NPPL

[flying snapper]

I have heard that the new licence is going to be introduced on June 1st. Is that true? Does anyone out there know where all the info (syllabus, application forms etc) can be got?

[Bouncy Landing]

It is true. Reduced training requirements, reduced medical requirements and reduced privilidges are the key aspects.

Check the CAA SRG web site - I believe there is information there. Also your local flying club will undoubtedly be able to fill you in on all the pertinant details, and the major pilot mags have done articles on it in the last year, check for back numbers.

[flying snapper]

Thanks Bouncy Landing for that, I will check it out! BTW were you watching my landing on Sunday? Bouncy wasn't in it!! I think I flare too high! <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[BlueLine]

Unfortunately nobody has designed any forms yet, or told the clubs anything. All there is is a syllabus nothing more. Ring AOPA they invented it and did all the work.

[FNG]

I was discussing the NPPL with Aussie Andy and others at one of Irv Lee's most excellent and highly recommended seminars yesterday. The consensus amongst those present, all PPLs, most of whom had held their licenses for a few years, was that the new licence would be of little or no interest, save perhaps to those who might have difficulty obtaining a Class 2 JAR Medical. Didn't the FAA introduce some sort of mini PPL called a recreational pilot certificate or something, which about 3 people bothered to get?

Of perhaps greater future interest was the possibility of EASA replacing JAA as the main aviation regulator for EU member states (bear in mind that JAA is not an EU organisation), with, perhaps, a return to mainly national regulation of non commercial flying.

[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: FNG ]</p>

[Evo7]

As a current PPL student, should I care about the NPPL? I've ignored it so far as it kept shifting from one thing to another, but it seems it has finally settled down.

[Tocsin]

Evo7,. .. .If you're already "in the mill" the NPPL is probably not of interest.. .. .For new starters, who aren't looking for the first step to a career, the NPPL has advantages, . . e.g. cheaper medicals, less bureaucracy (run by aviation organisations, not the CAA).. .. .As a lapsed glider pilot, it looks very similar to the way the BGA run gliding - and that works very well.

[BEagle]

Correct! The aims of the NPPL Steering Committee are that recreational flying should become cheaper and more accessible and that cross-accreditation between aircraft categories (SEP, SLMG, Microlight, Gliders various) should be more generous than under JAR/FCL. Also that medical requirements should be simpler and less demanding.. .. .It will be basically Day/VFR/UK and (for SEP) light 4 seat max simple aeroplanes. Extra training for RG/VP etc will be permitted, but IMC, Night, FI will still require JAR/FCL licences.. .. .We're working on the final touches to the NPPl proposal and hope that it'll be launched in the early Summer of 2002.. .. .Please note that there won't be any easing of qualifications required to instruct for the NPPL, or for training aircraft CofAs or for licensed/government aerodromes for the foreseeable. So those who thought they could get a NPPL, some form of cheaper FI rating and then set themselves up flying a deathtrap from a mud patch 'instructing' others for the goal of 'hours building' will be sadly disappointed!

[Who has control?]

OK, so in practical terms, what does this mean?. .. .I have a CAA PPL, how do I convert this to an NPPL as I want a cheaper medical and am quite content to stay VFR in the UK.

[scubawasp]

ok. .. .I'm off doing my ATPL, but my mate who holds a CAA PPL would still like to instruct, even if its only the ground school subjects. What should i tell him, and where are the places to go for a PPL ground instructor course??. .. .cheers guys

[Irv]

FNG refers to the seminar where we discussed the NPPL (from a previously qualified PPL's point of view) and as he says, at that seminar, there was no great reason for anyone there to want to convert to an NPPL. However, at other seminars, one or two attendees (generally the older ones) have decided to change as soon as they can - the main thing is getting the info across so informed decisions can be made by those who might benefit. For me, that's not the guy in the street looking for a 'cheaper' route to a first PPL. (I doubt if anyone will beat South Africa for that the moment, the way the Rand has collapsed). From my side, I see real benefit being to cut the costs and prolong active flying for a certain proportion of the current GA population. . .I expect quite a number of 'for fun' pilots at my airfield currently on JAR medicals will welcome the opportunity to convert to an NPPL. It fits exactly the sort of flying they do, and they gain in at least 2 ways - the revalidation 12 hours in the final 12 months of 2 years will be divided into 6 per year, which they will prefer, and the medical will be cheaper. I assume that in the very first year the older ones will be able to save whatever licence application fee is finally decided, just by swapping from an annual JAR medical cost to an NPPL one. They'll be the same people with the same skills, they won't suddenly become 'dangerous' with a different licence.

[flying snapper]

I think Irv does have a valid point, however I feel that the greatest benefit will be to those coming along and starting PPL training. Given the choice between expensive and excessively thourough medicals, more hours needed etc etc, for the carrot of being able to fly in Europe or go on to CPL level, I think that a lot of "new" trainees will go for the NPPL. The hassels, costs etc far outweigh the benefits for those of us "flying for fun" individuals.

[QUERY]

NPPL may appeal to greedy training orgs. and second-class students but isn't it a Naff Private Pilots Licence? As was pointed out, the training is inferior and the priviledges are restricted, so NPPL is only suitable for pilots who are going nowhere.. .How much cheaper than a JAA PPL course will NPPL be? . .Don't reduced hours, reduced medical standards etc. indicate, also, a serious safety reduction?. .The effect of weak licensing requirements is evident on the roads.. .NPPL is indeed odd, when the trend in training, medical and other licensing requirements has been for higher standards. Why are they allowing it?

