EASA Recreational Pilot License

[Max_Gross]

EASA were discussing a Europe-wide license similar to an NPPL some time ago

Has anyone got a link to their proposals? Their website is a jungle.

[Whopity]

You could have a look at the following:

http://www.royalaeroclub.org/EASspeech054.htm

http://www.europe-airsports.fai.org/journal

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/intl/eur/20050103.php

http://www.ehpu.org/content/rule_Opinion.pdf

Nobody really knows at what stage EASA will get involved in flight crew licensing. They seem happy to let things continue on a national basis in accordance with JAR-FCL. 10 years down the road it may be a different story.

[bookworm]

The EASA opinion (http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Rulemaking/Opinions/Translations/03_2004/easa_opinion_03_2004_en.pdf) on FCL states the intent at paras 39 and 40.

The opinion is worth a read if only for paragraph 8. "Some turkeys even thought they should get to decide the date for Christmas... but the dinner guests won't like that, will they? :)

[BillieBob]

Having fought their way through 21 pages of complete gibberish, the uncharitable might think that the whole thing had been written by a second-rate civil servant who would have difficulty distinguishing an aeroplane from an aardvark. The really uncharitable might even think that said civil servant was French.

[David Roberts]

The EASA Opinion was submitted to the European Commission - DG TREN - in December 2005. We await the Commission's Opinion, which is expected any time now (delayed since July). After that there will be consultation and then it goes to the Council of Ministers and finally to the European Parliament as it comprises a proposal for EU law (Regualation) in the form of 'Essential Requirements'. It is worth studying EASA's draft of the Essential Requirements.

The proposal for an EU Recreational Pilots Licence - very much based on the principles behind the UK NPPL - met with approval of the main representative organisations at EU level, that is Europe Air Sports and IAOPA.

As a board member of Europe Air Sports I have been very closely involved in this development over the last 3 years, having been part of the team that made representations to EASA during the consultation phases. I am currently optimistic that we shall get a sensible outcome, but it depends now on the politicians, not so much in Parliament but at the Council of Ministers (and the supporting working groups of civil servants and officials from the National Aviation Authorities).

Europe Air Sports is doing the job on behalf of all sports and recreational pilots affected by EU legislation.

Sorry, error in first sentence above. Should be December 2004.

[egbt]

but it depends now on the politicians, Well I suppose something could still happen sometime in the next few years :bored: :uhoh: :suspect:

[Whopity]

Quite why any other State would want to copy the NPPL is beyond belief. It is riddled with beaurocratic nonsense and has failed in its original purpose of rejuvenating the PPL training industry.

Its a "medical licence" that could have been achieved very simply with no added beaurocracy or law changes, simply by having a two tier medical, which we allready had.

But it did get someone promoted!

Whats wrong with the standard ICAO recreational licence called the PPL?

[Rod1]

Whopity

Your comments are true, but only because most of the licence is not yet implemented. The eventual aim is to train on PFA aircraft from unlicensed strips using enthusiast NPPL instructors. This is based on the Microlight version of the NPPL. There will also be a different set of exams. Add this all together and you will have a grass roots licence which will cost far less to get than the JAR PPL but which is far more relevant to the enthusiast amateur, as against the professional future A380 pilot.

The “flying is gloriously expensive and must be the exclusive privilege of the well off “will hopefully then be changed and we will have a lot more pilots.

Rod1

[BEagle]

Rod1, that is not quite true.

The current NPPL requirements are not what industry wanted and are being reworked accordingly. Although the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee agreed the changes last June, the mandatory consultation period has yet to start due solely to the sloth of the CAA's legal department in formulating the ANO amendment. But hopefully it will be in place by next May. Why so long? Well, if it goes out before 31 Dec, there will then be the standard 3 month consultation period followed, if all goes according to plan, by the mandatory 40 days required for the Statutory Instrument to be laid on the table of the House.

Regarding the 'unlicensed strips' issue, the CAA's internal paper regarding light aerodrome licensing requirements will be presented to Ron Elder on 5 Dec. Hopefully a consultation paper can then be released around Jun 06. But it is unlikely that the resulting changes will be made in less than 18 months.

'Enthusiastic NPPL instructors'? Well, there is indeed preparatory work going on to draft proposals regarding NPPL SSEA flying instruction. But that will undoubtedly lead to yet another Regulatory Impact Assessment as it would be a change to UK law. Industry certainly considers that 'appropriate' rather than 'commercial level' theoretical knowledge should be sufficient for Flight Instructors. But there is 100% agreement that there will be absolutely no lowering of the current standards of flight instruction - the FI Skill Test will stay the same no matter what.

