30hr PPL

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Over on Wannabes at the moment (Punters Forum as I calls it these days) there is a thread running about a proposed 30hr UK PPL course.

Anybody care to comment? I've pooh poohed it but don't know that much about the detail.

WWW

[BEagle]

WWW - absolutely right old chum, it is a very poorly thought-out proposal. Whilst it might possibly be suitable for a pilot flying on fine sunny days within visual sight of his/her home aerodrome out in the sticks it would be totally inappropriate for general flight within the UK. Des - if you're reading this, please heed the views expressed and reject AOPA's proposal - because IT JUST ISN'T SAFE!!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 06 January 2000).]

[foxmoth]

I believe they have a scheme like this abroad somewhere (USA?), but it is not promoted very well. The idea is to get more people flying, and hence more work for the clubs, which has to be a good thing as long as it is properly monitored. If they are going to have this I think that one of the requirements should be for all flights by holders of one of these licences should be signed out by an instructor, as per solo flying by a student.
Mind you,with JARs, I don't know where the instructors are going to come from to do the work that is there, never mind any new stuff like this! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif ;)

[Arkwright]

This new '30 PPL' sounds like what they have in the microlight world. They have a 'Restricted Microlight Licence' which only allows them to fly within a certain radious of their base airfield. Should they wish to have this restriction lifted, theres more dual training involved. It does seem to get more people flying, and if they enjoy it, they can then get fully qualified and enjoy cross countries and landaways. Don't forget that an awful lot of students get a PPL just for local, fun flying, and a lot of potential PPL's 'bale out' of he full course due to finances.

[NZ445]

30 HOURS!!!!!!! U gotta be joking!

[BEagle]

Another point - if there was such a licence which restricted holders to flying near their local aerodrome it would guarantee yet more noise complaints in the local area. That could threaten the continued existence of the aerodrome itself!!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

What are the proposed restrictions? Can they go wherever they like? Would they need an FI to sign them out for flight?

I may well get flamed for this but I think the microlight/ultralight training standards are rubbish.

I often encounter these aircraft, for that s what they are, joining my airfield in totally non-standard ways, with totally non-standard R/t, a poor lookout etc etc. You meet them in RAF AIAA talking to absolutely no-one on the radio, not obeying the quadrantal rules and often in formation. When on the ground they seem to have a gung-ho attitude to weather "we can just put down in a field if it closes in" and flight planning "do ya know what the wind is mate cause I'm a bit low on petrol". There seems to be a lot of them that have had broken legs and written off aircraft as well when you get talking to them.

Hardly a good model for GA.

Quick - get the bunker keys and the asbestos trousers!

WWW

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Sounds a bit like the old RPPL here in Aus, which has now been replaced by the "General Flying Progress Test", a passenger-carrying priviledge on a Student Pilot Licence, within the training area.
It works OK here. It's a bit like the UK PPL back to front, like doing the GFT before the NFT instead of the other way round like we do here. The "GFPT" is just a stepping stone towards the PPL. Gives the studes some incentive, if they can take their mates up and have some fun before getting stuck into the cross-countries.

[Mach.1]

What sort of standards are we sinking to.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Genghis the Engineer]

:mad:WWW, American Ultralights can do what they like with training, French ULMs also.

UK microlights are subject to pretty much all of the controls and standards of any other light aircraft, as are their instructors. Also, because you can't hours build for an ATPL in a microlight ALL the instructors are full timers who took that as a career choice - hardly true in GA! Most microlight schools also give students the same instructor throughout their training, and most use an examiner from another school as a matter of course. They have also always subjected their students to a separate RT test, rather than giving them the nod as they went along, which thankfully the CAA has put paid to.

How many microlight schools have you spent time in, I've visited a lot as part of my job (I'm not an instructor, but do a lot of microlight flight testing) and have never seen anything but high standards. But, this is in the UK where microlights account for 2 fatal accidents per year on average, as opposed to France where they average 18 or the USA where it's about 50.

