Instructing NPPL

[Cron]

I guess this post may have to be somewhere else - but the examiners forum appears to be just for examiners. Anyway my Q is this:

As I understand it, to instruct PPL you have to have the hours, CPL level knowledge (at least) and the Ins course.

What is the requirement to teach NPPL please?

[Mark 1]

In short, its the same requirement as there is no alternative FI qualification.
I believe the topic was debated amongst the NPPL proposals, but it wasn't considered neccesary or advisable to offer a reduced qualification.
I still think that the old BCPL route had attractions for people who don't have the airlines as their goal. A large part of the CPL study is quite irrelevant for SEP/PPL type flying.

[Cron]

Thanks M, my Q was prompted by a post from DFC recently which read in part

'As a PPL licenec holder, you can be paid for; Flight Instruction for the NPPL with microlight rating ...'

I've been scratching my head on this one ...

[Mark 1]

DFC is quite right. In a quirk of the ANO (see sched.8) it states (PPL privileges):

(b) He shall not receive any remuneration for his services as a pilot on a flight save
that if his licence includes a flying instructor’s rating, a flight instructor rating or
an assistant flying instructor’s rating by virtue of which he is entitled to give
instruction in flying microlight aircraft or self-launching motor gliders he may
receive remuneration for the giving of such instruction or the conducting of such
flying tests as are specified in sub-paragraph (a)(i) in a microlight aircraft or a selflaunching
motor glider.

So you could be a paid PPL/FI giving instruction on a Grob (TMG) but couldn't be paid for converting the post-qualified student to a Cessna 150 (time required ~1 hr). Logic?
Incidentally the TMG training could also be done at an unlicensed field.

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

[StrateandLevel]

"So you could be a paid PPL/FI giving instruction on a Grob (TMG)
-Incidentally the TMG training could also be done at an unlicensed field."

WRONG!

TMG is a JAA rating and can only be taught from a licensed aerodrome as there is no exemption to Article 101 for TMGs.

The PPL/FI can not teach and be remunerated on a TMG. If he was a PPL MGIR, then he could teach on the Grob for a SLMG rating from an aerodrome exempt from Art 101 under the auspices of the BGA. Motor glider instructors claim not to charge!

The three NPPL ratings are SSEP, Microlight and SLMG, not TMG!

The safety argument for microlights not having to use a licensed aerodrome is because the aircraft mass is below 450 Kgs (originally 390) and the quantity of fuel they can carry is restricted.

[BEagle]

Thanks, Mi..............er, Strateandlevel.

Another thing which needs to be borne in mind is that any proposed easement to the requirement to hold a CPL for remunerated SEP instruction will most certainly face a regulatory impact assessment. Which will be long, costly and unlikely to benefit anyone.

[DFC]

As far as I am aware, JAR-FCL does not require an aerodrome used for PPL training to be licensed.

The aerodrome must meet minimum standards but being licensed is not a specified requirement.

It is the CAA that imposes that as a local requirement.

Regards,

DFC

[Genghis the Engineer]

It is the CAA that imposes that as a local requirement.

My understanding also.



The safety argument for microlights not having to use a licensed aerodrome is because the aircraft mass is below 450 Kgs (originally 390) and the quantity of fuel they can carry is restricted.

Err, run that past me again. Fuel state isn't restricted now (and previously was limited to 50 litres, which wouldn't take much effort to create a decent fireball anyhow). I believe that microlight schools are bound to rules about runway length, firefighting equipment, etc. anyway - what would a license add to the safety of a system that requires an FI to ensure that the airfield is suitable anyhow (as I'm sure any FI would, regardless of rules).

Out of interest, apart from 2 letters, is the difference between a TMG and SLMG - they both sound like Grob 109s to me?

G

[StrateandLevel]

Same plane, different rating! the result of the BGA not wanting to play JAR and having "ring-fenced" activites that confuse the hell out of everyone else.

The original reason for increasing the microlight weight from 390 - 450 Kgs was supposedly, to allow better undercarriage and brakes to be fitted!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I beg to differ.

The reason for going from 390kg to 450kg was standardisation with the rest of Europe which had been using a 450kg definition for years, it's based upon an FAI sporting definition, which in-turn is based upon an old and now superceded American 1000lb limit.

G

[Cron]

er .... thanks everyone

[Mark 1]

TMG is a JAA rating and can only be taught from a licensed aerodrome as there is no exemption to Article 101 for TMGs.

S+L
Is this really the case?
I thought that existing SLMG training facilities at unlicensed fields had been allowed to train for JAA-PPL(TMG) too. It certainly appears to be the case at one field that I frequent.

[StrateandLevel]

Mk1
It shows how confusing the whole issue is, but to train for a TMG Class rating which cannot be put on a NPPL, the instructor must be a UK or JAA FI with TMG rating. Article 101 applies.

Training for a SLMG rating can only be conducted by a MGIR at specified aerodromes in accordance with a blanket exemption to article 101, issued to the BGA.

The exemption does not permit training for a JAA licence or rating.

Ghengis

You are quite right, but the issue of brakes etc was put forward as one of the arguments for adopting the European standard.