PDA

View Full Version : NPPL ANO amendment proposals 2007


BEagle
21st Feb 2007, 13:25
NPPL ANO AMENDMENT 2007

The consultation period for the NPPL ANO amendment proposals will run until the end of March 2007. These amendment proposals have been discussed at length and agreed within the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee, consisting of representatives from AOPA, BBGA, BGA, BMAA, CAA, GAPAN and PFA.

This note summarises the main points and should not be considered as the authoritative document; however, the formal proposals and Regulatory Impact Assessment willl shortly be available on the CAA PLD website.


MAIN CHANGES

• Aircraft Class Ratings included in an NPPL will have a fixed 2 year validity period rather than the current mix of rolling validity periods for some aircraft classes and fixed periods for others.

• The NPPL may include aircraft Class Ratings for SSEA, SLMG and/or Microlight aeroplanes. To fly aircraft of these classes, the appropriate Class Rating must be included in the licence; the SSEA Class Rating alone will no longer include SLMG or Microlight privileges.

• The NPPL may include Flying Instructor Ratings for SLMG and/or Microlight aeroplanes.

CLASS RATING REVALIDATION REQUIREMENTS

• To revalidate NPPL aircraft Class Ratings, licence holders must, in the 2 year period, complete 12 hours total flight time, including 8 hours as PIC and 12 take-offs and landings. If they wish to carry passengers, a total of not less than 1 hour of accumulated training flying must also be included within these 12 hours and the licence holder must maintain 90 day recency.

• If 2 or more NPPL aircraft Class Ratings are held, the 12 hours experience and 12 take-offs and landings can include flight time in any of such aircraft for which a Class Rating is held, but a minimum of 1 hour (either PIC or PU/T) must be flown on aircraft of each Class.

• If the licence holder wishes to restrict his/her licence privileges to aircraft fitted with a single seat, no training flying will be required. 2-seat aircraft flown solo will not be considered to be ‘single seat’ aircraft!

• Revalidation may alternatively be achieved by passing a General Skill Test (GST).

• Revalidation will extend the validity period of the Class Rating for a further 2 years from the date of the previous expiry (as is the current case for JAR-FCL SEP Class Ratings).

CLASS RATING RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS

• To renew a lapsed Class Rating, there will now be only 2 basic cases, much like the revised JAR-FCL cases:
- Less than 5 years lapsed – pass a GST
- More than 5 years lapsed – pass a GST and an oral exam with the GST examiner.

SLMG AND MICROLIGHT AFI/FI RATING REVALIDATION REQUIREMENTS

• By test only:
- AFI every 13 months (maximum)
- FI every 25 months (maximum)

• Revalidation extends the AFI/FI Rating for a further 13/25 months from the date of test.


OTHER POINTS:

• SSEA, SLMG and Microlight Class Ratings may also be included in UK or CAA-issued JAR-FCL licences, if required, as may SLMG or Microlight Flying Instructor Ratings.

• Transitional arrangements will be formulated to ensure that the transition to the new NPPL requirements will not disadvantage current licence holders. The precise formulation of these arrangements will be discussed within the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee after the consultation period has concluded.

• Those ‘legacy’ UK pilot licence holders who wish to remain outside the NPPL system may continue to do so with no changes to their current requirements. However, they will then be unable to take advantage of the consolidated revalidation requirements enjoyed by NPPL holders. The CAA invites comment on whether this should continue, or whether all Microlight and SLMG licences should be harmonised with the NPPL revalidation requirements after a suitable transition period.

• Currently, medical requirements are aligned with licences, not ratings. The CAA invites comment on whether this should continue, or whether a Medical Declaration should suffice for other UK or CAA-issued JAR-FCL licence holders wishing to restrict themselves to SSEA, SLMG or Microlight privileges. Note that (apart from ‘legacy’ lifetime UK PPL holders) they would still be required to have their licences re-issued every 5 years in accordance with JAR-FCL and may also need some form of ANO exemption removing the requirement to hold a JAA Medical Certificate.

• NPPL cross-crediting requirements will be amended and will apply from the date the ANO changes become law.

• ‘Differences training’ now formally includes weight-shift/flex-wing and 3-axis microlight training and for microlight aeroplanes with more than one power plant.

Formal comments should be restricted to the above proposals only and sent to [email protected] , to arrive no later than 2 Apr 2007.

bookworm
21st Feb 2007, 14:57
It strikes me that some of these proposals are still somewhat different from the JAR-FCL1 equivalents, even though they bring the NPPL closer into line. Where such differences can be justified by the nature of the task, fine. But if they're arbitrary, then they should be aligned.

To revalidate NPPL aircraft Class Ratings, licence holders must, in the 2 year period, complete 12 hours total flight time, including 8 hours as PIC and 12 take-offs and landings. If they wish to carry passengers, a total of not less than 1 hour of accumulated training flying must also be included within these 12 hours and the licence holder must maintain 90 day recency.

If 2 or more NPPL aircraft Class Ratings are held, the 12 hours experience and 12 take-offs and landings can include flight time in any of such aircraft for which a Class Rating is held, but a minimum of 1 hour (either PIC or PU/T) must be flown on aircraft of each Class.

For a JAR-FCL1 PPL,

* it's 6 hours as PIC -- I can't see a reason for insisting on more from an NPPL holder.