I did spend 2 days grounded by bad weather at an airfield last year (8/8 350ft agl, light rain) I wasn't associated with either the GA or microlight school there. But, whilst the microlight school had all retired to the local pub, the GA school were taking students up and flying 250ft circuits - I even saw them send a student cross country (no, there was not an ILS either)! When I arrived before the weather clagged in, I had to sit overhead for a couple of minutes before the club and an instructor had finished chatting on the published RT frequency. As you say, GA standards are different.

If you want a second opinion, I'd be glad to introduce you to the Chairmen of the UK microlight training committee, or the UK microlight panel of examiners both of whom I'm sure would be glad to discuss it with you.



[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 08 January 2000).]

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Genghis. I read your comments with interest. It seems I may have a jaundiced view. I have never had anything really to do with microlights so I could well be talking out of my **** (self censored).

I've got no axe to grind though. Its not as if I don't like the idea of cheap flying - the more aviators the better never mind what they fly. I have NO time for flying snobbery.

However, I have had some near scrapes with microlights who have been doing some funny things. Thanks for giving me an insight.

WWW

[Genghis the Engineer]

No problem, I think Aviation is very bad at compartmentalising itself and each bit thinking it has some monopoly on good judgement. I've seen poor airmanship at various times in everything from gliders to military aircraft, and I'll bet you have too.

You probably have some idiots in your vicinity, but it might be more constructive to say that they are poor pilots who happen to fly microlights, rather than ;)because ;).

[Irish Steve]

Best example I can recall of poor airmanship in microlights was a closer than comfortable encounter with one at about 4 and a half miles out of Exeter, on the Localiser, I was pretty close to 1500 Ft waiting for the glidelope capture, and flashed past a microlight with not a lot of separation in any direction.

Reported same to the radar controller at Exeter, who thanked me for the report and commented "It's happening regularly, but they're so small they don't paint on the radar".

Nothing we could do, and I wasn't about to do an orbit to go back and see if I could get any closer ;) ;)

On the basic thought of a 30 Hr PPL, that sounds like a non starter, the theory looks like a European equivalent of the american recreational licence, but as sure as eggs is eggs, the rules will get broken more than they will be observed, and a dilution in the overall standard of airmanship is the most likely result. Not good.


------------------
"Irish" Steve

[This message has been edited by Irish Steve (edited 08 January 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Irish Steve (edited 08 January 2000).]

[climbs like a dog]

Oh dear. The usual aviation inconsistency is coming out here. People are complaining about the complications of JAR FCL and bemoaning the cost of revalidating their humble PPL, S/E piston rating or obtaining it in the first place. AOPA comes up with a reasonably constructive idea to try and answer one of these complaints and the self-appointed guardians of safety and aeronautical prudence knock it down with hysterical cries of "we're all going to die horribly if this happens". Sorry boys and girls but wake up and smell the coffee. I'm not a microlight pilot, but if you take the time to talk to some micro-lighters you'll find that it's become a much safer sport than when it first started. The aircraft might look like aerial rat's nests but they're efficient aircraft and are stronger than most of the tin-cans GA pilots fly in. Personally I think that anything that gets people started flying that's cheaper than the current JAR PPL should be looked at positively and not as a chance to stick the cauldron of oil on the burner to get it warmed up. There's to much bolox spoken about the death of UK GA. This might be a potential for reversing the perceived trend. Some positive stuff please.

My thoughts, aside from the rant above are that if it is implemented;
[list=1]
it be a fair-weather, day VFR only licence
a performance level be placed on what aircraft can be flown as P1
a radius restriction be placed from the point of departure
that the flying be supervised. This proviso to extend to group-owned aircraft. Perhaps syndicates could be setup with this in mind. This is to prevent the licence being obtained cheaply but then the holder being exploited by having to pay expensive club rates.
that the licence has a recognised and fair upgrade path to a full JAR PPL. In fact it should be one of the recognised paths to a JAR PPL. After all, how many students do you have who actually go out on supervised solo flights at the moment in fair weather, where this restricted licence would allow them to gain experience before straying further afield with an upgraded JAR PPL with it's added knobs and whistles?
[/list=a]

Think on people. Is your living dependant on people learning to fly? If so I think the proposal deserves serious thought and not just rejection out of hand.

