NATIONAL PPL PROGRESS

[BEagle]

The CAA has now released its discussion paper on the NPPL. This is the first step in the mandatory process for introducing regulatory change permitting the introduction of the new licence.

If there are no significant concerns resulting from this first document, then the industry-led NPPL should be introduced early next year.

According to the draft circulated to the NPPL Steering Committee, the discussion paper should soon be available for viewing at http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/ga/ga_whatsnew.asp

[stiknruda]

BEags - I haven't had a chance to read the link yet (baling and carting hay!!) but what is proposed with regard to becoming an NPPL instructor and what are your thoughts on this subject?

Thanks

Stik

edited by Stik - syntax

[ 10 July 2001: Message edited by: stiknruda ]

[BEagle]

"AOPA has proposed entry requirements and a training syllabus for instructors who hold only a NPPL. This has been provisionally agreed in outline. The question of remuneration for these instructors has not been agreed, but AOPA are pressing for this to be permitted strictly within a carefully defined club environment"

The idea is to make it easier for those who wish to become FIs, FI(A)s or CRIs but who would hold only a NPPL. However, there would be little reduction in the training required to become a FI(R), nor in the qualifying Skill Test. Existing microlight etc. instructors will not be disadvantaged by any of the new proposals. Whilst re-invigoration of the UK flying training business may well result, it will be difficult to fight off the predatory tactics of certain unscrupulous organisations located in other countries.

[pulse1]

In the CAA Discussion Document, Rod Dean says -

"We believe that these restrictions on the licence will ensure that NPPL pilots will have the same high level of safety enjoyed by current PPL holders".

If this is true, why can't a JAR PPL be maintained on the same basis as the NPPL?

i.e. six hours per annum + a BFR, and a DVLC medical every two years up to 65.

In my view, this is potentially safer than the JAR currency requirement of 12 hours during the second year, which means that you don't have to fly at all during the first year. I have never understood the logic of that.

With respect to the medical requirements, if it is just as safe for geriatric over sixties like me fly in the UK with a biannual DVLC medical, how can they (I) justify my having to have an annual CAA Class 2 medical with ECG every year - just to be able to leave the country about 6 times a year?

[Cahlibahn]

I'll read the discussion paper more carefully tonight but based on a very quick skim through it, I'm a bit underwhelmed at the idea of allowing NPPL holders to instruct and maybe even get paid for it. I must say that the NPPL smacks to me of a dumbing down exercise carried out in order to try and inject some life into the UK flight training industry. Whilst I have every sympathy with the industry I'm not too keen on the whole NPPL thing and am instinctively not in favour. As far as I can see it is meant to be a recreational licence but the only restriction seems to be that flight is limited to the UK FIR and no night or IMC flying allowed (yet - anyway).

[You want it when?]

What is the point of not having VMC / IMC ratings in the UK? I'm right at the start of my JAR PPL(A) but having been scrubbed twice in July (rain and wind) I know I'm going to need those ratings to enjoy any flying privileges. My apologies to older (possibly) and wiser (defiantly) heads - but isn't this just going to create a three tier system old CAA, JAR PPL and NPPL? I would hope that by the time people get to 80+ hours the differences wash out but its going to be dangerous around the 50 - 80 hours mark skills will be surely be inconsistent?

[Troy Tempest]

I think you hit the nail on the head by stating that by around 80 hours (or another appropriate time) the differences will pan out. I can't see why NPPL licence holders cannot instruct providing they have sufficient hours / experience and the right temperement. From what I've seen the new licence will be of benefit of a large number of people wishing to fly and should be positively encouraged

[stiknruda]

Instructing.

I'm not sure I totally understand what you mean BEagle. Are you saying that NPPL holders will be able to instruct ab-initio NPPL holders having passed the required FI course?

What would be the case for a pre-JAR CAA PPL (A&B) with I dunno six/seven hundred hours who wished to instruct to NPPL? Would he or she have to qualify under the current and very expensive JAR route to be able to instruct ab-initio?

