NPPL Instructors

[going round]

Hello all
I'm a PPrune virgin. This is my first time so be gentle with me ok?

I decided last year I wanted to become a flying instructor in my spare time so I started the CPL studies with PPSC. I made decent progress but considered after studying the nav subjects that I wouldn't have time to complete the whole syllabus before the date of the last exam. not wanting to waste money I regretfully pulled out and decided to wait until the JAR CPL route was established.

Well from listening to people in the industry, magazine and PPrune comment this JAR seems like a real shambles so I was at a lose end until I heard about the possibility of PPLs being allowed to take an FI course and instruct NPPLs. I have a full time job that allows me plenty of time at home so the (probabally) poor pay isn't an issue. It seems right up my street.

Any comments?

There, that wasn't so bad. How was it for you?

[StrateandLevel]

Well if the JAR thing is a shambles you will be comforted to know that the NPPL has been dreamed up by the same organisation that dragged GA into JAR-FCL. AOPA!

The NPPL is likely to appear next year despite the fact that few actually support it. It is of course a CON; if the same course took 55 hours two years ago how can it now be done in 32hours? unless you go to Florida!

The NPPL Instructor part remains a mere proposal, and unlikely to get off the ground until the NPPL has established itself as a raging success. How long will that take? quite a few years at best.

My advice is to take the JAA CPL exams and do your instructor course especially as you are well on your way.

[going round]

Thanks S&L, I probabally will try the JAA route just as soon as I can find a ground school that is geared up for the JAR CPL (Distance learning).

While we're on the subject though, supposing that this proposal comes off and 200hr PPLs with the instructor rating are allowed to instruct NPPLs for pay, how are you pofessional instructors going to feel?

I mean you've taken the time & effort to pass the CPLs etc then the goal posts have been moved. How Will you view these new types of instructors?, will flying schools want to employ instructors who can't instruct ALL their students? & how much less will they be paid than the 'fully'qualified instructors?

['I' in the sky]

This might sound harsh but it's a gut reaction to what appears to be a compromise of standards, brought about by pressure groups who think people have a God given right to fly.

Yes I agree JAA/JAR is like everything else European a farse but the sensible thing would be just to stick with the CAA PPL.

If the NPPL does uphold anything like acceptable standards of safety then the 32 hours minimum will have to be just that - a minimum, just like the minimum 40 hours for the original CAA PPL ,or 45 hours for the JAA. I think that when people find they are not automatically getting there licence at 32 hours then the NPPL will lose much of its initial attraction.

If that is not the case then I'm quite happy for someone else to get involved in the instruction of it. I have no desire to see my name in a statistic's logbook.

As I said this is a gut reaction so it is open to moderating influences.

[TooHotToFly]

going round - PPSC and 4-Forces now offer the JAR CPL (not sure if they do it distance learning though).

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm not sure I agree about the lack of support, I hear quite a lot of people very enthusiastic about it. Personally, I think so long as the GFT/Skills test standard of handling, VFR navigation, and airmanship is not dropped, there shouldn't be a problem.

If you want to teach part time only, why not go for a microlight AFI/FI rating? There's no requirement for a CPL, and the course costs about 2/3 of what a light aircraft AFI course costs. Microlight instructors are in short supply, and get paid slightly better than light aircraft instructors (because you can't hour build for an ATPL on a microlight, so they actually have to pay a living wage!).

G

[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 28 February 2001).]

[rolling circle]

Ghengis - You may well have heard that "quite a lot of people are very enthusiastic about it". Unfortunately, the people who are expressing enthusiasm are not those who are going to have to deal with it, i.e. those in the industry.

AOPA, in its usual manner, elects to listen only to those who support it's collective point of view. The vast majority who think the NPPL is a complete waste of time and effort are somehow dismissed as 'unrepresentative'.

Let's not forget that it was the bungling ineptitude of AOPA that got us into this mess in the first place.

The chances of there ever being a 'NPPL Instructor' are vanishingly small. If anything a more highly qualified instructor will be required to acieve a safe standard in so few hours.

