NPPL - Have you got your moneys worth??

[G-MANN]

Hi there,

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has gained an NPPL and their opinions on the flying they have done with their shiny new license.

I am contemplating going for an NPPL purely because of the cost but with having so many restrictions placed on it, I would like to know if pilots have found that they can get their money's worth out of it!!!

Apoloigies if its been discussed already but i'm rushed of my feet so dont have much time to search!!!!

G-MAN

P.S - Does anyone on here own a G109B i could use for training??

[J.A.F.O.]

What restrictions?

Day So how much night flying do you do on your basic PPL?
VFR How much IFR do you do on your basic PPL?
3 Pax Be honest, what are you going to be hiring/flying?
UK Okay, you want to go to France? Don't get an NPPL.

For ab initio training going for the NPPL, I don't think you'll spend much less but perhaps on the upkeep you'll save on the medical.

But to fly with a mate or two Day VFR in the UK - which is what a great number of people seem to do with their PPLs - then why not?

[G-MANN]

sorry, i wasn't that clear....

I think i was referring to the naff weather we normally have in the uk. Are there that many days in the year that we can fly day vfr?? thinking about there probably are so maybe I shouldn't have started this post.

Will opt for the NPPL.....cheers:O :O :O

[Whirlybird]

It's a reasonable question.

I've held a PPL(A) for about 7 years, and done getting on for 300 hours. I can think of a couple of times when an IMC would have been useful, but not many. I've rarely taken more than one passenger. I don't have a night rating. And I've been abroad only twice so far. And I do quite a lot of flying, even f/w (I mainly fly helicopters) compared with the average PPL. So it seems to me like an NPPL really won't cramp your style that much.

[Fly Stimulator]

As Whirly says, a reasonable question.

I got an NPPL within a fortnight of its introduction as I wanted to add the ability to carry a couple of extra passengers to the microlight licence I had at the time.

I subsequently did upgrade to a JAR PPL plus night qualification and IMC, but of the extra privileges that gives me the only one I would seriously miss is the ability to fly overseas. That has two aspects; being able to fly an aeroplane from the UK to France etc., but also the ability to hire a machine overseas where an ICAO licence is essential.

If flying outside Britain is not a significant issue for you then the 4-seat, 2000kg, UK day VFR restrictions of the NPPL will hardly impinge on your flying at all. You might as well start with that - you can always add the JAR licence later if you wish.

[J.A.F.O.]

:O I never meant to imply that the question was anything other than a reasonable one, sorry if the tone of my post implied that I did.

I merely meant to point out that in my opinion the "restrictions" imposed by the NPPL weren't really restrictions at all as most PPLs don't operate outside those limits too often anyway.

A reasonable question and, I hope now, a reasonable answer. Go for it and if it doesn't fit take it back and get the bigger size.

[Obs cop]

G-Mann,

Regarding the weather, then I'll turn the question around.

What do you aim to do with your PPL/NPPL. If it is mainly for personal pleasure/ challenge then an NPPL would be fine. If you want to go touring, you need a PPL to go abroad and an IMC rating is of huge benefit in the UK. But these tools are aimed at the ojective of getting to a specific destination on a specific day.

Flying IMC is nowhere near as much fun as VFR so I would suggest for an average recreational pilot flying for fun, IMC reduces the fun element and therefore is not required to achieve the objective.

Besides, if you look into the weather restrictions for VMC they do get quite scary

Regards

Obs cop

[dublinpilot]

Ok, so the disadvantages might not be very significant. (I do however agree with Fli Sim that the UK only one can be a problem).

But what significant advantage does the NPPL have to the healthy new student, who has no problem passing a class 2 medical?

If I remember correctly, the cost of my last medical equated to about an hours flying. Depending on your age, it will last for 5, 2 or 1 year(s).

Is there any evidence to suggest that there is a saving on the flying side?

I understand it's the same ground school, so there can't be a saving there.

If my assumptions above are correct, then it comes down to the case, of not being able to travel abroad nor hire abroad, and not being able to add night/imc ratings, to save the cost of an hours flying on your medical, every 5, 2 or 1 year(s).

I just fail to see why a new student would opt for the NPPL if they were healthy. From what I've read on these boards, and in the flight mags, it would seem that most new students seem to be sticking to the JAR PPL.

dp

ps. I'd kill to be able to get an IMC rating here!

[FlyingForFun]

There is an argument that the NPPL costs less to get than a JAR PPL because the minimum hours are less and the course is shorter.

