UK PPL - but there was no NFT and 3:30 of that was on my qualifying cross-country (which was the only time I'd ever landed away from my home aerodrome!). I had a (very) few gliding hours, plus A and B certificates to my name before then - and that was it! The NPPL should take roughly the same time to complete for someone reasonably capable on a full time course, but most will very probably take rather longer.

[Future Pundit]

BEagle,

About 5 hours was done before I had a break of about 10 months due to work schedules, so I do not feel that I was cheated out of the 35 hour minimum. 3 hours extra is not too bad.

The organisation I trained with were very proffessional and benefit from some very experienced examiners. The examiner picked up a fault which I have now addressed, so I am pleased with his high standards.