[BEagle]

Rolling Circle - sorry, but your facts are incorrect.

There is now a NPPL Steering Committee which indeed represents the views of industry. This was formed following the CAA's request that NPPL proposals should represent the view of all industry bodies, rather than the CAA having to arbitrate over every objection to AOPA's own proposals. Hence AOPA, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA, GAPAN, PFA all have representation on the NPPLSC which is chaired by AOPA. The Flight Examiners' Association are also in favour of the NPPL, as is the CAA (FCL, GAD and Medical). Rapid progress is being made towards a solution acceptable to all the bodies representing the industry as soon as possible; the NPPLSC has had 2 formal meetings and will report progress to the CAA in March. The next NPPLSC meeting will be held in early April and all members are very keen to achieve the industry solution as soon as possible; this is not some stagnant euro-committee fond of its own voice, it is a group of aviators working together towards a common goal.

The NPPL will be a generic licence containing ratings appropriate to the categories of aircraft operated by the constituent organisations of the NPPLSC, cross-accreditation proposals, theoretical knowledge requirements, pre-entry training requirements for Night, IMC and NPPL/FI ratings are also being worked on. The emphasis for the NPPL/FI will be firmly on relevant knowledge rather than JAA esoterica; it is intended that the NPPL/FI will have roughly the same rights and privileges as the old PPL/FI or Restd. BCPL/FI including the right to receive remuneration within appropriate constraints.

The NPPL will be a product of industry's requirements endorsed by a highly enthusiastic CAA; in contrast, the JAR-FCL PPL requirements were forced upon the recreational flying industry by a heavy-handed Authority without proper consultation.

The licence will ONLY be valid in the UK, for that reason it is considered essential that the just-revised syllabus of a minimum of 32 hours of training and consolidation PLUS 2 Skill Tests (1 GH and 1 Nav) may only be carried out in the environment within which the licence will be valid. That means the UK, not Florida!


[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 March 2001).]

[A and C]

Beagle thanks for a balanced and well informed post that shows that the NPPL is an industry wide idea.

As for the anti AOPA posts i feel that the JAA-PPL probably looked like a good idea at the time but once all the nations have stuck there bit in it turns into buracratic mire.

You have to ask your self this ,what would the JAA have done if AOPA had not been fighting the GA corner ?

The reason that GA in the UK gets pushed around is that most of the UK,s pilots are to tight to pay the subscription to the reprisentative bodys such as AOPA or the PFA ,and spend to much time just slagging them off in forums like this when the time would be much beter spent writing emails to your MP in support of GA.

End of rant!.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Concur entirely with BEagle. Like BEagle I work in the GA industry (albeit on the engineering side) and hear overall support for the NPPL, but equally strong concerns that it must be implemented sensibly.

I'm not a fan of UK AOPA either, and consider PFA, BMAA, BGA to offer far better representation for the individual, plus they're cheaper and do better magazines. But, frankly the problem with the JAR-FCL license fiasco wasn't the concept, it was the appauling way it was implemented, particularly by a CAA FCL dept who didn't consult or think hard about the consequences of the way they were doing business.

The new head of FCL, who was previously the head of GA department, learned at GA dept the necessity of consulting with everybody and getting full agreement. He seems keen to continue this previous habit, and we should applaud him for it.

G

[UKPPL]

Going Around,

I'm currently studying, via distance learning, for my JAR CPL with Four Forces, wishing to follow a similar path to you want.

All I'll probably end up doing with my CPL FI is teaching PPL level students at a club.

Although the NPPL instructor rating (If/when it becomes available) will possibly allow an easier route to being an FI, it won't allow for tuition of JAR PPL students. Since the NPPL will be fairly restrictive, I guess the demand for JAR PPLs will still be fairly high (?).

As I wrote in another thread;

...Yes it's a joke isn't it. If you do decide to do a CPL (and not just add a FI rating onto yr PPL), it will probably take you over 400 hrs of flying instruction before you even break even...