------------------
0 to 2000ft in 10 minutes



[This message has been edited by climbs like a dog (edited 10 January 2000).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

Agree with climbs-like-a-dog except for No.4, you can't supervise somebody whilst they're in the air, so I see little point in doing it on the ground.

The currency and biannual check requirements which came in with JAR-FCL should be quite enough.

If you'd care to compare airmanship Irish, I had a PA-28 turn at 900ft across a town straight towards me 2 years ago whilst I was flying S&L down the coast in a microlight (line feature on my left of-course); I had to do a rather steep descending turn to get out of the way. 40km viz, when the airprox board had a word with the chap he said he hadn't been looking out because Prestwick (40nm away, nearest class D about 20nm) hadn't reported any traffic to him. I had been watching him for 5 minutes (throughout which I was flying the same height speed and course), he claimed he only saw me as a I flashed past his window!

On which subject if you were at 1500ft in VMC, how could a microlight "flash past" without warning given it is highly unmanoeuvrable and probably flying at 45 knots? If memory serves, Exeter CTA is 5nm across, so at 4½nm out, he was 2 miles outside the CTA.

I was mostly trained by the queen in Bulldogs then jets, but I fly these things for fun and professionally, and I fly with a lot of people trained only on this low hour license - the standard is generally very high. I also know a few idiots, one or two in the league of the PA-28 pilot; I think regardless of training some people will just forget it all and do their own thing - which is where the currency and biannual check come in. I can't see why a similar treatment won't work for simple 2-seat light aircraft.

G

[climbs like a dog]

I know you can't supervise 'em in the air :rolleyes:. However you can ensure that they are authorised by an instructor or supervising pilot, along the lines of the military. This would encourage them to utilise the knowledge of the instructor and perhaps enhance the learning experience. It would be fitting as most people call the initally issued PPL a licence to learn anyway. I certainly leaned on others more experienced immediately post-PPL.

------------------
0 to 2000ft in 10 minutes

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair point, perhaps what it needs is some magic phrase along the lines of "for use in a club environment".

[Irish Steve]

Originally posted by Genghis the Engineer:

If you'd care to compare airmanship Irish, I had a PA-28 turn at 900ft across a town straight towards me 2 years ago whilst I was flying S&L down the coast in a microlight
G[/B]

Bottom line is that close encounters of the wrong sort happen in all sizes of aircraft, the worst I've had was over Midhurst, training at 2400 Ft with a full RAS from Dunsfold, we got 10 seconds warning of traffic that turned out to be a BAC1-11 at 2500 Ft working Gatwick. Turned out that the controller at LGW had supressed Dunsfold's returns, so didn't see us there when he cleared the 1-11 along the base of the control zone. Caused a few sweaty palms, I can tell you!

G[/B][/QUOTE]
On which subject if you were at 1500ft in VMC, how could a microlight "flash past" without warning given it is highly unmanoeuvrable and probably flying at 45 knots? If memory serves, Exeter CTA is 5nm across, so at 4½nm out, he was 2 miles outside the CTA.
G[/B][/QUOTE]

I was about half a mile from the outer marker, on the ILS procedure in VFR, and both the controller and I would have been a lot happier if the Microlight operators had stopped to consider that 1400 Ft that close to a published procedure is not exactly good for the health! I was in a PA39 doing about 130 Kts at the time, the next behind me was likely to be somewhat larger and faster!

Whatever we're flying, there's good and bad people in the air around us, the trick is to try and keep away from the bad ones. There's a few more stories there too, but not now :)

------------------
"Irish" Steve