Nppl(h)

[Three Blades]

Very generally speaking....

On the (H) side of the equation the PPL(H) is supposed to take 45 hrs min however the average time to pass is a bit longer and 65hrs would not be unusual (assuming no long breaks etc).
On the basis of this alone, would there be much to be gained by having a 35hr NPPL(H) ?

On the other side of the coin, do people generally pass the PPL(A) in minimum hours ? If so, I can see that the removal of a couple of sections of the syllabus would make a 35hr NPPL(A) a benefit.

Just interested.

[muffin]

The difference is far more to do with medical requirements than hours taken to get a licence of either flavour. I have both PPL(H) and PPL(A). As I only fly day VFR in the UK, an NPPL(A) would be perfectly adequate for my fixed wing requirements. However, as there is no such thing as an NPPL(H) and I am over 50, I have to go though all the cost and rigmarole of annual Class 2 medicals just for my rotary licence. Hence the existence of an NPPL(H) would be of great benefit to me and many others like me.

[Three Blades]

Thanks muffin,
I fully appreciate the medical side of things. It all seems to make sence on that front.

Do you think that it would be possible to learn to fly a helicopter in just 35 hrs ?
Do people pass the NPPL(A) in 35 hrs or do they normally end up taking longer.
Or am I just digging myself a hole by suggesting that helicopters are harder to fly than 'planes ?

[airborne_artist]

I joined the RN after 30 hrs flying scholarship, then did a 10 hr "grading" (assessment) on the Chipmunk, before going to EFTS on the Bulldog, where I solo'd after 8 hrs. After 80 hrs I then went to rotary BFT and solo'd after 12 hours (about normal, as I recall). I don't think we'd have completed all the PPL(H) reqs. much before 40 hours (although that was not our objective), and we had the benefit of 80+ hours FW and the airmanship resulting.

So, I don't think many would pass to a realistic standard after 35 hrs, unless they were able to do the course almost every day and already had good airmanship gained from FW experience.

[Whirlygig]

As Muffin said, there ain't no such licence as an NPPL(H) so 35 hours is irrelevant. The minimum for a UK private licence would be 45 hours.

I believe that very very few pass their skills test in that time and that 60 to 70 is a lot more realistic (some take longer).

I can't speak for fixed wing though.

Cheers

Whirlygig

[md 600 driver]

40 / 45 hrs [ should suffice i found it easier than fixed wing ] if they would ever allow one.

its under discussion with EASA but we will see

[Whirlygig]

md600,

I think you must be an exception!!!

Given the averages quoted (by schools, anecodtal evidence and on pprune) 40-45 hours for rotary is rarely achieveable. Possible but rare.

It's not fair to give someone that idea if they are budgeting for costs when learning to fly (anything!)

Cheers

Whirlygig

[Three Blades]

Whirlygig,
I rather agree with you.
45hrs is the minimum and only occasionally achieved.
Hence my point is that there seems little reason to introduce a 35hr NPPL(H) as only a very few people would pass in such a low number of hours.
Plank driving must be easier ! ;)

[Whirlybird]

I don't think it's that planks are easier. It's that...

1) Most of us learn on the R22, which is the most difficult helicopter to fly...probably the twitchiest, most sensitive, most likely to get out of control flying machine there is actually, much as I love them.
2) Helicopter PPLs normally want to land in friends' gardens and hotels and suchlike, and need to be safe to do so. This is probably akin to your new PPL(A) wanting to fly to Lundy.
3) Autorotations are not more difficult than f/w forced landings, but you need faster reactions, and those reactions need to be instinctive. So they are practised more. In the PPL(H), there is a basic auto lesson, then advanced autos, then forced landings. I don't think it's that many officially in f/w, is it?
4) Instructors worry more about letting low hours helicopter pilots loose, especially if they fly R22s. I'm not sure why; maybe there are more things that can go wrong since they're more complicated machines. But I remember a discussion in the USA, with instructors saying the course should be offically 60-70 hours.
5) Generally, with an aeroplane, you've got to get it in to the air before you can make mistakes. If you're a bit rusty, you'll probably come a cropper on the landing. :( With a helicopter, you can get dynamic rollover during take-of, and the machine will probably thrash itself to bits. Hover-taxiiing requires well practised footwork, especially in a stong wind.
6) Related to (5), accidents on the ground or at low speed usually only bend aeroplanes a little bit. Helicopters have a horrible habit of thrashing themselves to bits if they turn over. This gets expensive if it happens often!

I still say, having learned to fly both, helicopters aren't more difficult. They're just....different.