Thanks

Stik

[BEagle]

Sorry - that hasn't been decided yet. The 'knowledge' would probably need to be equivalent to the old BCPL; the FI course and Skill Test would not be to a lower standard than at present, as far as I'm aware. However, the NPPL holding FI is some way off still. the aim is to get the NPPL established first and then to look at this possibility. The detailed proposals would first need to be agreed by the NPPLSC and then put to the CAA for formal approval.

Perhaps a NPPL holding Class Rating Instructor would be a first step?

[stiknruda]

BEags - thanks. Will have a chat to those fine PFA folk in Shoreham regarding this.

I really would like to teach/instruct ab-initio and the old BCPL/FI would have been a route that I would have pursued had not adherence to JAR out-moded it.

re - yr post on PFL currency (Grobxxx in Mil Aircrew) think that perhaps the NPPL could stress good piloting skill rather than wannabee Boeing driver skills

Stik

[Tocsin]

BEagle,

Thanks for posting the link to the NPPL proposal, which I'm now perusing.

Can anyone compare the programme to the "old" CAA PPL - that was originally a 30/35 hour pattern, was it not?

For fun flying (i.e. not a step on the way to commercial) the NPPL seems the way forward, and there are three people in my family who are waiting on it ('tho one may go JAR).

I'm in favour of the IMC - needed for UK flying - and intend to respond to the proposal (not a PFA/AOPA member yet).

Any easy explanation why Night is a no-no? The paper indicates medical issues?

[Bouncy Landing]

I'm afraid I dont understand what is being cut out to reduce hours by 33% that CAA /JAA trained us for but is now not allowed.

A basic "old" CAA/JAA does not permit: IMC, Night, "complex", nor does it actually offer training for leaving UK FIR or flying aircraft with more than 4 seats (as I understand it the main restrictions on the new NPPL). I really don't see where the training "saving" is coming from.

Surely we dont consider ourselves "overtrained" do we? Have I missed something?

Any comments?

[Vigilant Driver]

BEagle,

Mate, are you saying that BCPL knowledge is going to be required for NPPL instructors?

That is not going to work for your average wannabe NPPL instructor down the club. The BCPL knowledge level is around about a years part time study and that was for me coming from an A2 QGI background.

By all means put potential NPPL FIs through the PPL FI course but don't put the massive commercial knowledge requirement on them.

Vigi

[Noggin]

Bouncy Landings

Its really quite simple, you take the old 40 hour syllabus, reduce the 1 hour exercises to 45 minutes and bingo you have a saving of 25%.

Of course we all know it took on average 55 hours to train for a national PPL so it will probably take 55 hours to get an NPPL.

Not quite sure where the financial savings are going to come from other than a cheap medical.

[BEagle]

One thing - not so much cheap medical as the only medical which some pilots would be able to hold.

My earlier proposals to Payton et al. of the CAA recommended 'knowledge appropriate to the privileges of the licence for which instruction will be given' rather than 'commercial level' knowledge - yes, even professional A2 QFI aviators of HMFC who wanted to become civil FIs had to learn about the dimensions of the stripes on the streamers flown below a tethered kite, when to provide oxygen for the pax and how many cabin crew are needed in a Cherokee with 36 seats....so I do sympathise!

The real way forward would be for the AOPA instructor committee to work with the BMAA and BGA to come up with a proposed theoretical knowledge syllabus for agreement by the NPPLSC and for the ultimate approval by the CAA. But that will take a lot of time, I'm afraid.

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Gash Handlin]

BEagle

Apologies for my inability to read AND comprehend at the same time!

It seems to me that an NPPL holder with the appropriate HGV type medical can become an instructor. If this is so are you able to be paid as such? And out of curiosity what are the requirements (medical wise) to become a paid JAA PPL instructor (if you know them). The reason I ask is that I can't get a CPL or higher because of a piddling little eyesight thing that just stops me getting a class 1 med, and I'd love to be able to do some professional flying of some sort. At least I can honestly guarantee I wouldn't be just 'using' studes to hour build myself an ATPL because I know I can't get one no matter how many hours I get.

