englishal,
I agree - reduced medical standards are a good thing. Why do we need a separate license for these reduced standards, though? Why not just apply them to the existing Class 2?
aarthur,
Personally, I have no problem with reduced hour requirements. I have faith in instructors not to send students for their skills test, and examiners not to issue a license, until the student is sufficiently skilled as to be able to keep out of trouble. Personally, I couldn't care if the minimum was reduced to 20 hours. I can't see anyone getting a license in much less than, say, 40 hours - and I'd expect that to be the exception, rather than the rule - whatever the minimum is.
dah dah,
Am I right in thinking that what you're saying is that JAR won't allow us to reduce the medical standards of the PPL to those being suggested for the NPPL, or to remove elements considered non-essential, such as VOR tracking? If I've understood you correctly, then this explains why there is a need for a separate license, and answers my question - thank you.
BEagle
Tocsin's reply suggests that I, and others, have been belittling your work in this issue. I can't speak for others, but that certainly wasn't my intention, and I apologise if my post could have been misinterpreted this way. As you can probably tell from my reply to dah dah, I have a question which I don't know the answer to, and I am looking for the answer to that question. It seems from dah dah's post that there is a perfectly good answer to my question. I'd welcome any more details, from dah dah, BEagle, or anyone else, and I applaud BEagle and everyone else for any attempts to get more people flying.
FFF
-----------