However, instruction on 'PFA types'? I presume you mean aircraft on Permits to Fly? At this stage there are NO plans for this - simply because of the handling qualities and flying characteristics of certain 'Permit' aircraft, rather than their build quality or standard of maintenance.

A lot of what has been written in certain organisations' publications is utter hot air without any substance whatsoever. For example, the question of NPPL examinations has not been raised AT ALL in recent NPPL P&SC meetings; certain individuals may scribble in their magazines about what they would personally like to happen, but there is no agreed committee position on the issue. In any case, the current pass rate for examinations hasn't shown up any particular need for change.

[bookworm]

Quite why any other State would want to copy the NPPL is beyond belief.

I sympathise with some of your criticism of what we now have as an NPPL. The trade-off seems distorted -- realistically, the time and cost is not much less than the PPL and the privileges are significantly reduced.

The EASA RPPL has two significant differences in privilege -- it's Europe-wide, and the aircraft that can be flown are less restricted (twins, more pax, night etc.), at least as far as the proposals in the opinion go.

[Rod1]

Beagle

What I laid out was the aims of the PFA in relation to the NPPL. See below for the official words from the PFA;

As to the future, the introduction of the National Private Pilots Licence (in the plannning of which the PFA Pilot Coaching Scheme has had a large input) holds real promise for further increases in the scope of activities for the Coaching Scheme, perhaps, in the course of time, to allow 'NPPL' training in a PFA aircraft from a PFA strip conducted by a PFA coach!

Rod1

[BEagle]

The NPPL P&SC has members from the CAA, BGA, PFA, BMAA, AOPA, BBGA and GAPAN. It is they who together have developed the NPPL albeit with some errors in implementation from the CAA which has led to the current situation.

PFA 'coaches' are now properly regulated CRIs under JAR-FCL and, as such, are NOT permitted to instruct at ab-initio NPPL level.

CRIs should indeed be experts in their particular fields of specialisation, but are not trained to the same standard as FIs, nor require the same revalidation criteria.

[Rod1]

I think the reason you and I are disagreeing is because the PFA have declared UDI on some points. For example, you state that instruction on PFA types is not allowed. A considerable number (150ish) of pilots have already got their licences this way.

http://www.pfa.org.uk/documents/TL2.09LearningtoFlyinaPermitAircraft.pdf

Rod1

[Whopity]

Or put simply, we wanted a silk purse and finished up with a sows ear!

Unfortunately, undoing the law changes that were totally unnecessary in the first place is not going to be easy; nobody will want to admit that they got it wrong.

[BEagle]

What is a 'PFA aircraft' when it's at home?

Yes, pilots can indeed be trained on a Permit to Fly aircraft, but this is subject to certain conditions and restrictions and is not a general principle.

It would be interesting to see how an applicant on a NPPL NST would resolve the requirements for a rigorous navigation method with the restrictions concerning Permit to Fly aircraft and the overflight of congested areas at any height.....

Should the PFA (or any other individual organisation) really attempt to 'declare UDI' regarding the NPPL, their isolationist views will simply be irrelevant. Because the CAA will only deal with the industry committee formed for the specific purpose of developing the NPPL.

[cubflyer]

BEagle,
A "PFA aircraft" is an aircraft operated on a PFA Permit to fly.

As Rod has pointed out it is possible to learn to fly on a PFA aircraft, but currently only if you are the sole owner of the aircraft. I understand that it used to be possible (in the 60s?) to learn on group aircraft, but this was taken away at the same time as a lot of other rules were changed to do with flight training.
I think it is a ood objective that training should be permitted on "PFA aircraft" irrespective of their ownership status. although some PFA aircraft are unsuitable, there are a lot of very good training aircraft on the PFA fleet from Piper Cubs and Taylorcrafts to ARVs, Eurostars, Ikarus C42 to Jodels and Emeraudes or even high performance aircraft such as RVs.
We already know that training from unlicenced airstrips in permit aircraft in very succesful in the microlight area, so why not PFA permit aircraft.

Yes, the permit prohibition on flight over built up areas does present some of a problem. another archaic rule that needs to be removed and steps are being taken in that direction. This may have been appropriate with the sort of homebuilts that were being built in the 40s, largely unsupervised and with unreliable engines, but certainly not appropriate with todays fleet.

