New light-weight UK PPL - your views?

[Oh OK]

What are the views on the new 30-35hr PPL that seems to be the latest brain child of the CAA? Can you find 10 hours to chop from the current training - and turn out a safe PPL? Does it fill a gap? will it 'compete' with the USA or just be a white elephant?

Seems strange to me that we just get JAR in, formalising everything - increasing hours - all 'accepted' by the CAA as 'a good thing' then they actually want to do what appears to be the reverse, and go even further back than the original situation - those goal-posts are getting giddy.

What say you?

[A and C]

Even through the smoked glass of aviation house it can be seen that the JAA PPL is a euopean buracratic nightmare ,so with a lot of pushing from AOPA the CAA has made the correct move to free private flying from this burden.
A good move on the part of the CAA i think.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I can´t decide if its a good thing or not. Probably think its a good thing if it results in more PPL´s being issued following UK training.

A lot depends on the examiners on the GFT. If they are strict and follow current JAA requirements such as not flying with candidate themselves then I think things will work OK.

WWW

[zzzz]

All in all a good idea.

JAR PPL is too cumbersome...the national PPl will get the punters throughthe flying school doors on its perceived lower cost,BUT where those 10hours will disappear from...that is anyones guess.

[Mark 1]

I think one of the best things about it is the less onerous medical requirements.
Think of all the people who go to microlights, SLA's or simply give up because of failing to get a class 3 (2), most of these people drive on the roads for hundreds of hours a year with absolutely no problems, the risk to the public can be kept minute.
On that basis I give it a thumbs up.

Mark

[A Very Civil Pilot]

From the JAR PPL you can immediatly cut out 5 hours of radio navigation and put it back as a post PPL add on as it used to be.

Doing away with the QXC should save about 5 hours as well (dual and solo).

The Australians have (used to have?) a restricted PPL of 20-25 hours that limited you to 25 nm radius from airfield of departure. It was designed to allow you to fly the a/c, but not on any x/c flights - which of course you could always train up to later. If that's what AOPA/CAA are aiming at it will certainly attract more customers in through the doors

[Luke SkyToddler]

I think it's grand. Well done CAA for finally recognizing that the JAA PPL is just a teensy weensy bit over the top for many (most?) of the recreational pilots out there, and finally having the balls to stand up to the Eurocrats over something!

I have turned out several 'restricted' PPLs (the thing that A.V.C.P. is referring to) back down under. They are a 40 hour PPL, loosely based on the old UK syllabus, without the cross country component but including the mandatory New Zealand CAA 5 hours of instrument time (i.e. about 7 hours in the aircraft). Cut that back to a more realistic two hours or so, and you have a perfectly safe and workable 35 hour PPL. Holders are restricted to not flying more than 25 miles away from home base, should they wish to upgrade to a full PPL later on they merely have to complete the required 10 hours worth of x/c training and get it signed off by a QFI. Simple :)

So well done CAA - now could you really make my day by please doing something about the stupidly excessive euro medical standards, make the ground exams remotely relevant, slash your charges by about 95% and force a national referendum on the price of avgas, there may be hope for G.A. in this country yet!

[BEagle]

Sorry - I think that it is a retrograde step. To reduce training in increasingly busy UK airspace is crazy. To reduce the costs of a UK PPL but retain training requirements, the only solution is to demand a reduction in fuel costs.
My Flying Training Organisation will NOT be conducting training for any 'NPPL' - neither will I hire my aircraft to people with less than a 'real' PPL. Sorry - but the NPPL is an attempt by the CAA to wriggle off the hook of its own making!

[V2+10]

Well stated BEagle, Thank god someone is typing some sence

I hope the facility i work for will adopt the same attitude

Regs to all!!

[DB6]

Nah, we've spoken about this before, can't agree with Beagle. What seems to be forgotten is that the 35 hrs will be the minimum permissible; you'll still have to pass the test so most people will take more than 35 hours anyway, just as people take more than 45 as it is now. I don't see why people should have to do radio nav. I don't generally use it for VFR flight even though I have an IR. It's not necessary. And instrument flight ? Also not necessary. Stay on the ground if the weather's **** . Again, even though I am quite capable of flying on instruments, I have never been compelled to do so on a VFR flight. And the bottom line is that I personally know of at least one person who cannot be bothered with all the JAR crap and is waiting for the NPPL before he recommences training. In his situation, with no interest in progressing to a professional license, I would be doing the same thing.

[BEagle]

The radio navigation element is being hugely overstated. It forms a very small part of the JAR syllabus; pilots are only required to establish their position by use of radio navigation aids (except for GPS and ground radar) and to track a radial for 5 minutes on the Skill Test. Hardly very demanding - in fact although the Skill Test is longer than the old NFT/GFT, its content is easier - particularly as far as navigation is concerned. The previous PPL syllabus required more IF - this was a safety initiative introduced after accidents over the years - not in any way to train pilots to fly in IMC for protracted periods.
If people want to fly at lower cost and to develop airmanship skills, then take up gliding and demand that the CAA re-introduces the previous level of accreditation for experienced gider pilots.
Inexperienced pilots blundering about the skies of 2000 will be an absolute nightmare. But first, of course, they'll have to pass the Skill Test or whatever AOPA intends to call it. Imagine spending all that money on 45 hours' flying thanks to the UK weather and only to qualify for a NPPL rather than a real licence!!
Will the next stage be geeks expecting CAA accreditation for 100 hours on Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000............!!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Depending which way the wind is blowing I find myself agreeing with BEagle quite a lot.

I think the NPPL should require an auth by an instructor befor each flight until -say- 150hrs TT had been achieved. Just to ensure weather and route/intentions are reasonable.

I have a slight problem ANYWAY with the privilges of a full PPL. Its fine when your ex-student is just going to hire club aircraft and potter around. However, I once had a student with a lot of disposable wealth and very little aptitude. After scrapping through his GFT at the 2nd attempt he waltzes off into the sunset. 3 weeks later I hear he has bought a Turbo Arrow and is flying over to Schipol next week. Now he has had NO relevant training for this kind of flight and frankly this aircraft is way beyond his ability at 55hrs TT. Somebody should have been able to stop him. I was fearful for his life and his passengers and every other user of Schipol that day. Really I was.

I could live with a less onerous standard for PPL in exchange for more restrictions post PPL. Now - and certainly in the future - there is some very complex an high performance kit out there weighing less than 5,700kg and having but one engine...

WWW

[foxmoth]

I don't have any problem with a lower grade PPL, PROVIDED it is restricted.
With a 25 mile limit and instructor authorisation you can cut out the instrument flying and much of the nav, still allowing people to fly their freinds around the local area, which is all a lot of PPLs do ( in fact a lot seem to get the licence and then drop out of flying the new system might then give them a new target in going on for the JAR licence)
NB - V civil Pilot - where does 5 HOURS of Radio nav come in - not in the regs I have read, and seems excessive to me?

[Vigilant Driver]

Gliding is not as cheap as you believe. An hour’s hire of your typical training glider (e.g. K13) is approx £20 at an average club. Then you have to get it airborne, so maybe a 3,000-ft aerotow about £30. So we are already up to £50 and that’s assuming that you are a skilled enough pilot to thermal for an hour from 3,000ft and still achieve your training objective for that flight.

But don’t get me wrong, gliding is a great way to start your flying career, as you will learn all about coordination which I certainly found useful last night during my prof. cx. on the Seneca having an asymmetric ILS to minimas! Ahhh…puts hairs on ya chest!

Now this NPPL…Lets face it the idea behind the NPPL is to reduce cost. It probably will not as the Examiners will still be looking for a 45-hour standard of flying and with most low hour students the hours make all the difference in their skill levels. In the ideal world, HM Gov. will see what damage they are doing to the flying training industry and will reduce the VAT on flying training.

Now if I were going to introduce an NPPL I would probably do the following:

1. Base it round PFA type aircraft and clubs. These guys operate at minimum cost (and functionality!) already.

2. Restrict pilots to uncontrolled UK airspace, day only, VFR. There’s plenty of little green field, non-radio strips that you can potter along to.

3. No radio. Most of the gliding world flies around happily without the R/T anyway. So why not your NPPL as he/she is going to remain outside of controlled airspace anyway.

The NPPL would have the same privileges of a glider pilot but of course with a powered aircraft.

If an NPPL then wanted to go to larger controlled airfields then he/she could do an upgrade module to introduce them to the busy airspace we all live in.

Well that’s my view on life. As the NPPL stands I don’t think it will work that well except to open an ‘extra cheap’ route for wannabe ATPLs via the States.

Finally Oh OK said it was the CAA's idea. NO it wasn't! It was AOPA's. The CAA just bank your money and issue the licence :)

Vigi

[A Very Civil Pilot]

The 5 hours of Navaid flying, although not a specifically written rule, is basically the old 40 hour PPL, plus the old 5 hours Navaid course beoing combined to make the new JAR PPL. It was a good rule of thumb when it came to explaining why the new licence is longer.

No doubt most flying schools are finding things a bit quite at the moment, in part by potential students being put off by the onerous JAR PPL. If we have a cheaper, more relevant 30-35 hour PPL, we are more likely to get then through the doors. Then afterwards we can get them trained up for X/C's, X/channel etc.

What would you rather have - training someone for 35 hours for an NPPL, or watching them go down the road to the glider/microlight/para-scending club to spend their money? They'll still be in the air, so why not make it easier to become a fixed wing pilot, and fly with us. It puts us on a more level setting with all the other aviation trainers.

[rolling circle]

WWW said:

"Probably think its a good thing if it results in more PPL´s being issued following UK training."

But what makes you assume that it'll be UK training? We all know how eager the CAA is to farm all flying training out to the US, South Africa, Australia and NZ. After all, they get all those freebie, business class trips to do the inspections, especially now that PPL training is going to be approved as well.

Think about the prospect of sharing the crowded UK skies with people who have done the minimum 35 hrs training, in perfect weather, no airspace restrictions and minimal ATC with instructors who have never flown in UK airspace. Incidentally, don't blame the CAA - this one was 100% AOPA driven.

The day this idiocy goes through is the day I pack up flying in the open FIR and stick to big shiny jets in controlled airspace with people who know what they're doing.

[juswonnafly]

Have to agree with BEagle on this one!

Anyway, the current PPL is for daytime VFR use only.

If people want cheaper flying wot about microlights instead?

In my experience it is not the cost of gaining the license that is the problem but more so the cost of maintaining it.

Personally I think that the reduced PPL is a daft idea.

That's my two pence worth

JWF :)

[RVR800]

These hours are only minimum hours
requirements anyway

The precise contents are still within
the discretion of the instructor
and the student

How about a new CAA PPL IR as well .. ?

[A and C]

The germans and the french are both to have national PPL,s so why not us ?

But much better if its an international standard we are after why dont we scrap this EEC nightmare and standardise with the FAA for a true international standard.

[BlueLine]

The National PPL was of course not the brain child of the CAA but an idea from AOPA. It remains as yet only a proposal, and it is AOPA or some other industry body that will have to do all the work to make it work, the CAA will only issue the pieces of paper at the end.

Now what was AOPAs last invention? Strangely it was to drag the previous UK PPL into JAR-FCL.

What makes you think the new proposal will be any better than their last one?