[BEagle]

Sorry to hear of your medical limitation. Regrettably there is NO method of receiving remuneration on a JAR/FCL PPL for Flight Instruction.

There is NO NPPL yet, NO agreed process for future NPPL holders to add ANY ratings to their licence, NO agreement for NPPL-holding FIs (if, that is, they are allowed in the future) to receive any remuneration for SEP work......

You might, however, wish to speak to the BMAA about requirements for remunerated microlight instruction?

[Gash Handlin]

Oh well there goes my annual attempt at getting paid for the only thing I'm any good at (and before anyone flames me for being bigheaded you should see how badly I do everything else ;) )

Just to push this a bit further can you still act as an JAA PPL FI unpaid, and if so how does it work? Does the stude pay for the hour and you get a freebie P1 hour or does it have to get split a la rules for carrying passengers?

And Microlights, eurrgh, can't see the point in getting cold unless it's an open biplane that goes upside down :D

[BEagle]

You can certainly instruct on a JAR/FCL PPL but NOT for remuneration.

It is difficult to establish how you could be paid, but if, for example, you were reimbursed for the fuel you usd to drive in, that would be OK. But nothing for flying. How the School charges the student is nihil ad rem; but you would have to be reimbursed whenever you came in rather than only on those days you flew - otherwise there would be clear linkage between your reimbursement and your flying which would be illegal.

You only need a JAR Class 2 medical for unremunerated FI work on a JAR/FCL PPL, by the way. But you still have to have ALL the 'commercial' knowledge and do precisely the same FIC as a CPL holder.

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Fuji Abound]

I was very interested in the debate regarding unpaid teaching as a PPL/FI. I have previously read quite some debate on this issue, and even tried to get a straight answer from FCL Gatwick. The consensus of opinion seems to be that even with a FI rating you still cannot teach because in order to do so you must demonstrate CPL level knowledge which to all intensive purposes means taking and passing the CPL exams. The only bit you do not need is the CPL aerial work and GFT, and it is this part that distinguishes whether or not you can charge for your services. For what it is worth, and I know there has been much debate on this issue on the instructors forum, there will be nothing more restricting to a thriving future for GA. With the effective abolishen of the self improver route for budding commercial pilots, who on earth is going to be prepared to stand the cost of CPL exams, under JAR I think requiring a residential course, CPL GFT, and FI to teach for a pittance, and more to the point how much better qualified are you than the QFI of yester year who I think had to show 600 hours of time, and FI rating. Why on earth cannot a single course be devised for people whose only wish is to teach on light singles and perhaps twins within the GA community which embodies in that single course the technical and practical knowledge to meet the required standard. Whether this will come with the NPPL seems to be debatable. One wonders whether AOPA with its vested interest in existing instructors may support or oppose such a rating?

[Gash Handlin]

Fuji

My stumbling block is the medical so how does this work

(apologies if you think this is time to move to the instructors forum)

[Wibbly P]

It is required (amongst other things) to have CPL level knowledge to have an FI rating under JAR regulations.

Therefore the only pilots (in general) wanting to instruct on an NPPL are those unable to gain a class 1 Medical

Can anyone else suggest a good reason other than medical limitations to have the NPPL FI?

Considering that many student pilot's require more than the 45 hour minimum to pass the skills test, why would anyone want a licence that doesn't allow them to go out of UK airspace?

I'm all confused.....

WP

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Wibbly P ]

[Vigilant Driver]

Gash,

In the gliding world, the bloke/gal who cuts the grass goes flying the tug after work. They don't have a commercial licence and are paid to cut the grass.

Maybe you could take a similar approach here. Be an Ops bloke and after work go instructing.

Better still get a well paid job and go instructing unpaid (at a not for profit club!) in your time off. That's what I did until I got my 700 hours and CPL. I can now (and do) claim my expenses like the rest of the FIs.

