If an IMC is not an ICAO Qaulification Why cant it be added to an NPPL

[S-Works]

A recent question in a flying mag set me wondering why an IMC can't be added to an NPPL. After all the NPPL is a sub ICAO rating as is the IMC and neither are valid outside of the UK.

[FlyingForFun]

NPPL is a CAA license - the CAA make up the rules. IMC is a CAA rating - the CAA make up the rules. So the only legal reason why the IMC shouldn't be able to be added to an NPPL is because the CAA say so.

FFF
---------------

[2Donkeys]

Perhaps, rightly or wrongly, the CAA has decided that it would be inappropriate for one who has only met the meagre Medical requirements of the NPPL, to be able to conduct a flight from take-off to touch-down in IMC.

2D

[S-Works]

Not sure what difference a medical would make to being able to fly the aircraft in IMC. You are either medically fit to fly or not?

[Deano777]

After all the posts lately regarding IMC ratings do we still not getthe consensus that surely after ony 35 hrs of NPPL (it is 35 hrs isnt it?) training this in no way makes you ready to undertake an IMC rating? so with all this in mind makes the original question a non-event?

D.

[2Donkeys]

Deano777 is perhaps forgetting the case of a pilot who has previously held a JAA PPL (or better) and has now downgraded, normally for medical reasons. There is an increasingly large number of these people around, who now cannot hold an IMC rating, despite having in some cases previously held one.

Bose-X, it is the more subtle tests such as hearing and vision where lower standards are acceptable for an NPPL holder. These may have some bearing on the pilot's ability to fly under IMC. I was simply looking at the differences between the two licences, rather than getting into the wrongs and rights of the situation as you will see from my original wording.


2D

[S-Works]

The question was not of adding it to the PPL during training it was one of adding it to the PPL full stop. Most NPPL holders as I understand it are ex JAR or old Group A holders that have chosen the NPPL for personal reasons. Many of these people I would imagine are already IMC holders. There is no reason why someone could not go away and fly 100 or so hours and then decide they want an IMC. So no the question is not a non-event it is a perfectly valid one.

2D's you answered as I was typing!

Also I was not debating with you the wrongs or rights it was a question, hence the question mark at the end!!!

[FlyingForFun]

It's becoming clear that the majority of NPPL holders have opted for, or downgraded to, an NPPL because of the lower medical standards.

However, I don't believe that this was the CAA's intention when they gave the go-ahead to the NPPL. I think that the idea of the license was that it would be used by recreational pilots - the kind of pilot who likes to stay on the ground when there's a anything more than 2/8ths cloud in the sky. In which case, it simply wouldn't be appropriate to add an IMC rating to this license.

I suspect that the lower medical requirements probably didn't enter the equation, because they were not seen as being the main reason for getting an NPPL.

The fact that this is not how things have worked out is a different matter.....

Thoughts from anyone who was closer to the process than most of us?

FFF
-------------

[2Donkeys]

I'm not sure that there is a lot more to know is there?

NPPLs as a general proposition tend to be either: a) those who have voluntarily or otherwise downgraded from an ICAO licence because of the lower medical standards; or b) those who will primarily be flying in good weather - perhaps the original target market for the licence.

Neither group presents a particularly good argument for allowing flight in IMC.

The obvious solution for those in case (a) is to hold an FAA Class 3 medical (no more onerous than a UK HGV/NPPL medical) and to take the written and flight test to obtain a full FAA PPL. This may be exercised without formality as a UK JAA PPL. An FAA instrument rating may be added to it should the holder desire. This will allow many of the privileges of a UK IMC rating even whilst flying in a G-reg aircraft. It will also allow unrestricted access to more complex aircraft should the desire grab you.

2D

[IO540]

2D

As an aside, do you know what special medical requirements are needed for IMC flight?

The JAR IR needs the Class 1 audiogram, for no obvious reason.

[2Donkeys]

Flyin Dutch or one of the other AMEs would be far better qualified to answer that question than I am.

A JAA Class 2 medical seems sufficient to satisfy the CAA that a pilot can fly in cloud with an IMC rating. As you say, to be able to do the same thing with an IR in class A airspace, you "obviously" need to be able to hear better! ;)

The medical requirements for the NPPL are little more than self-certification (as I understand it), so that perhaps the combination of more relaxed vision and hearing checks are enough to cause the CAA to have doubts fundamental enough not to want to issue an NPPL/IMC.



It is easy to miss the bigger picture here though. If the NPPL were essentially an unrestricted PPL that was simply issued by the CAA, it would amount to an effective admission that JAA was a waste of everybody's time. By maintaining some important differences between the NPPL and the proper ICAO PPL (on whatever grounds) it is possible to draw a distinction between them whilst keeping a straight face.

My personal opinion FWIW is that since many of those who can no longer hold a class 2 are still able to get the US to issue them an ICAO PPL, the system is well on its way to farce already.