For those people who only want to ever teach students to PPL level at clubs (and get some pay/reward). You would have thought the CAA would have introduced a way of people being able to take FI ratings for training JAR PPLs and get paid for teaching students without having to go through the time consuming and costly process of gaining a full CPL. I guess what I'm refering to is a sort of restricted CPL (restricted to PPL level instruction only) available to anyone who can pass a FI(R) course.

Although I'm all for maintaining high standards of knowledge and instruction, I fail to see why you need JAR CPL knowledge for teaching students to fly C152s.

But then again, I guess the average PPL student will of course be asking what article 3 of the Tokyo convention of 1963 includes....

[Noggin]

I find it curious that nobody in the industry seems to know who the people are on the NPPLSC that are representing them. If they did, they could voice their concerns. Who are they Beagle? or is it a secret? No doubt the usual bunch of professional committee goers.

I note the recent AOPA meeting on the subject was for Corporate members only.

[This message has been edited by Noggin (edited 01 March 2001).]

[going round]

Fantastic response Guys 'n' Galls.

As BEagle & Rolling Circle demonstrate, the factors that led us to this unsatisfactory situation are numerous and highly debatable.

The pragmatic view would be that few organisations are totally incompetent, few never make any mistakes and the best method will come out on top through reasoned debate. (This fence post is killing my Butt!)

For my two pen'orth, JAR is simply a nice Idea poorly executed and the NPPL is in danger of going the same way. Anyway, to reply to some specifics:

Toohottofly - Thanks for the tip about PPSC, I'll give them another call.

Genghis - Microlite AFI? never thought of that, I'll give it some consideration if my latest GOOD NEWS doesn't work out.

UKPPL - I like the idea of a restricted CPL. Tell you what, we could call it a Basic Comercial Pilots Licence!

Finally the GOOD NEWS is that in April I start as a volunteer civillian flying instructor with the Air Cadets teaching them to solo standard on Grob 109 SLMGs! The RAF provide the training for me, accommodation, food, uniform and as many girls as I can lick!

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

[BEagle]

Noggin -

The NPPLSC members are NOT the 'usual bunch of commitee goers' as I tried to make clear - all are aviators who want things to happen!

NPPLSC consists of:

AOPA
BGA
BMAA
GAMTA
GAPAN
PFA

If you are not a member of any of these organisations and wish to make a contribution, you have 3 choices:

1. Join.
2. Write to the Head of GA at the CAA and ask for your view to be communicated to the NPPLSC for sympathetic consideration.
3. Do nothing and whinge.

[rolling circle]

The NPPLSC members are NOT the 'usual bunch of commitee goers'

NPPLSC consists of:

AOPA
BGA
BMAA
GAMTA
GAPAN
PFA

Why do the words 'non' and 'sequiter' spring to mind?

The first draft of JAR-FCL1 (all those years ago) made no mention of PPL training, it concentrated entirely on professional training and was intended to be the training companion to JAR-OPS 1. AOPA then muscled in on the act and, without consultation or consideration, demanded that private flying be included. I know....I was there.

Now, the same incompetent bunch, having finally woken up to the consequences of their ill-considered demands, are desperate to disengage private flying from the JAA. The latest demand is that all reference to General Aviation be removed from JAR-FCL.

A and C wrote:

"You have to ask your self this ,what would the JAA have done if AOPA had not been fighting the GA corner ?"

The answer, of course, is that the JAA would have ignored private aviation, as it always intended to, all of the member states would have continued to issue PPLs to the same rules that they had always done and would have continued to recognise each others licences as they had always done. In short - we would have retained the old, tried and tested, system that everyone is now trying to get back to.

If only AOPA had not stuck their noses in.....

[BEagle]

Rolling circle, what positive contribution are you trying to make about the NPPL? Please let us know what your objections are in clear, unemotive terms. They may then be addressed and acted upon or resolved.