I agree that all of the organisations need to wrok together on this.

It seems to me that the NPPL is an excellent idea, for a cheaper PPL more apropriate to recreational flying with sensible medical requirement. In reality the lack of privaliges compared to a full PPL is very minor for the majority of recreational pilots, who want to fly for fun, not in bad weather and at night. The only significant prohibition and then only really effecting a small proportion of people is the lack of use outside the UK. European recognition of the NPPL and a similar EASA rating would obviously alleviate this.
Those who fought for the "sport pilot" certificate in the USA were looking with envy at the NPPL in the UK.

[DFC]

The changes that are on the way need to be studied very very very carefully. It is not as simple as it seems.

For example;

The UK NPPL restricts pilots to simple aircraft, VFR, Day within the UK. But beyond that they have the same rights to operate in UK airspace as a JAA PPL with no extra ratings.

The European proposal while following the same general format adds an extra restriction - the aircraft will be restricted to a simple operating environment.

Define simple operating environment?

Would it mean that recreational pilots would be restricted to Class G airspace?

That would make sense because there is no point in giving Joe the very basic ability to fly a C172 and then expect him to operate that aircraft in a complex and busy traffic environment that he has had no training for. That would risk the other flights in that airspace.

Thus the hills may be greener but they are a different shade of green.

As for the recreational microlight instructor. Most I have come across get paid more than the average JAA-PPL instructor.

NPPL instructors will not reduce training costs 1p. They will not reduce the numbers of CPL holding airline pilot wanabee instructors either. Why? Because the schools will still want to sell instructor courses and CPL courses just like they need to sell night qualifications despite the fact that it can be (should be?) included in the 45 hour PPL.

Until schools restrict entrant numbers to the expected number of jobs available then there will always be CPL holders instructing PPLs awaiting a better job. Fact of life similar to people holding degrees serving you a Mac and Chips.

Regards,

DFC

[Rod1]

“NPPL instructors will not reduce training costs 1p”

The PFA plan, which is not in place and may never be in place, is to use unpaid PFA coaches. This is not as far fetched as it may seem.

The PFA inspector network spends 100’s of hours helping idiots like me to produce safe aircraft. My inspector has spent a lot of time nursemaiding me through parts of my build and has really enjoyed the process. If I had paid a professional full rate for this help and guidance my aircraft would have cost thousands more to build.

The PFA coaching system is very similar and along side training in PFA aircraft (already in place) and on unlicened strips, would produce a massive reduction in cost. The PFA strut system and the PFA flying group approach would provide an ideal structure to this. The Schools at the licensed airfields would concentrate on the gold brad wannabes who will happily pay thousands to learn to fly commercially.

What the PFA want is a recreational licence for enthusiast aviators who will then pitch in and help the next generation, in much the same way as the BGA operate. I suspect there is too much self interest in some of the groups involved in the NPPL process for this to be an easy task, but we can only hope that the vast increase in pilots the system would generate will benefit all.

Rod1

[DFC]

Rod,

I agree that it would be nice to operate in that way. Indeed, the system as it stands does allow PPL instructors to complete ab-initio unpaid instruction. Thus what you are looking for is nothing new.

Are you saying that your proposal is for an instructor rating attached to an NPPL licence that permits the holder to instruct on SSEA aircraft provided there is no renumeration. If that is the case then you will get a few people in the struts and some flying clubs that will pay to complete the course knowing that they will never recover the costs. Same situation as now.

Perhaps on the other hand, you favour these NPPL instructors having the option to charge a fee for their services just like the Microlight instructors do.

If that is the case then you will have people stating that the licence established for medical unfits has now been extended to include medically unfit instructors who can instruct the medically unfits.

For the PFA grass roots type of instruction, the PFA needs to get more involved with established instructors and not creating it's own new area of administration. There are plenty of FIs out there who would be willing to do some instruction on PFA types. There are even a few airline pilots/ part time instructors who would like the idea. Problem is the PFA never asks and unless one is a builder or uses the PFA permit scheme, one has no contact with the organisation.

There are more instructors round than you think.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

The NPPL was NOT created for 'medical unfits', it was created in response for a simpler, cheaper licence than the JAR-FCL PPL(A).

In all the current discussions regarding NPPL SSEA flying instructors, no-one has suggested lowering the medical requirements below JAA Class 2.

