Rolling circle, what positive contribution are you trying to make about the NPPL? Please let us know what your objections are in clear, unemotive terms. They may then be addressed and acted upon or resolved.
AOPA's original idea to bring PPL training under the framework of JAR-FCL was entirely reasonable; what was totally unreasonable was the (then) attitude of the CAA in refusing to address the concerns of the recreational flying training industry at the manner in which JAR-FCL PPL matters were later being executed without proper consultation. AOPA's original concept was effectively sabotaged by the heavy-handedness of the CAA. Whereas the views of industry ARE being listened to regarding the NPPL and we now have new heads of GAD and FCL who are rather better at working with industry than perhaps was the case hitherto; they are also enthusiastically supportive of the NPPL, as is CAA Medical.
I say again, Rolling Circle, please state your points about the NPPL so that they can be fairly addressed.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 March 2001).]