PPL(M) to PPL(A)

[windsock9]

Hey all, i was wondering if anybody could share any experiances for me... i want to fly flexwing microlights because i have got the bug, they are great fun and cheap... i need cheap so i can go flying! how easy is it to convert to PPL(A) in the future when i have a real job, and has anyone ever encountered any problems with this in the past?! thanks in advance

[BEagle]

1. The PPL(M) has now become the NPPL with Microlight Rating.

2. You can add a SSEA Rating to a NPPL at a later date if you wish.

3. You can then upgrade your licence to a JAR-FCL PPL(A) should you so choose - but you will need to complete the training requirements stated in LASORS.

Download LASORS from here: http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publicationdetails.asp?id=1191

It'll answer many of your questions.

[Irv]

and i think it's worth adding that when you read LASORS you'll find (if you understand it!) that the upgrades are not minor, so that wouldn't be the normal route to take to end up with a JAA PPL, but if the question really is about wanting to fly the flexwing asap and have the possibility of upgrading, then it is possible.
See also the NPPL Site (http://www.nppl.uk.com)

[VP959]

It also depends on how you see your flying developing. Microlights are great fun and mostly very affordable, as is getting the NPPL licence. Adding a SSEA rating to an NPPL is fairly easy and then allows you to fly pretty much all normal GA types with some restrictions.

You might want to take a look at the performance of some of the hotship microlights before you eventually take the plunge and consider a JAR PPL. The fastest UK legal microlight now does 145kts and many cruise at speeds around the 90 to 100kt mark. These are serious going places machines, with capabilities exceeding some older GA types. UK microlight pilots frequently tour Europe, as many countries accept our NPPL with a microlight rating in the same way they did the old PPL (Microlights).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well, firstly don't bank on feeling the urge to get a PPL(A) once you have more money, you'll be amazed how much fun flexwings are.

I learned on "conventional" aeroplanes and did a flexwing conversion some years later, this took me about a dozen hours. Irritatingly most people going the other way seem to find it much easier.

Flying flexwings will, cheaply, teach airmanship, weather, RT (if you use a radio), navigation, airfield procedures, and a whole stack of "I learned about flying from that" stuff. It's also damned good fun.

In doing your JAR group A license, what you'll need to learn is:-

- How to handle the different aeroplane.
- An obsession with runway performance planning
- Some different air law
- More complex (but not necessarily better) navigation methods.
- How to fly more procedurally.

None of this is incompatible with what you'll have done in the flexwing, in fact pretty much all of it is complementary. Then, so long as you stay reasonably current on both, you'll be pretty safe on both - just don't fly ONLY ONE for too long without a bit of time with an instructor when you go back to the other.

G

[BEagle]

There is no such thing as a 'Group A aeroplane' anymore, nor has there been for many years - except in the mind of a few PFA fossils.......

For NPPL, it's a 'Simple Single Engined Aeroplane' (i.e. < 2tonne MTOW, 4 seats max)

For JAR-FCL, it's a 'Single Engine Piston' class of aeroplane.

Enjoy flex-wing microlighting - and the rest of your flying! Once the next ANO amendment has been incorporated, you'll find keeping both your NPPL ratings much, much simpler than it is currently!

[Genghis the Engineer]

And on my FAA license it's "SEL" or "Single Engine Land".

But all are....

....Often referred to by the convenient, and universally understood shorthand "group A".....

G

[BEagle]

Please stop using 'Group A' - it just serves to confuse. As is often the case in our profession, precision is paramount.

[Irv]

Once the next ANO amendment has been incorporated, you'll find keeping both your NPPL ratings much, much simpler than it is currently!
Unless they ignore 'draft' reviews again like they did last time...

[BEagle]

To be fair, Irv, they didn't ignore it - they made a genuine human mistake in using 'ballonist' validity requirements. But once the error is made, it takes a lot longer to fix!

This time the CAA are determined that it won't go to press until the NPPL P&SC has confirmed that what has been drafted by the CAA is what the Committee has agreed to. That's why the last meeting had to be delayed a couple of weeks - to get the document through 'legal' and back to FCL in time to be debated fully.