In the CAA Discussion Document, Rod Dean says -
"We believe that these restrictions on the licence will ensure that NPPL pilots will have the same high level of safety enjoyed by current PPL holders".
If this is true, why can't a JAR PPL be maintained on the same basis as the NPPL?
i.e. six hours per annum + a BFR, and a DVLC medical every two years up to 65.
In my view, this is potentially safer than the JAR currency requirement of 12 hours during the second year, which means that you don't have to fly at all during the first year. I have never understood the logic of that.
With respect to the medical requirements, if it is just as safe for geriatric over sixties like me fly in the UK with a biannual DVLC medical, how can they (I) justify my having to have an annual CAA Class 2 medical with ECG every year - just to be able to leave the country about 6 times a year?