NPPL query

[hugh flung_dung]

Probably a question for BEagle:
A chap has a current SEPL rating on a licence that expires later this year, he also has an NPPL SSEA rating that lapsed in 2004. He has been flying on the basis of the SEPL rating and an NPPL medical declaration. His options now seem to be to renew the JAA licence (CAA fees and JAR medical fees) or whether to renew the NPPL rating. I believe he needs to pass an NPPL GST to renew the NPPL SSEA - is this correct?

HFD

[Whopity]

On the basis of a valid SEP rating all he needs is to have done his hour with an Instructor and 12 hours experience in the last 24 months. No need for a test. It can be signed at any time as long as he has 6 hours in the previous 12 months.

[BEagle]

If the JAR-FCL PPL is due to reach the 5 year re-issue point, it cannot be re-issued without a valid JAA Medical - the 'NPPL' medical declaration cannot be used for JAR-FCL re-issue.

When is the SEP Class Rating due to expire?

If his SEP Class Rating is current and valid in all respects, I suggest that he sends a copy of it to the nice people at Gatwick, plus his NPPL, plus logbook proof of having flown 12 hours in the last 24 months, including 12 take-off and landings as PIC of which 8 must be have been as PIC and an accumlated total of 1 must have been with an instructor. Of the total 12 hours, 6 must have been in the last 12 months. In other words, if he can prove that his SEP flying in the last 24 months was exactly equivalent to the requirements for revalidating an SSEA Class Rating, he would have a reasonable case for making such a request. This may attract a 'Rating Variation fee', but is probably the cheapest way for him to sort out his NPPL.

Your chap is in this position as he let his NPPL SSEA Class Rating lapse. Normally he would be required to fly a GST, but as he was flying on a JAR-FCL licence at the same time, he has actually maintained current flying practice. So I would hope that the CAA will take a pragmatic view as I've suggested.

Keep us posted!

[Whopity]

To have his PPL reissued for a further 5 years it will cost £70 + medical. To have a NPPL Issued it will cost £49 and probably last till 2012 when it may have to align with EASA and become a LAPL at extra cost! http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/241PLS.pdf Acording to ORS 756 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_756.pdf) he may exercise NPPL privileges on the basis of a SEP Class rating so there is no justification for charging anything other than a licence issue fee.

[BEagle]

The NPPL does not need to be issued as the chap already has one. It merely needs PLD to agree that, since the SEP Class Rating in his parallel JAR-FCL PPL(A) is still valid, the SSEA Class Rating may be renewed without the need for a GST.

The fee for renewal of a rating included in a NPPL will be £37 w.e.f. 1 Apr 2010.

Hopefully this will be accepted by PLD and will take a couple of minutes with a Gatwick biro to effect.

As for what happens in 2012 should the €urocrats inflict the absurdity of the LPL upon us, who knows. Our working NPPL system will be thrown into total confusion for nothing more than administrative convenience - I wish the CAA the best of luck trying to sort out the resulting mayhem! That is, if the CAA still has any staff left by then....

[Whopity]

he also has an NPPL SSEA rating that lapsed in 2004. No mention of holding an NPPL only a rating. If he did it would be a straightforward signature.
I doubt the CAA will have any input; sounds like another job for Claud Muddlesome!

[S-Works]

One would assume that saying he held an NPPL SSEA meant that he held an NPPL!!!

I have just done this recently and the men at the ministry told me that if the revalidation requirements had been met and the SEP was current to revalidate the NPPL at the same time and from the current date.

[Whopity]

Never Assume! Check!

[S-Works]

You can only take pedantry so far......

[BillieBob]

You can only take pedantry so far......My, you have led a sheltered life!!

[BEagle]

I have just done this recently and the men at the ministry told me that if the revalidation requirements had been met and the SEP was current to revalidate the NPPL at the same time and from the current date.

Whilst this might be so in an individual case, as far as I'm aware there is no general policy on this and each case woul probably need to be dealt with on its own merit.

A Rating expired by more than 5 years normally requires the licence and paperwork to be sent to PLD, so the solution I proposed is probably the most pragmatic unless FCL make it a formal new policy.

[S-Works]

I thought my solution of calling the CAA and asking was the most pragmatic......

[Whopity]

You can only take pedantry so far......I have seen NPPLs issued by the CAA valid for 1 year; 2years; 3 years and indefinitely! nothing surprises me anymore.

Isn't it interesting that the simplest licence of them all continues to generate more confusion than all the others put together. The CAA have never informed any instructor or PPL examiner anything about this licence. It was attempted at the CPL/FIE examiners meeting last October leaving them all totally confused.

[BristolScout]

Don't be too hard on the CAA. The whole recreational flying situation is in a mess as a result of well intentioned actions to ease the burden on the sector. The burgeoning number of activities under the recreational flying umbrella has created a number of contradictions that do not sit comfortably with ICAO Annex 1 which has its roots in the days when the only options were nosewheel or tailwheel (no rating for either in those halcyon days).

BTW, I've been out of circulation for a few weeks. This forum seems to have shrunk mightily. WIHIH?

[Whopity]

Unfortunately the who thing is down to one person who used the opportunity for political gain and refused to listen to those who knew better. GA is now writhing in a pile of totally unnecessary beaurocracy.

[S-Works]

Ooooh!! Who was that then?

[BEagle]

The CAA have never informed any instructor or PPL examiner anything about this licence.

Haven't you received your new FEH yet, Whopity?