There are a couple of exercises which are not present in the NPPL syllabus. The extra exercises are those relating to instrument flying and instrument navigation. Whether this actually reduces the time taken to train for the NPPL will probably depend on personal circumstances.

Let's take two NPPL students. The first would like a JAR PPL, but can't pass the medical, so he goes for the NPPL instead. Being a diligent student, he asks his instructor to cover instrument navigation even though it's not required, because he knows that the aircraft he's likely to fly will have a couple of VORs and maybe a DME and ADF too. So he's going to cover the whole PPL syllabus.

Then there's the second student. She and her husband already own an aircraft. Her husband has a PPL, but she wants to be able to share the flying, so she's getting an NPPL. She knows that her aircraft doesn't have any navaids - in fact, it doesn't even have much in the way of instruments at all. There is absolutely no benefit to this student in knowing how to use a VOR, so in theory she will be able to get through the course in less hours than either the first student, or a JAR PPL student, all other things being equal.

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

[BEagle]

Grass strip operation and at least an hour's IF are part of the NPPL syllabus. Neither are mandatory for the JAR-FCL PPL - in fact the only IF required is sufficient to be able to pass the '180 deg turn in cloud' requirement of the JAR-FCL PPL Skill Test.

If funds are limited, do the NPPL. Enjoy your flying in Day VFR/UK airspace for a while, then convert to the JAR-FCL PPL if you wish to fly at night, in IMC or overseas. Or to move on to the CPL world eventually.

Industry said that they wanted the NPPL - and that's why we've developed it for you. It's just a shame that the CAA cocked up the validity requirements in the first place and have taken over a year not to sort it out despite the NPPL Policy and Steering Group's full agreement on what is actually required.....:mad:

[Max AirFactor]

I recall this from the PFA site..

[NPPL] "It is currently confined to UK airspace. However in time it is hoped that other EU states will recognise the NPPL, just as they do our car licences, and foreign flight will be permitted."

Has there been any progress here?

Regardless, I prefer to have done the JAR PPL syllabus and having a more thorough medical. If you have to opt for the NPPL route it makes you no less a pilot but I know two people who had heart conditions first diagnosed by their AME .

MAF

[KCDW]

Interesting discussion.

My main concern about the NPPL is the theoretical minimum hours. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is 35. I did my PPL in 50, and frankly, while at the time it felt good to get it out of the way, in retrospect for me that was a minimum number of hours to feel reasonably safe, and to carry passengers into the wide blue yonder.

Since then, I've done IMC and taildragging courses as part of my own personal route to getting up to what I feel is a reasonable level of proficiency, and there is still a ways to go.

Remember the thread a few months back on what people felt were missing in the PPL? Probably a good 20 hours more worth of tuition I reckon.

I know some people are naturals, but do people feel ready at 35 hours?

If they don't and they take 45-50 hours or so, then so long as the Medical isn't a problem, I find there is not much to recommend the NPPL.

[G-MANN]

Thank you everyone for your veiws......

I am 24yrs old and currently have a lapsed class one medical so i can confidently say I am fully serviceable.

I may want to fly abroad eventually but I would like to walk before I can run and fly in the uk only for at least a few years therefore I think the NPPL will be the best option from a time and cost perspective.

I will be able to pass the theorectical subjects no problems as I have completed a FAA Dispatchers course already which includes Met,Nav, priciples of flight etc etc so in short providing financing sorted I can be flying by next summer!!!!

Wish me luck.

G-MANN

[IO540]

I am not an NPPL holder but if I were you I wouldn't bother - go for the full PPL.

Most people that do the NPPL today (about 65% according to a recent press report) are people who cannot get the CAA Class 2 medical. I am sure this wasn't exactly what was intended!!

As others have said, the difference in privileges depends on your intended usage (the "mission profile" :O ).

Limiting yourself to the UK only removes a HUGE chunk of interesting destinations. A lot of UK pilots fly to places they could probably drive to in less time and with less stress, but one cannot say that about e.g. France; flying there is far quicker and nicer.

The debate about night and instrument flight can go on for ever. I personally find that being able to go IFR reduces the % of cancelled (pre-planned) inter-UK flights from perhaps 75% (a year average, obviously one tends to cancel more in e.g. November than in August) to about 10%. This is achievable with a PPL, the IMC Rating, access to a decent aircraft and maintaining a reasonable level of currency. UK weather can stop a plain PPL flying for several weeks at a time. But if your flying budget is say £1000/year (10 hours) this will be completely irrelevant.

Instructors I know tell me the NPPL is a waste of time. Most people take longer than the minimum time, and the cost saving is insignificant compared to the ongoing cost of the hobby.

