I'll probably get flamed for this, but what the hell, I'm in that sort of mood today.
NPPL sprung out of two things, one was a reaction to the over-zealous CAA implementation of JAR-FCL, the other was a desire to bring all the UK-only licenses under one banner. The general intention was to make learning to fly, recreationally, cheaper and easier.
The result is NPPL, which has three available ratings - Microlight, SEP and TMG. I dont know much about TMG, but it's interesting to compare Microlight and SEP...
Microlight
- 25 hours minimum
- Instructor needs PPL + minimum experience + course
- 5 ground exams, air-law specifically around permit a/c
- No requirement to train from licensed airfields.
SEP
- 32 hours minimum
- Instructor needs CPL + minimum experience + course
- 8 JAR ground exams, no mention of permit a/c
- All training must be from licensed airfields.
The hours difference is probably trivial, since few people even get a microlight PPL under 35 hours. But every argument I've heard why a CPL, licensed airfields and JAR exams are needed for the SEP rating but not the microlight rating seem to revolve around "well, we had to put up with them, so should everybody else". If there was a valid safety argument then restrictions would have been placed on microlight schools years ago - and they haven't.
And to add to it, given a large proportion of NPPL(SEP) holders will want to fly PFA types, an air-law exam that doesn't even mention the rules on a permit aircraft is absurd.
I enjoyed getting that off my chest, I'll sit back and wait for the opposing view now...
G