What's Allowed At Unlicensed Airfields?

[chris_p]

I've been spending some time researching what's allowed at unlicensed airfields, and discovered that in the past there were rumours of the CAA considering allowing the training for the NPPL at UL airfields. Does anybody know the conclusion of these discussions and whether NPPL (or PPL for that matter) training is likely to ever be allowed at unlicensed airfields?

To the best of my (limited) knowledge it's still prohibited, but if anybody could clarify this then that would be great.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Errr...

Have you thought of phoning or e-mailing the CAA and asking them? :)

Contrary to some opinion here, the folk there are not shape-shifting death lizards from the planet Zarg, but, rather, professional not-quite-civil-servants who will be able to answer your question, especially if you demonstrate a legitimate interest in the answer... :cool:

(Apologies to any shape-shifting death lizards from the planet Zarg, who may be reading this and feel put out by the comparison). ;)

[Whopity]

The Light Aviation Airports Study Group (LAASG) looked into the issues 2 years ago. Despite positive recomendations from the Group no change to the ANO has been implemented.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/17/srg_asd_laasgconsultationletter_06-07-06.pdf

[chris_p]

Good point, I might try phoning the non-death-lizards tomorrow then and see what they have to say. Regarding the LAASG, it seems like positive discussions were made in a CAA meeting in March 2007 regarding the use of unlicensed airfields (see here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=17&pagetype=90&pageid=7859)).

[Mark 1]

They already grant exemptions, but only for SLMG, TMG and Microlight.

I suspect it is based more on custom and practice, than logic.

But even these operations have to meet minimum standards.

[xrayalpha]

Mark 1,

There are no restrictions on microlight (NPPL M) training, although there may be a "recommendation" that airfields "should" meet certain British Microlight Aircraft Association standards. (details of those I thought were on their web site but I can't find them, a phone call will reveal all)

With the NPPL mess/fudge, theoretically it is possible to do all your NPPL SEP training on a microlight at an unlicencesed airfield except for the final hour and your test which would have to be done on a light aircraft at a licensed airfield.

Of course you can alos add rating - such as aeros or floats or taildragger - to a licence at an unlicensed airfield.

Very best wishes

Colin

[homeguard]

Tailwheel and aeros are not ratings and therefore they are not added to the pilots licence. Tail-wheel requires only 'differences training' with an endorsement of the pilots logbook. There is no specific requirements for aerobatics and therefore no rating or endorsement is required. No licenced aerodrome required therefore for these two.
Floats
Seaplane is a rating but strangely is not required to be undertaken at a licenced facility, however, the student must already hold a PPL with a current medical to undertake training. The Seaplane rating is not required to fly an aeroplane that has floats - you don't need a rating for floats but the Seaplane rating is required for operating on/off water. Now you might think...................!

[BEagle]

"With the NPPL mess/fudge, theoretically it is possible to do all your NPPL SEP training on a microlight at an unlicencesed airfield except for the final hour and your test which would have to be done on a light aircraft at a licensed airfield."

Totally incorrect.

I suspect the LAASG results are on hold whilst the lunacy of EASA dreams up ever more heavy-handed, expensive and unnecessary 'regulations'.

E.g. No more UK IMC Ratings because some verbose European airline pilots union representative doesn't like it, an end to people with ICAO licences being able to fly privately in the UK on such licences, an end to the old 'lifetime' UK PPL, an end to the old UK CPL and ATPL with their embedded IMC privileges, an end to the UK BCPL(R)......

The Eurocrats intend to force all national licence holders to convert to a Euro-licence. Expensive, unnecessary and with less privileges.

If you don't like the idea, please tell your MP...NOW!!

And also mention it to the CAA whenever you call them, whether about the LAASG report or anything else.

[xrayalpha]

Sorry BEagle, should have looked up the details.

The rules are below, and I read them as:

A. If you have done all your training on a microlight, you have to do your 10 hours solo in an SEP. (there is a six month rule too)

B. However, if you do all your training on a microlight, and get a microlight NPPL then you only have to do three hours further flight training at a licencesed airfield.

It is an option I have looked at to offer, in effect, NPPL light aircraft training from an unlicensed field (apart from the very last bit).

Very best to all, and apologies to others for not knowing the differences between light aircraft ratings and stuff - I am a sport pilot, aka microlighter.