AOPA's original idea to bring PPL training under the framework of JAR-FCL was entirely reasonable; what was totally unreasonable was the (then) attitude of the CAA in refusing to address the concerns of the recreational flying training industry at the manner in which JAR-FCL PPL matters were later being executed without proper consultation. AOPA's original concept was effectively sabotaged by the heavy-handedness of the CAA. Whereas the views of industry ARE being listened to regarding the NPPL and we now have new heads of GAD and FCL who are rather better at working with industry than perhaps was the case hitherto; they are also enthusiastically supportive of the NPPL, as is CAA Medical.

I say again, Rolling Circle, please state your points about the NPPL so that they can be fairly addressed.

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 March 2001).]

[A and C]

Beagle thanks once more for the post above i,m sure that RC will find it imformative.

[Noggin]

Beagle

As one who was not prepared to contemplate training for the NPPL at your school a few weeks ago, it seems you have now taken the pills, done the course and been brainwashed.

My question was, Who is on the committe? Committees consist of people not organisations.

[FNG]

Hey going around, how did you get that fab job with the Air Cadets? What are the qualifications required, age limits etc?

[BEagle]

Because, Noggin, certain concerns were presented to one of the organisations referred to. They then asked for further information and a working group formed which reported to the head of the organisation. As a result, the organisation sent a letter to the Head of CAA SRG. Following the response to this, the CAA also wrote to AOPA and other organisations advising them to seek an industry consensus. This led to the first meeting of the NPPLSC at which the majority of the concerns were satisfactorily resolved and the proposed NPPL syllabus amended. Further progress was made this week. Hence the NPPL is now a workable proposal, whereas beforehand it wasn't.

In that NPPL students will probably now have to pass a NFT, most concerns about them being able to cope with mixed traffic in Class D airspace have been addressed.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It really is a pleasant change to see CAA working like this isn't it. I wonder if it'll last?

G

[intents]

I can't see the problem with the hours requirements. If we go back to the 1970's, the era that I know about then the requirement was for 35 hours and I suspect if we go even further back the requirements were even lower.

[rolling circle]

BEagle, it is clear that we are never going to see eye to eye on this matter - they do say that there is none so committed as a convert.

It is also clear that it must be my memory that is at fault since, not only is my recollection of the 'industry's' involvement in the introduction of JAR-FCL at variance with yours but also, I have no recollection of your presence on any of the advisory committees at the time. Ah well, I suppose it's inevitable that memory fades with age.

For the record, my recollection is that, at every step of the implementation process, amendments were being put out to consultation. Looking back on my notes from the time, it seems that plenty of comments and suggestions were received from the airlines and the , then, CAP 509 schools.

It is also interesting to note that many comments were received from the USA, including one from the wife of a FAA instructor complaining that introduction of JAR-FCL1 would adversely affect her husband's income. The volume and content of comments from the US were instrumental in the drafting of provisions, later included in NPA 14, to allow for training to take place outside of JAA member states.

However, among all this feedback, I can find none from AOPA, or any of the other bodies now involved, until it was all too late.

Incidentally, it would appear, from your last post, that it was only recently, when the CAA stepped in and started banging heads together, that AOPA began properly to consult with the 'industry' whose support for the NPPL it had long, and fraudulently, claimed.

I have no 'objection' to the NPPL per se, I believe it be an irrelevance that will do nothing either to improve safety or to decrease substantially the cost of recreational flying. Few, if any, will reach an adequate standard in the minimum hours. It will, however, be interesting to examine the statistics concerning the relative levels of involvement of NPPL vs PPL holders in incidents and accidents. You can bet that SDAU and the UKAB will be polishing their microscopes.

My real concern is that none of this would have been necessary had the PPL not been included in JAR-FCL in the first place, something that would not have happened without the interference of AOPA and which, far from being entirely reasonable, was completely unnecessary when mutual recognition of PPLs was already, effectively, in place with a minimum of bureacracy. I never encountered any problems getting my licence validated for use in other european states prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL1, all that was normally required was an exchange of faxes. (Apart, perhaps, in france and it seems that JAR-FCL has done little to improve that situation.)

[Noggin]

Beagle there are over 300 registered facilities in the UK conducting PPL training. With the exception of AOPA Corporate Members, not one has been asked for its opinion on the NPPL.

The CAA has done nothing other than to agree that its someone elses problem to sort out.

[BEagle]

RC - you're probably right about the way that AOPA claimed to represent the views of industry and acted as though it had universal support 'negotiating' JAR-FCL PPL proposals.

But that is water under the bridge now. This time there is a NPPL steering committee representing the industry - or rather those parts of industry which have an organisation through which to present their views.

So what do you do if you're not a member of AOPA, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA, GAPAN or the PFA, you're concerned about the NPPL and you want to make your views known? Perhaps the best solution is to e-mail AOPA and ask for your views to be put before the next NPPLSC meeting.

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 05 March 2001).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

I was at the meeting where the NPPL was first proposed by AOPA to CAA. PFA, BMAA,BGA, RAeS, GAMTA, and various others were all there. Within a month or two of that meeting, there was detailed discussion about the proposals in "Popular Flying", the PFA's magazine. PFA became very involved, and BMAA, BGA and RAeS LAG became involved on the fringes.

After the initial burst of enthusiasm, AOPA did go through a period of playing a "lone game", until several organisations complained about this to the CAA - and then the NPPLSG was set up, under CAA control. There now appears to be very wide "buy-in" through all these representative organisations.

It is not feasible to individually consult all 300 GA schools, 75 microlight schools, (lots) glider schools, that is what associations are there for. I concur with BEagle's sentiments, joint the most sensible club(s) and use them, they do listen to their members. If that doesn't work, write to the head of FCL, who I believe chairs said steering group.

I am not, incidentally, directly involved myself, so please don't ask me.

G


[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 05 March 2001).]

[going round]

FNG
Sorry for the delay, If you want more information regarding a Civilian Instructors post with the Air Cadets its probabally best to E-mail me. My address should be at the top of this reply. If not I'll send another post with basics but do remember - It's voluntary. Free flying but no pay.

[RVR800]

What we need is a

nCPL
nATPL as well

Nobody needs this dogs breakfast

[Noggin]

We do have a National CPL and a National ATPL. Get in quick before 30 June 2002 as that is the last date for their issue

[This message has been edited by Noggin (edited 09 March 2001).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

For what it's worth, the Vigilant in Air Cadet Service is certified to an MTOW of 908kg. The civil limit for a motorglider (enshrined in JAR-22) is 850kg, therefore your hours in the Vigilant / G109b with the Air Cadets are legally (in the CAA's eyes) light aircraft hours, not motorglider hours.

Not many people know that!

G

[little red train]

Don't mean to go off-topic hear.

But what does this actually all do to the cost of flying, as far as I can see the only benifit is the reduced minimum hours.

average for a PPL is about 60 - 70 hours, way above minimums.

A NPPL will have little use as a "step-stone" to a CPL surely its more for those who want to go flying as a hobbie for fun?

details are hazy but I'm sure the Aircraft will require all the paperwork the CAA can possibly muster, approching that for a commercially opperated Light A/C, if not the same, as it will be run for profit. I suspect as Training establishments who will offer this will be currently offering JAA PPL's, continure to do so, and as such the Aircraft will be maintained and operated to the standards (and induced costs) required for that kind of work.

As far as I can figure is the hourly rate of the Aircraft will be much the same as the rate of that used for JAA PPL, (minus the 50p for the instructor!)

Everyones raving on at how the reduced hours will reduce to cost of training. but wait, Pilots don't just want a Licence in a minimum time then sit on the ground, they want to go fly, as cheaply as possible. appart from the possibility of getting a NPPL quicker, I cant see Flying getting any cheaper.


[This message has been edited by little red train (edited 09 March 2001).]

[BEagle]

Little Red Train - bit harsh, old chap! The whole idea of the NPPL IS to make private flying affordable!!!