Have you thought about an FAA medical and instructing on N reg aircraft?

Vigi

ps. Whatever you end up doing, check out the legallity of it with the CAA. It would be a shame to lose your PPL over a few quids.

[Fuji Abound]

Cash Handlin

I think the CAA Class 2 medical is still available, it was last year when I took mine. If it is this is a commercial medical but I am not certain if you can then instruct or still would need a Class 1. I am sure I will be corrected or it may be worth a call to FCL Gatwick.

So in short to instruct unpaid I think it is correct to say you would need to pass the CAA CPL exams or the new JAR equivalents (the last CAA sitting I gather is in November), and gain a FI rating, and add a class 1 or possibilty CAA class 2 medical.

Add the CPL rating by completing the course and you can be paid.

Please could someone tell me why in the future potential instructions will wish to invest I guess £25,000 at least to gain an instructors rating, particulaly if this is not a stepping stone to a commercial appointment?

Please could someone also tell me why on earth a FI rating cannot comprise and all encompassing course at a realistic cost to enable flight training to be given on light singles. This is surely what the FI instructors rating for the NPPL should comprise. Why potential pilots should want to take a rating restricted to use in UK airspace is altogether another question!

[Bouncy Landing]

Thanks Noggin

So basically we are talking about aspiring NPPLs being misled as to the real time / cost of training (as Noggin suggets), or NPPLs with reduced (presumably circa 75%only) training against "old" CAA/ JAR. The former doesn't surprise me, the latter would horrify me, and not, I think, do any thing for GA.

[Noggin]

The NPPL is nothing more than a concoction from AOPA to get back to the real issue, instructing on a PPL.

The requirement for instructors to demonstrate CPL level knowledge comes from ICAO, the UK ignored it for many years but eventually conformed when the BCPL was introduced. If we revert back, how will the hours gained ever be acountable towards an ICAO licence if the instructor is not qualified in accordance with ICAO requirements?

There is no reason why a JAA PPL could not be issued on the basis of a "restricted" medical for UK use only. It would be a damm sight easier than introducing a licence that is nothing more than a confidence trick.

Let us remember the NPPL was an invention of AOPA; dragging the PPL into JARs was also an AOPA invention. Their track record is not good, they represent themselves, and a few others,not GA as a whole.

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Noggin ]

[BEagle]

Which is precisely why the CAA insisted on the NPPLSC which does represent all GA organisations: AOPA, PFA, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA and receives advice from GAPAN.

The CAA supports the NPPL; only proposals which have consensus agreement amongst the NPPLSC are forwarded to the CAA for approval and formal action; a representative from the CAA also attends NPPLSC meetings.

Whilst AOPA may have started the ball rolling and chair the NPPLSC, rest assured that the NPPLSC does represent all of GA.

Incidentally, it is a JAR/FCL Class 2 medical which is the minimum required for unremunerated instruction by a PPL holder, not a CAA Class II. That is no longer available for pilot licensing.

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Noggin]

I hardly think an unelected group of cronies that most people in GA have never heard of can claim to represent the industry.

What it requires is a forward thinking organisation with a supporting membership to represent GA, not the usual bunch of self interested professional committe members.

[BEagle]

So, noggin, apart from libel, what positive statements do you have to make?

[Gash Handlin]

VD (unfotunate abreviation :D )

Luckily I have got a job which pays enough to live, and I've got a hobby that pays enough to start flying again, So I'd be more than happy to pay my own expenses and don't need to be paid for my time. I'd be happy just getting in the air.

Thanks for the info guys, I'm going to have a good look into this.

GH

[dah dah]

Any aspiring FI that does not want to subsequently progress to APTL will WASTE 6 months and about £8000 getting a JAA CPL.

I say waste, because I cannot see any benefit in completing the CPL (either for the instructor or his students).

If the NPPL provides a route by which I can instruct without incurring that cost, then I will do everything I can to encouage and promote it.