Unfortunately the whole thing is down to one person who used the opportunity for political gain and refused to listen to those who knew better. Internal Belgrano-bitching. Industry got what it said it wanted, it's working OK now! But the spectre of the lunatic LPL is on the horizon....:mad:

[Whopity]

What exactly is the difference with the LPL apart from the fact you will be able to instruct on it?
Industry got what it said it wantedEventually! but wouldn't it have been easier to stick with the ICAO 40 hours and a two tier medical that allready existed, no need for any law changes at all.Haven't you received your new FEH yetYes, two tables, no explanation and no relevant forms.

[S-Works]

Mine was not even bound.....

[BEagle]

Whopity, you've been banging that drum for years. What you describe isn't what industry wanted.

The main problem with the NPPL was that, after everything had been finally agreed, incorrect requirements were mistakenly written into the ANO and it has taken years of effort to correct the CAA's original errors.

bose-x, all very well to ring the CAA, but often you get different interpretations from different people. That's why anything which isn't defined in writing (LASORS, FEH, AIC etc) should be aimed at the CAA and a written response given. If for no other reason than to protect both the licence holder and the examiner.

[Whopity]

Beagle as I recall it the original purpose of the NPPL, as put forward by AOPA, long before any industry committee was formed, was to invigourate the flying training industry by getting more students through the doors of the flying clubs by introducing a simpler cheaper PPL. This followed AOPAs previous epic of convincing the JAA that the PPL was the first module in a modular ATPL; and should therefore by incorporated into JAR-FCL! Which was not the original intention.

What we finished up with was a licence that enables people to fly with a reduced medical requirement. There has been minimal take up at the ab-initio level and I have yet to see anyone who has acquired a NPPL in the minimum hours (i.e. cheaper) The statistics were carefully arranged so as to reveal no meaningful figures!

The industry committee did not emerge untill the Microlights and SLMGs were unnecessarily dragged into the equation, and AOPA had largely given up. If they had followed the simple route in the first place, there would have been no need to generate additional legislation and consequently no opportunity to cock anything up.

[hugh flung_dung]

Thanks all, but I'm still slightly confused (it doesn't take much :confused:)

The chap's specific situation:
His PPL(A) expires on 6/July/10 and the associated SEPL rating expires 16/June/10. His NPPL was issued in March/2003 and the associated SSEA rating expired in March/2004. He does not have a JAA medical. He has not yet met all the renewal experience requirements.

Whopity said "On the basis of a valid SEP rating all he needs is to have done his hour with an Instructor and 12 hours experience in the last 24 months. No need for a test. ..." but to my simple brain, if the NPPL rating has lapsed it needs renewing and renewal needs a test (unless he can successfully appeal to the CAA with the one-off logic of his case, as suggested by BEagle). I bounced this off another local examiner who agreed with me that an NPPL GST was needed.

HFD

[BEagle]

Whopity, your recollection of the NPPL's genesis is incorrect.

HFD, as I said, the chap has been in current flying practice because he has a parallel JAR-FCL PPL even though he let his NPPL SSEA rating lapse. Thus the 'basic' NPPL SSEA renewal requirements are illogical in his case.

Tell him to revalidate the SEP Class rating before 16 Jun 10 and send the SRG\1119 to the CAA, together with the NPPL, and ask for the SSEA Class Rating to be renewed.

If he isn't going to meet SEP Class Rating revalidation requirements except by LPC, then he might as well just fly a SSEA Class Rating GST and forget his JAR-FCL SEP Class Rating.

[BillieBob]

Whopity, your recollection of the NPPL's genesis is incorrect.That's interesting as Whopity's recollection accords pretty well with my own, particularly the bit about AOPA's frantic, if self-defeating, campaign to get the PPL(A) included in JAR-FCL 1.

[S-Works]

I also seem to recall that as well. I seem to recall that AOPA had hoped to be able to take over PPL licensing by having the NPPL as the 'basic' pilots licence.

[rhwheeler]

I understand that UK and JAR FCL PPL with SEP class ratings can revalidate or renew by experience or test on a medical declaration provided that the examiner enters the rating as SSEA and not SEP (which requires a JAR FCL medical certificate).
The UK/JAR FCL PPL then sends the NPPL rating addition application to the CAA PLD with a fee of £37.
The prcedure is stated in AN Amendment Order.
Has anyone seen the SSEA rating used for renewing a UK/JAR FCL PPL?:)

[BEagle]

You've mixed up a few aspects.

Firstly, a UK CAA-issued JAR-FCL PPL(A) cannot be re-issued (i.e. at the 5 year point) unless the applicant holds a JAA Medical Certificate.

A UK CAA-issued JAR-FCL PPL(A) may be maintained under the exemptions of ORS4 No.756 and the SEP Class Rating included therein may be revalidated or renewed exactly as under JAR-FCL (except for the medical, which restricts the privileges of the SEP Class Rating as stated in the AN document).

A pilot if he chooses, may apply to the CAA for the inclusion of a SSEA Class Rating in his licence. This will incur a fee and is NOT mandatory.

The decision as to whether to maintain the SEP Class Rating or to apply for a SSEA Class Rating rests with the pilot and his individual circumstances. Is his medical condition likely to change? How far into his 2-year period is he - and would changing to an SSEA Class Rating be financially beneficial for him due to its different revalidation requirements?

Confused? A fair few people in the CAA are - but they came up with this exemption!