[J.A.F.O.]

I think it depends what you're intending to do with it.

If you're intending to fly as many hours as possible as cheaply as possible then an NPPL (with no medical to pay for - therefore this pays for any time with an instructor) and a PFA type aircraft has got to be the most cost effective way to some fun flying.

As a PFA type will duplicate many of the restrictions of an NPPL (okay, it is possible to take one abroad) then I think there's a certain amount of sense in it.

I think that if you want to build hours and have fun with the least possible outlay then a PFA aircraft (probably group owned) and an NPPL make the perfect combination.

I agree that in the great scheme of things the cost of a medical every ........ year(s), isn't that much but if it pays for your hour with an instructor, then why not?

It's not even as though once you've got the NPPL you can't change your mind.

I do admit, however, that the chances of going from zero to licence in 32 hours are somewhat limited and that saving on gaining the licence will, give or take a quid, be nil.

[G-MANN]

I personally believe I can pass the NPPL in the required time as I already have 20hrs on SLMG aircraft but unfortunately I cannot use this time as it was carried out on an RAF Vigilant aircraft.

I have flown C150's recently however have been unable to log any time as it was not with an instructor!!!!!!

So flying isn't anything new to me just unfortunate i guess that I cannot carry the time over!!!!

G-MANN

P.s maybe the full ppl would be better as I probably would only need minimum time so the extra 13hrs would be worth it I suppose.

[IO540]

In the case where one "can fly" (e.g. because they have some unlogged time at the controls from somewhere) and they want to legalise it, the cheapest way has got to be Florida or such.

I have 2 children, one of which is dead keen to learn to fly. At 8, he can fly an ILS on FS2004. When he gets a bit older (and a bit taller!!) I will take him through all the flying stuff for real, up to and including instrument flight, and then send him off to Florida to pick up a piece of paper with "PPL/IR" on it.

Except for medical reasons (which is a very valid reason for great many people especially as one gets older) the NPPL doesn't stack up at all.

[BEagle]

IO540 - sorry, but that's nonsense.

For someone who has already done some flying, the NPPL offers a very cost-effective route and is probably do-able in the minimum time for G-MANN. His cheapest route is probably to get an NPPL with SLMG rating, then add the SSEA rating. His previous SLMG experience should count in full and he'll only need the balance of hours before the 2 Skill Tests. Adding the SSEA Rating is much easier than most people know - as a few minutes' research on www.nppl.uk.com will prove. And the whole process will be much cheaper than gong to some American 'instant PPL' farm.

Going to the USA to 'pick up a piece of paper with PPL/IR on it' indeed! Just because your child can play some computer game, it doesn't prove anything about the real world. In fact stopping him from staring at the instruments all the time in VMC will probably be a significant problem for his flight instructor....

[slim_slag]

IO540,

How I see it under FAA regs, once you child is rated in the aircraft, he will be able to credit 25 hours of your "instrument tuition" to the 40 required by the FAA for the IR. Then he will have to pass the written which shows he can regurgitate what he needs to know, get through a very searching oral which will find out what he doesn't know, and a tough checkride. Then he can pick up his ticket as he will have proven he is as good as he needs to be.

Nice to know he is keen to fly and you are encouraging this.

How much cheaper in practice is it to 'pick up' :) an NPPL?

(got my figures totally wrong)

[J.A.F.O.]

Assuming that you can get it done in minimum time the NPPL has got to be at least £1000 cheaper than a full JAR PPL. If you've already got unlogged time from elsewhere there probably is no reason to assume that you couldn't save a hell of a lot of money by doing an NPPL.

[IO540]

beagle / slim_slag

The bit about an 8 year old, or a bit older, picking up a ppl/ir was half tongue in cheek... I would guess one would need 200+ hrs on the type (i.e. about £20k) before doing any sort of instrument qualification (incl. the IMCR) IF it is to be used for real. Which is not to say that unlogged hours are wasted. Incidentally I'm doing the PPL/IR now and it's hard work esp. for a middle aged g1t like me! But it's within the ability of someone with access to a decent plane, some 200 hrs on the type, and a technical brain.

I intended to address the situation described where somebody has unlogged hours so can actually fly, then one is looking for a cost effective way to finish it off and formalise it into a license.

I still think the NPPL is pointless simply because for most people going abroad is one of the biggest long-term attractions of flying. To someone dead keen to just fly it may not seem that way at the time but just look at the percentage of fresh PPLs that pack up flying in next to no time.

If somebody said to me (in effect) "I just want to fly and I don't care about not being able to go abroad" then I would be looking at just another of the countless PPLs that give it up very soon. Of course I could be wrong but I think it's true for the great majority.