* a training flight is required whether passengers are to be carried or not -- perhaps this difference is justified because of the higher proportion of single seaters flown by NPPLs? But the principle of a training flight seems like a good one.

* the training flight must be at least one hour in length (not accumulated) -- this difference seems reasonable, given typically shorter flights in NPPL flown aircraft

* the holder can combine SEP and TMG time with no minimum for each, and IIUC the microlight and SLMG privileges require only one-off differences training -- if the NPPL classes are really so different from each other, shouldn't there be separate 12-hour revalidation requirments for each? -- and if they're not so different, why insist on this minimum one hour in each?

BEagle
21st Feb 2007, 16:43
1. For the JAR-FCL PPL, the PIC requirement is 6 hours in the second 12 month period. For the old PPL it was 5 hrs in 13 months - the NPPL total was agreed by all as a better compromise since 2 x 5 x 24/26 = 9.23, so 8 PIC and a mandatory total of 1 hour of training flying comes pretty close. It also means that those who are less well off do not have to cram all their flying into the second 12 month period as they do with JAR-FCL.

2. The JAR-FCL training flight requirement is intended to protect passengers from the risk of poor pilot flying skills, as is the 90 day recency requirement. But the microlight community has a high number of single seat aircraft and reasonably argued against compulsory training flights for such people. This principle was then reasonably extended to other aircraft such as Turbulents, Pawnees and Cosmic Winds.

3. Accumulating training flying will allow more flexible training -such as an out and return to a grass strip, for example. Also a single hour in some SSEA or Microlight aircraft might be somewhat taxing. It also provides an opportunity to stagger the training over a couple of years if desired.

4. The extremes of some corners of the Class Ratings make it reasonable for at least some minimum to be conducted in each Class. But not 12 hours! Anyway, the industry experts all agreed that it was entirely reasonable.

Please do NOT compare NPPL and JAR-FCL, that is irrelevant in this context - compare the 'old' and 'new' NPPL requirements.

BEagle
1st Mar 2007, 19:57
The full text of the NPPL ANO Amendment Proposals can now be seen at http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=175&pagetype=68&groupid=1298

Anyone wishing to comment on the proposals should do so to [email protected] . However, only comments concerning the proposals contained within the papers will be considered.

The proposals are fully endorsed by the AOPA, BBGA, BGA, BMAA, GAPAN and PFA members of the NPPL P&SC.

charliegolf
2nd Mar 2007, 21:27
BEagle

Many thanks to you, and the other individuals who have spent loads of their own, unpaid time getting the proposals to this point.

CG

BEagle
3rd Mar 2007, 07:25
Thanks for your kind words, charliegolf!

BEagle
9th Mar 2007, 09:22
The CAA weblink has now changed :rolleyes:

It is now http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?gid=1301

tangovictor
9th Mar 2007, 10:49
i also add my thanks, well done, to all those who work, for others

BEagle
12th Mar 2007, 14:12
ANO amendment proposals are now also available as a direct link from www.nppl.uk.com .

Cross-credit document REV06.2 has also been added; this merely corrects a small cut and paste error concerning military accreditation towards the NPPL (Microlight) which previously referred to GST and NST (SLMG) instead of just GST(Microlight).

xrayalpha
14th Mar 2007, 22:30
Why 5km min viz for NPPL SSEA but 3km for all other types of NPPL ie microlights slmg and old PPL (A) and PPL (Microlights)

Why not simplify and make 5km or 3km for all?

tangovictor
14th Mar 2007, 23:03
i agree, seems strange
please email the caa with any thoughts,
I have done so, with the fact, that I can fly the fixed wing microlight I trained in, solo or with an instructor, I can buy one or join a syndicate, and then fly with a passenger, but, I can't hire the self same machine, and take a passenger, ?
on another theme, lets assume a fixed wing microlight again, say a Eurostar
nppl m, I have to avoid, any habitation below me
if I were a ppl, flying the same Eurostar, I can over fly habitation, with the usual previso, being able to land etc etc ?

Genghis the Engineer
15th Mar 2007, 00:07
I'm curious as to how the CAA proposes the mandate differences training for multi-engined microlights. So far as I know, the only multi on the UK fleet is the Lazair - which is a single seater.


if I were a ppl, flying the same Eurostar, I can over fly habitation, with the usual previso, being able to land etc etc ?

Are you sure - I thought that this restriction would apply to any Eurostar, since they all operate under a PtF and that this is a CofA .v. PtF difference (but I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong).

G

tangovictor
15th Mar 2007, 00:21
not seen a lazair before, Im unsure if its on the bmma list of approved machines, the point with the Eurostar is, they can be purchased as a fixed wing microlight and if a fuel pump is fitted, with the 100hp rotax it becomes a ga machine, everything is identical, except those specified

J.A.F.O.
15th Mar 2007, 00:30
But is it not still on a Permit and therefore subject to permit regulations?

BEagle
15th Mar 2007, 04:48
1. The visibility limits do not reflect any change in NPPL policy.
2. Engineering matters are not addressed in the ANO change proposals.
3. If you have a view on Lazair differences training, please make it to the CAA.

Please restrict any comment to the ANO change proposals!

Genghis the Engineer
15th Mar 2007, 05:31
Lazair III (http://www.bmaa.org/upload/techdocs/2004316143680.BM11_4.pdf)

G

tangovictor
15th Mar 2007, 10:03
Good point, hadn't considered that :ugh: