Microlights v Spamcans

[BEagle]

I don't like the 'versus' in the title of this thread - 'Microlight or Spamcan?' would have been better as the original title seems to imply a contest between the two categories of aircraft.


Re. the NPPL, there is a proposal afoot to re-align and simplify re-validation requirements for those holding Microlight and/or SEP and/or SLMG aircraft ratings - or all 3 - so that all 3 ratings could be re-validated by a total number of hours flown, so long as a minimum were flown under each rating privilege. This proposal is:


"Re-validation by Experience

Aircraft ratings included in a NPPL may be re-validated provided that the holder has within the 24 months preceding the expiry of the rating flown not less than 12 hours total flight time, 8 hours of which shall have been as pilot in command and has within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating also carried out NPPL periodic training requirements. The 12 hours total flight time shall also include a minimum flight time, in each class of aircraft for which an aircraft rating is included in a NPPL, of either 1 hour as pilot in command or 1 hour under the supervision of an instructor. Instructors conducting training or supervised flights shall countersign the pilot’s personal log book to indicate that such flights were flown to P1 standard.

NPPL Periodic training requirements.

SEP or SLMG:

NPPL holders with valid SEP or SLMG aircraft ratings shall, within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating, complete a training flight of at least 1 hour duration with an instructor.

Microlight:

NPPL holders with valid Microlight aircraft ratings are not required to complete any mandatory continuation training for the Microlight aircraft rating."



But this would require that the current 5 hours in 13 months to re-validate a microlight rating is amended to the same 12 hours in 24 months as other ratings. It would be interesting to hear people's views on this - if the rating validity periods can be harmonised, then a multiple rating re-validation policy can be agreed very simply. If not, then people may have to re-validate all ratings independently..... If there's sufficient level of debate on this, then I may start a PPRuNe poll on the subject.