The original poster asked for opinions and he got one from each of several people, which is fair enough.

[KCDW]

"Assuming that you can get it done in minimum time"

Therein lies the problem. Sounds like G-MANN has the background to do so. But I would query this to be the case for the majority of other budding NPPLs.

On the topic of flying on the continent. Something else for you to consider, G-MANN, is that this does not just mean day trips to L2K. You may soon tire of those. I am now getting into the habit of picking a summer holiday on the continent where there is a local flying club. Flying in Portugal, Greece etc. really does open those horizons for those where flying the local is starting to get jaded.

[slim_slag]

IO540,

These kids can learn how to fly a plane to IR checkride tolerances in way less than 200 hours. Problem is they don't have enough hours in the university of life so make stupid judgement calls like all youngsters do, and that's what kills them.

I'm also certain that the vast majority of these kids who solo in 8 hours and pass their PPL checkride in the minimum hours are hiding unlogged hours in some other plane. I bet you could pass the full JAA PPL in 32 hours if you were flying with daddy since the age of eight and he half knew how to teach.

So if picking up an FAA PPL was half tongue in cheek, would saying you could pick up a CAA PPL after a few hours on FS2004 be full tongue in cheek? :)

[G-MANN]

KCDW,

Flying abroad of course sounds appealing and I'm sure I will do it eventually.

Would you suggest I get the NPPL and then upgrade or do just do the full PPL straight away??

I really hope my decision making in the air will be better than deciding which license to go for!!!! :) :)

G-MANN

[IO540]

slim_slag

Are you suggesting that the FAA PPL is easier to do? :O

It isn't, actually. The written is certainly harder, needing more tech knowledge and quite a bit of IFR nav. The oral likewise. The checkride is similar, with some extras over JAR. There is extra night flying and that is standard, not optional.

As much as instructors dislike ex-FS2k students, the reality is that a student who already knows the knobs and levers, knows what the trim does, etc, is going to have a very big head start for normal flying around (not for aeros I am sure).

I am not sure whether a "kid", with his lack of maturity, is more likely to kill himself. Do the stats show this?

[bar shaker]

Pretty daft that NPPL holders can fly a Eurostar or CT2K around the skies of Europe at 120+kts, but they can't fly a 152 beyond Dover.

[slim_slag]

IO540,

Happy to accept your argument on PPL difficulty.

Yes, I agree that FS2004 can be a help, but mainly for practicing instrument procedures, VFR it can introduce bad habits. Attaching a decent yoke/rudder certainly makes it better than a lot of these beat up FTD's you see around and which are valid for instrument training.

I am not sure whether a "kid", with his lack of maturity, is more likely to kill himself. Do the stats show this?

I knew somebody would pick me up on this, was expecting somebody else though .... :)

What I said was ... What kills a kid is bad judgement, not bad handling.

I think the figures show older private pilots have a higher death rate than younger pilots, for all causes. Experience/maturity causes complacency which kills people too. At ATP level there is no difference (as used in the argument against forced retirement at 60). Youngsters are annoyingly good at learning how to fly the plane.

But no, I don't have any figures to back up my position, I shall google....

[KCDW]

G-MANN,

My thruppence worth:

If you can afford it - get the PPL, the extra hours will put you in good stead.

If money is a limitation, and you are sure that you can get they in 32 hours or so, then get the NPPL and convert at your leisure. You won't necessarily be wanting to go tripping off to the continent immediately anyway.

Best of luck which ever way you go.

KC

[Whirlybird]

On kids and simulators....

I had a 16 year old for a trial helicopter lesson the other week. During the briefing I went through looking outside, using the natural horizon and a reference point in the cockpit etc. When we got in the helicopter, the first thing he did was look at the AI and ask if that was the horizon I'd meant. No, I said, ignore the instruments completely, look outside, I mean the REAL horizon. We take-of, climb, then I go through the use of the cyclic and the whole looking outside bit again, demonstrate, and give him control. He stares straight at the AI!! I tell him to look outside, and for good measure, demonstrate the lag in the AI, thus proving to him that looking outside is easier and works better. I hand back control to him, and...he fixates on the AI again!! !!! :eek: :confused:

I don't have enough instructing experience to know if that's typical of sim users, but if it is, keep your kids away from them!!!!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Maybe he's so used to the term "artificial horizon" you need to use a different term for the real horizon. How about "world" ?

G

[slim_slag]

Here you go IO540, haven't had time to read it properly, and probably should be in another thread, but seems comprehensive. It's quite big and in PDF.