SECTION 2. CROSS-CREDITING LICENCES AND RATINGS TO NPPL (SEP)
2.1 Pilots with valid licences and ratings
NPPL (SLMG) or UK PPL (A) SLMG to NPPL (SEP)
The holder of a NPPL (SLMG) or UK PPL (A) SLMG who wishes to obtain a NPPL (SEP) shall:
a. Produce the NPPL (SLMG) or UK PPL (A) SLMG;
b. Produce log book evidence of having satisfactorily completed SEP differences training with a SEP FI or
CRI(SPA) in a single-engine piston aeroplane;
c Hold a valid NPPL Medical Declaration or JAR-FCL Class 1 or 2 medical certificate.
NPPL(Microlight) or UK PPL (Microlight) to NPPL (SEP)
The holder of a NPPL (Microlight) or UK PPL (M) licence without restrictions who wishes to obtain a NPPL
(SEP) shall:
a. Produce the NPPL (Microlight) or UK PPL (M);
b. Produce logbook evidence of currency on Microlight aircraft;
c Carry out such flying training in a single-engine piston aeroplane as is judged necessary by the SEP FI
or CRI(SPA) giving the training to achieve the required standard to take the NPPL (SEP) NST and GST.
This training must include:
(1) Not less than 1 hour of dual instrument appreciation;
(2) 2 hours stall awareness/spin avoidance training;
(3) Differences training for Microlight pilots whose Microlight flying has been solely on flexwing
machines;
(4) Not less than the 32 hours required minimum total flight time for the NPPL (SEP), which may
be a combination of both Microlight and SEP flying.
d. Pass the JAR-FCL PPL (A) theoretical examination in Aircraft (General) and Principles of Flight;
e. Hold a valid NPPL Medical Declaration or JAR-FCL Class 1 or 2 medical certificate;
f. Pass the NPPL (SEP) NST and GST.
For the holder of a PPL (M) with operating restrictions, the requirements shall further include:
g. The whole of the navigation training required for the NPPL (SEP);
h. The completion of a minimum of 10 hours total solo flying which may be a combination of Microlight
and SEP flying.
An applicant who has commenced training for a NPPL (Microlight) but elects to train for the NPPL (SEP)
before qualifying as a Microlight pilot may claim all those hours of Microlight training on either control system undertaken in the previous 6 months as allowances against training for the NPPL (SEP) subject to the following
provisos:
a. The minimum requirement of 10 hours solo must be flown in a single-engine piston aeroplane for the
grant of a NPPL (SEP);
b. The minimum requirement of 32 hours of flying instruction required for the NPPL may consist of a
combination of Microlight and SEP training;
c. The whole of the navigation training required for the NPPL (SEP) must be completed.

[DFC]

BEagle,

Your statement of;

I suspect the LAASG results are on hold whilst the lunacy of EASA dreams up ever more heavy-handed, expensive and unnecessary 'regulations'.

Shows a distinct lack of knowledge which immediately rubishes the rest of your statement.

One would expect that someone like you would know that there is no requirement under JAR-FCL for PPL training to be completed at a licensed aerodrome.

You are like the nice lady anti-europe campaigner that some time back complaied because she had to have her whole house re-plumbed because new plumbing is metric and she had imperial sizes. :rolleyes: :}

Getting your facts correct would be less of a hinderance to your cause.

While you are at it, you might like to note that elsewhere in Europe, training aircraft can have Private airworthiness requirements as can club owned aircraft and there is not the max 20 member limit on group owned aircraft or the max 4 divisions of cost sharing.

I would support having the airspace cleared of pilots flying in IMC who are not qualified to instrument rating standards, can not accept many clearances and are in the majority of cases are not current. (The UK cost of the IR not being a good excuse for lax safety standards in increasingly busy airspace).

Perhaps you should be praying that the UK actually goes with the more relaxed European approach.

European requirements have not added 1 cent to the cost of training in Europe and I don't expect that they will on the near future.

Regards,

DFC

[DFC]

Before anyone goes down the wrong track;

JAR-FCL doe not require a licensed aerodrome for PPL training. It merely requires certain standards are met.

The UK decided that it's way of ensuring that the minimum requirements are met is by requiring training to be completed at a licensed aerodrome.

As for what can be done at an unlicensed aerodrome;

In terms of CS-23 or CS-VLA aircraft - Anything where the pilot under training holds a valid license.

However, that statement is limited by the fact that much training such as Multi and IR etc requires an FTO approval..........and (as far as I am aware currently) you will not get it at an unlicensed aerodrome.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

No, NPPL SSEA training has to be conducted at a licensed or government aerodrome. Even if it is the 'top up' you refer to.