One of the aims is to bring about an easing of FI requirements (but not standards), we also hope to ease current restrictions on both aerodromes and aircraft used for training. We are very aware, however, that this could open the door to some of the dubious characters who are lurking out in GA-land trying to peddle PPL instruction with fancy leterheads and a few clapped-out aircraft. Hence we are asking for the aircraft to be 'of a standard acceptable to the Authority' and the aerodromes used for NPPL training to be categorised in a similar manner. But 'approval' of all NPPL business may one day rest with an umbrella organisation - as will the processing of all NPPL applications - so some of the dodgy folk (if you're reading this, you know who you are and so do we!!) who think that they can make a quick buck will be seen off fairly smartly!

Softly, softly, catchee monkey. We are trying to ease things so that private GA WILL become more affordable, but not all changes can happen overnight.

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 09 March 2001).]

[going round]

I think we seem to be getting bogged down in the detail of the NPPL when quoting minimum hours, comparative skills etc. The bottom line is that GA in this country needs more participants for its survival never mind growth.

The powers that be (I believe) recognise the importance of GA to the ecomomy so if the NPPL creates more pilots, whether it took them 30, 50 or 100 hrs to licence issue, then so much the better.

It gives us a louder voice (I'm being slightly hypocritical here as I'm not in AOPA yet - though I intend to rectify this soon), creates jobs at many levels and provides a future for our aviation industry.

[little red train]

I sort of get your point BEagle, slowly remove the responsibilty of Private flying to a seperate organisation than the JAA/CAA, good Idea, but (Harsh Hat on again) What the H*ll are the JAA/CAA up to, they should be trying to achive this, but instead they are proving themselfs so incapable that others have to do it for them, should we all go round to the food halls at hanseldorf (or whatever its called) and spoon feed them? we pay their salarys, why don't they get off there backsides and sort something out. the Commercial JAA is such a mess becuase they never listened to the industry, the private is in even more of mess because they pass it of as some pointless anoyance, name me one pilot who flys commercaily who has never made use of light aviation.

The setting up of the NPPL only highlights the shortcomings of the JAA. sort the system rather than fragment it more would be my prefrence.

..Harsh hat off.. fire at will..

For the record I love light aviation, flying in the airlines doesn't hold the luster that many others seam to be blinded like bunny rabbits by. I've flown alot in the states, and seen what can be done by a rationaly authoriy that sees the social and financial benifits of light avation. its not a perfect system but I'd gladly see the hole euro system be replaced in an instant.

[This message has been edited by little red train (edited 09 March 2001).]

[Noggin]

Genhis

Whilst it is off the topic the Grob 109 is certified under JAR-FCL as a Touring Motor Glider. Therefore the hours which used to count on the Vigilant as Group A are now only countable as a TMG.

[Genghis the Engineer]

But the Vigilant is not, repeat not, an unmodified civil G109b, it is a Vigilant T Mk.1, which has slightly different instruments, is flown with parachutes, has subtly different flying limitations, and (most importantly) an MTOW above the legal limit for a TMG.

G109b, civil CofA, MTOW=850kg
Vigilant T.1, Military CA Release, MTOW=908kg

JAR-22, the book the CAA certifies motorgliders against, says at paragraph 22.1(a)(2) "Single engined (spark or compression ignition) powered sailplanes, the design value W/b² (weight to span²) of which is not greater than 3 (W[kg], b[m] and the maximum weight of which does not exceed 850kg"

W/b² still comes out at 2.98 (it's 2.8 at 850kg), but it's the MTOW that takes it outside the CIVIL definition.

[For what it's worth, I wrote the military CA release reports for the Vigilant. The CAA have also seen my logbook, with Vigilant hours (listed as such, don't call it a G109b) under light aircraft, and not queried it.]


If you want a comparison, there's a PFA homebuilt called a Minimax. Some variants are microlights, some are light aircraft - the difference is basically the fuel tank size and which particular engine is fitted. So you can have two nearly identical aeroplanes, one of which you log microlight hours on, and the other group A.

G

[Noggin]

I have signed people up on the Vigilant on the strength of it, but I have been told by FCL Policy that it can only be signed up as a TMG.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would venture to suggest that in recent years, FCL policy is like the English weather - wait 5 minutes it'll change. More to the point, I think that they are being inconsistent.

G