After the current NPPL legislative errors have been ironed out in the next ANO amendment, it is the NPPL P&SC's stated intention to review other aspects of the NPPL, such as training aerodrome requirements and SSEA flying instructors. At that stage the PFA representatives will have the opportunity to present their corporate view for discussion. As will AOPA and all the other groups on the committee.

The CAA committee work on aerodrome licensing has almost been completed and will be presented to Ron Elder on 5 Dec. So, the timing looks good for the NPPL P&SC to be able to submit a corporate opinion when the associated RIA and Letter of Consultation are released.

If the current retrictions on Permit to Fly aircraft are eased, there may well be more people wanting to be taught to fly from scratch on their home built aeroplane. But I don't think that there will ever be general approval for instruction towards a SSEA Class Rating on any Permit to Fly aeroplane. Perhaps some form of Type Approval will be needed for that type to be acceptable for general flying instructional purposes?

But there is some concern that, if the regulations are eased too much, then the unscrupulous will attempt to offer 'trial flying lessons' in a home-built aeroplane from a cow pasture. The well-run, sound and sensible operator could undoubtedly operate safely from an 'unlicensed' aerodrome using simple aircraft; however, legislation must protect the public from the car boot cowboy.

[Rod1]

DFC

What I have tried to convey is the PFA’s position, based to data already provided by them, so I do not know all the answers although I do agree with the approach. A lot of the PFA coaches are, or have been, instructors. The one I use was an instructor for many years at a local flying club. It is of course much cheaper to do your biannual flight review with a PFA coach, on your own PFA aircraft, than to hire an aircraft and instructor from a club.

I think the concept of expenses only, enthusiast helping enthusiast, is an important part of the PFA way. With this in mind I personally would not like to see commercial rates applied. I do not know the official PFA position on this.

I originally learned to fly in gliders, having a trial flight from an unlicensed grass strip with the odd cowpat and not a professional instructor in sight. If the BGA run this way with good safety, then why not the PFA?

Rod1

[David Roberts]

See earlier post on this thread from me.

EASA has today, 16 November, published on its website http://www.easa.eu.int/home/index.html (go to top right corner and then look at the attached PDF file), the European Commission's 'Memo' on Pilots Licensing & Operations, following today's meeting of the EC Services Committee.

Most of it is about commercial air transport, with the usual 'spin', but have a look at page 5 'key features of the evolution'. It looks like what we (UK air sports organisations and Europe Air Sports) have lobbied for this last two years is still on track. Though personally I will await the details when the EC publishes its full 'Opinion' to the Council and Parliament, with the draft amendments to Regulation 1592/2002.

Fingers crossed.

[DFC]

BEagle,

The way to go would be to restrict training on permit to fly aircraft to the aircraft's sole owner and their immediate family unless the aircraft is one of an approved series factory built by an approved organisation.

To say that no permit to fly aircraft is suitable for trainng shows a lack of knowledge of current aircraft on the register. Why train in a clapped out C150 that struggles off the ground, climbs at 600ft per minute, cruises at 85Kt burning over 20 litres per hour when one can learn to fly in a brand new factory built aircraft that climbs at over 1000ft per minute, cruises at 90Kt burning 14 litres per hour and can operate comfortably out of a 300m strip.

If people start taking C150s and similar training aircraft out to unlicensed farmer's fields for ab-initio training then we will have a year of over-run accidents before the CAA confines everyone back to licensed airfields. Using modern available better performing aircraft would permit operations from 300m strips with the same safety factors and currently enjoyed by the C150 and similar type operators at 800m strips.

Regards,

DFC

[David Roberts]

The EC has today published the proposed change to Regulation 1592/2002. http://www.easa.eu.int/home/index.html Open this and there are two PDF files - the second is the one to review (63 pages). The changes include regulations for Licensing and Operations across the EU. Very much in line with the EASA Opinion last December, and in fact the Annexes 2 and 3 are the same as proposed then. The preamble is worth reading as it sets out the intentions as regards 'light aviation', and the RPL is there.

Some issues to sort out in these 'Essential Requirements', not least the requirement for all EU pilots to have English to a standard for certain functions. That could be a barrier for air sports pilots (as distinct from ATPLs etc) on mainland Europe (and maybe the UK !!).

As regards EU oversight of third country (non EU) aircraft I haven't yet worked out if / how this will affact N registered a/c in the UK.........

Happy reading