Pilot Age and performance (http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/AGE60/age60_1.pdf)

[bar shaker]

SS

I am sure a youngster could have drawn some graphs and saved 50 pages of that article ;)

[dublinpilot]

damn it............I used to be a youngster once........

[ozplane]

Bar shaker, I'm a bit confused about your reference to flying in Europe in a CT2/K/Eurostar. Is that on an NPPL (microlight) licence? BTW io540 I'm very grateful that the NPPL exists as I've failed a stress ECG and the only way to keep flying is to move to an NPPL until the cardiac problem is solved. Otherwise I would probably have had to sell up.

[Fly Stimulator]

ozplane,

By an amazing coincidence I fly around Europe in a CT2K (amongst other things) and although I do it on my JAR licence I'll answer the question in case bar shaker is still down the pub!

Yes, you can fly in many other countries on the NPPL (Microlight) licence.

It's actually up to the foreign authority concerned rather than the CAA. If overseas authorities choose to accept the licence then that's up to them.

Many places such as France and now Germany simply accept whatever licence is valid for microlight flying in the holder's home country. That isn't the case for the SSEA (aka SEP, aka 'A Group') version of the NPPL unfortunately, although hope springs eternal that wider acceptance might come if other countries introduce their own equivalent recreational licences.

[IO540]

My question would be what happens if the UK CAA says such and such a license is valid only in the UK, and say France says they allow it in France.

[ozplane]

Fly Stimulator, thanks for your reply. And I thought being in Europe was supposed to clear all this up. Dream on....and on!

[FlyingForFun]

My question would be what happens if the UK CAA says such and such a license is valid only in the UK, and say France says they allow it in France.IO540 - that is exactly the position with the IMC (which I know is a rating, not a license, but I would guess that the same principles apply?) In the case of the IMC rating, the French are quite happy to accept it as long as the UK authorities are too (albeit that the concept of flying IFR in IMC outside controlled airspace, which is what IMC holders generally do, is pretty meaningless in France), but it is clearly laid down in the ANO that it is not valid outside the UK.

I don't know whether the ANO contains a similar statement regarding the NPPL - if I get a spare hour or two I might see if I can find out!

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

[Fly Stimulator]

My question would be what happens if the UK CAA says such and such a license is valid only in the UK, and say France says they allow it in France.

It has no bearing. The CAA can of course only set the rules for their own territory. They can neither make the NPPL valid elsewhere (short of making it ICAO-compliant), nor prevent it from being accepted by any foreign state that chooses to do so. That choice is entirely up to the foreign country.

Other countries could choose to allow people to fly on the basis of a British TV licence if they wanted to - it's up to them. Even that is more than the Americans demand - they allow people to fly single-seat ultralights without any licence at all.

[IO540]

FS

I don't believe you have addressed my question.

I haven't read the law on the NPPL but let's assume it is NOT valid outside the UK.

Can France (e.g.) authorise it for flight in France?

The IFR privileges of the IMC Rating are specifically "UK only" so the same applies.

I suppose the French could accept a pilot on the basis of the training received, but not on the actual license because that carries a UK-only limit.

[Fly Stimulator]

OK, I'll try again!

The CAA cannot mandate that any licence is UK-only because foreign authorities can make up their own minds what to accept.

If the CAA creates a non-ICAO licence then only they can make that valid in the UK, but my point is that that is not the same as saying they can (or even want to) stop it being accepted elsewhere.

The 'UK-only' aspect simply reflects the territorial limits of the CAA's powers to make the licence valid.

In the case of France if the DGAC say they will accept a foreign licence in France then it is valid in France. The CAA simply have no jurisdiction to say otherwise.



So, the answer to "Can France (e.g.) authorise it for flight in France?" is yes, they can. They can authorise whatever they like in their territory, at least until EASA assumes that power.


In the particular case of the NPPL(Microlight), that is acceptable there is because the French regulations say:


All Microlights normally used in a member state of the European Community, or party to the airspace agreement of the EEC, and identified or registered in that state, are authorised for private flight over French territory, provided that:

(a) The Microlight holds a Flight Authorisation (permit to fly) granted by that state or its delegated authority, on the basis of its compliance with a technical standard for safety.

(b) The pilot holds a valid licence in the Microlight’s home state. The Microlight must be operated in accordance with the rules and limitations applied by the state of origin, and within the limits of applicable French rules.


In other words any microlight licence valid in the holder's home state is held to be valid in France too.

There is no such blanket ruling for non-ICAO light aircraft licences, which is why this does not work for the NPPL(SSEA).