2D

[Capt. Manuvar]

The NPPL medical meets the DVLA vocational drivers medical drivers requirement.
This means that an someone who meets the NPPL medical requiremtns is fit enough to fly a 'tincan' in VMC, can drive a 44 tonne HGV through schoolzones/residential areas/ etc but can't fly a spamcan in IMC:confused:
for those who think you cant do an IMC course after 35hrs you only need to lokk across the pond. if you go to and FAA part 141 approved school, you can do a PPL in 35 hrs and right away enroll in a 35hr IR course. Maybe the NPPL/PPL syllabus needs revamping/modernisation
Capt. manuvar

[2Donkeys]

for those who think you cant do an IMC course after 35hrs you only need to lokk across the pond. if you go to and FAA part 141 approved school, you can do a PPL in 35 hrs and right away enroll in a 35hr IR course.

There are so many ways in which an integrated part 141 course is nothing like a NPPL going straight onto an IMC course that it is difficult to know where to begin with that comment.

Suffice it to say that after 35 hours, the typical JAA PPL (let alone an NPPL) is not really going to get a lot out of an IMC course.

2D

[Flyin'Dutch']

The NPPL was primarily set up (as I understand it) to:

1. Enable a lot of folks who could not fulfill the more onerous JAR Class 2 medical or wanted to fork the extra cost, compared to the old CAA class 3 medical.

2. Allow folks to get a PPL by doing a course which was 10 hours shorter (and therefore cheaper)

If they just wanted to bimble in the UK skies.

For the 'solo only' certificate you only have to meet the same requirements as those for driving a car. And that ain't a lot.

May be there is not so much difference between the HGV medical standards and an FAA Class 3 medical (which as 2Ds says can have an IR added to it)

Why do you need an audiogram for a PPL IR? I don't know and I think anyone in aviation medicine would be hard pressed to give a better answer than: 'Because we have always done it like that!'

After all you don't need one for an FAA medical for any class and they don't seem to have accidents because folk could not hear the ident of the navaids.

FD

[Whirlybird]

Unless it's changed, an NPPL who wants to carry passengers needs a standard of health equivalent to that for truck drivers. If he/she just wants to fly solo, they just need a signature from their own GP.

Why can't you add an IMC to an NPPL? Because the CAA says so, that's why. The rest is purely individuals' opinions, some valid, some maybe not, but all completely irrelevant to the question asked...unless we ask the CAA.

FWIW, my AME is extremely worried about pilots flying around who can't pass a Class 2 medical. Maybe he's right. OTOH, glider pilots have been flying around without passing Class 2 medicals since time immemorial. The whole thing, if not a farce, at least defies logic.

[Flyin'Dutch']

A lot of these certification rules have much to do with risk assessments of potential harm and try to balance the desire and rights of individuals to pursuit their desires against the need to protect others.

That is not a very easy job and with the lack of a big and influential lobbying force there is little incentive for the powers to be to take a more 'liberal' view.

FD

[2Donkeys]

Whirlybird says:
Why can't you add an IMC to an NPPL? Because the CAA says so, that's why. The rest is purely individuals' opinions, some valid, some maybe not


This is a an accurate if not entirely useful response. Most of the questions asked on Pprune could be answered if the one doing the asking could be bothered either to read the relevant documentation or to call the CAA. It is the "individuals' opinions" that makes Pprune what it is. I trust that is not a problem?

2D

[IO540]

Whirlybird

You could ask your AME what basis he has for his/her concerns.

The FAA, which is in charge of an order of magnitude more pilots that the entire non-USA worldwide PPL population, doesn't think so.

Are Americans more healthy than us lot? A quick trip to Disney Orlando (or just about any part of the USA apart from certain particularly wealthy bits of California) will answer that one :O

The fact is that pilot incapacitation barely features in the stats, and of those few that crash as a result, they usually crash where it doesn't matter.

[silverknapper]

Could it be the fact we have medical standards which is responsible for the fact that incapacitation accounts for very few accidents? I hadn't really been concerned about the whole medical side of it - lets face it a lorry driver pulling 44 tons is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than a c150. I thought if it was good enough for said lorry driver then fair enough. However I have met a chap doing his NPPL who couldn't get a class 2 due to his diabetes but has now managed to fly due to the lax standards. Now I honestly don't know enough about it so won't attempt to guess. Is it a self cert affair when declaring things like this? The sight of him pricking his finger frequently and always drinking sugary drinks doesn't fill me with confidence in the new standards.

[strafer]

As the roads and fields of this green & pleasant land aren't littered with the debris of diabetic-driven spamcans I don't think that's a particular problem. The most obvious way to make the skies safer in the UK is to do all you can to encourage pilots to gain IMC/IR ratings. So the answer to the question in the original post is 'because the CAA are incompetent'.