Since I wrote the document, I do know its content.

And, DFC, you should read further about EASA.....

"I would support having the airspace cleared of pilots flying in IMC who are not qualified to instrument rating standards, can not accept many clearances and are in the majority of cases are not current. (The UK cost of the IR not being a good excuse for lax safety standards in increasingly busy airspace)."

Absolute tripe. The UK has issued 18000 IMCRs since they were first introduced and NO accidents have been caused through CFIT or loss of control in IMC by IMCR holders.

The self-interest of European airline unions is, frankly, irrelevant. As is much of European hogwash.

I voted for a European Economic Community, not some Euro-superstate whose pilot licensing risks being overcontrolled by unelected people in Cologne.

Incidentally, those who refuse to have ID cards are the very people preventing us joining the Schengen agreement nations - which would make international European touring much easier for UK citizens.

[homeguard]

DFC you do the IMCR an injustice. What BEagle states is absolutely correct. The accessibilty of the IR needs a complete review just the same and is currently hardly impressive.
However your other points with regard to the UK being over restrictive is true, while allowing a common misconception to blame the EU for our own shortcomings and excessive micro-control.
BEagle, why do you say that the failure to agree to ID cards prevents us joining the Schengen Agreement. What other EU countries require ID cards, can you name any? Just the same even when we join the Schengen Agreement our government has stated clearly - we will retain border controls as now. Why, because being an island we can. Much the same logic as why your pet dog licks it B*lls.

[chris_p]

OK, the phrase 'can of worms' springs to mind... but for anyone who's interested, I've just spoken to the CAA and they said that whilst training at unlicensed airfields is prohibited right now, discussions haven't closed and it is still being considered. No timescale could be offered either, but at least there's some light at the end of the tunnel which would lower costs somewhat!

[DFC]

xrayalpha,

Your ideas are indeed true and can be very efficient in terms of cost when you have something like a C42 Microlight and also a C42 VLA. Pop one of those nice blue mountain displays in the VLA for the instrument appreciation.

With 25 hours required for the unrestricted NPPL with microlight rating and 32 total hours for the addition of an SSEA rating, there is plenty of fat in the "theoretical" system.

There is also the added benefit of the cross crediting of JAR exams for microlight training.

---------
homeguard,

Surprised that a pilot does not know that the UK has a land border with Europe! The UK is not "an island"!

-------

BEagle,

Did you vote for anyone in the CAA?

You (the voter) did however vote for those people who set up the organisation and who oversee the operation on your behalf.

Exact same thing with EASA.

When you are allowed to vote for a UK Head of State (who will of course continue to enact UK laws using the French language) then you can claim some of the high ground. :)

Regards,

DFC

[RVR800]

Thought the IR was to be made more "accessible" to PPL holders and the CAA were looking at this..... (Forbes?)

I agree with BEagle on this one recent incvestigations also found no significant safety issues for UK based ICAO IR holders who fly their N-twins across Europe and have done for many years

They of couse dont pay as much though as the people going down the JAA IR route and the exams - very time consuming for a businesman

How much? How Many hours?

[DFC]

Yes the idea is to make the IR uptake greather in the PPL world.

However, adjusting the take-up of the IR will not adjust the basic premise that you need ATC to fly an instrument approach so even if the organisation providing the PPL IR training was based at an unlicensed airfield, they would be competing for beacon slots at licensed airfields and most of the airfields will give priority to local schools (who are already paying them for the privilege of being there).

Thus things get a bit complicated because what you (as a student) appear to save by going to the school out in the backwaters providing IR training, is consumed by approach fees and transit flights which also eat into the hours.

Remember also that if you are providing IR training from say Blackbushe you need VMC for departure and Arrival back there. This quite limits you weather wise when you are trying to sell someone the idea of weather being less limiting.

Thus an organisation based at say Filton who have unlimited procedures and use of the runway may look more expensive initially but will probably be cheaper in the long run.

This whole area is a massive minefield.

For example we have Bournemouth, Compton Abbas and Old Sarum operating in close proximity with the latter two licensed simply for the purpose of flight training.

Remove the licensing requirement and those two places will most likely immediately drop the licence and save themselves a fortune.

Bournemouth will not make any change to is licensing or charging.

If you were an organisation based ay Bournemouth which way would you be trying to persuade the CAA to go?

Regards,

DFC