[BEagle]

The standard of training will be no less for the NPPL than it was for the UK PPL pre-JAR/FCL.. .. .The syllabus will be less extensive as there will be no requirement for radio navigation.. .. .The medical standards will be less demanding as the NPPL holder will not be flying in anything other than VMC after qualifying.. .. .Examining standards will be no less for the NPPL than they are for the JAR/FCL PPL - except that there'll be 2 shorter tests rather than 1 long one.. .. .We're only pressing ahead with the NPPL because industry said that is what it wants.

[Skylark4]

Query,. . Mind you don`t fall off that pedestal you think you are standing on.. .The NPPL will suit a lot of people, especially those who cannot pass a medical to fly Jumbo Jets. Those with non insulin-dependant diabetes for example. As for pilots going nowhere, perhaps they have already been. The sheer cost of annual medicals with ECG is enough to stop some elderly but very experienced and competant pilots from continuing.. .Even pilots with the appropriate medical cert have been known to become incapacitated at the controls and, as far as I know, there are not hundreds of glider pilots making their last landing after already taking up the Harp and sitting on clouds. Solo glider pilots need only self certify.. .. .Mike W

[QUERY]

Far from contradicting concern, the above confirm that NPPL is a dangerous and disreputable dodge motivated by a greedy training 'industry' and people who shouldn't be allowed to pilot aircraft (or anything else).. .Also, still no answers.. .e.g. -How many hours will NPPL require?. . -How 'cheap' will it be?

[BEagle]

Retain your prejudices if you must, but please accept that the level of training and the hours required will be more or less the same as it was for the pre-JAR/FCL PPL. The CAA are content and so are bodies without commercial interests in PPL training.. .. .I can't quite understand what your point is; this is a licence for those who wish purely to fly for recreational purposes and not for those who wish to continue on to night, IMC or commercial flying. It will also benefit those who have certain medical conditions which would otherwise preclude them from flying solo - and this has the approval of CAA Medical Department.. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 09:29: Message edited by: BEagle ]</small>

[flying snapper]

I must take exception to the uninformed and elitist criticisms of the NPPL. This licence in no way will be a reduced standard licence but rather a licence for those who want to "fly for fun" and not progress to 747's. A great many of the flying and training community are welcoming the new licence as a removal of unnecessary complications to fly. I for one would like to thank BEagle for his and others efforts to bring this licence to us.

[Polar_stereographic]

Query,. .. .I don't follow you. What exactly makes you think that those who come out with an NPPL will be less able to fly VFR than those with a JAR licence?. .. .Why also, do you have a problem with it? The reason I ask is that I get the impression from your posts that you have a problem/grudge against it, and I'm just curious to know what it is.. .. .And, may I add, that although an NPPL is not for me, anything that encourages aviation in this country has to be good. For years now, it's been getting harder and harder to fly, so for that alone it get's my vote. As an aside, I don't think that since all this JAR stuff has come in that the accident statistics are any better.. .. .PS. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 09:47: Message edited by: Polar_stereographic ]</small>

[englishal]

I think its good to encourage GA in the UK, BUT I think the NPPL is a red herring. After all, how much is it really going to save the 'average' Pilot? Ok, so you may be able to get a licence in 30something hours, and you may save £100 on a medical (my renewal cost £50 with a free FAA class 2 thrown in)....but post NPPL costs will remain similar, ie. to rent a P28A will cost the same for a NPPL, PPL, CPL, ATPL, so whats the saving? . .. .Fine idea for people who cannot obtain a JAR class 2 medical, but is it really right to reduce training minimums? No requirement for Radio Nav, (and instruments??)...it seems that to have some sort of basic radio training is a good idea doesn't it?....just in case?. .. .What really needs to happen is for the JAA PPL to become a CAA PPL (again), and then the new CAA PPL to become less bogged down by crappy rules and regs, and let us all fly for fun again..... .. .Cheers. .EA

[Polar_stereographic]

englishal,. .. .I sort of agree with you. I'm not an authority on the different licences etc, but I get the impression that the JAR thing has been a bit of a cockup particularily where PPL's are concerned. . .. .I wonder if the NPPL is the first step to getting the old CAA PPL's back. There is no chance in my view, of the JAR rules being scrapped. . .. .PS

[BEagle]

Looming on the horizon is the spectre of the proposed European Air Safety Agency (EASA), referred to as 'E ar$e A'. The level of democratic decision making in this organisation would make Mugabe blush; however, they propose no involvement at PPL level so it is indeed highly likely that the NPPL will, with a couple of tweaks, become the UK's PPL in a few years' time.. .. .The CAA have already concluded that the JAR/FCL PPL has proved unsatisfactory; what a great pity that the current atmosphere of co-operative consultation wasn't around at the time that the JAR/FCL PPL was forced on us. They are genuine in their support for the NPPL; however, no-one yet really knows whether there will be a significant demand for it .. .. .I sympathise with my fellow Instructors and Examiners who have been slowly (too slowly in many cases) getting to grips with the requirements for the current JAR/FCL PPL and can well understand that they don't want any more changes - but it's consumer demand which clearly comes first!. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 11:36: Message edited by: BEagle ]</small>

[Saab Dastard]

Some observations from a JAR FCL1 student pilot, nearly completed training:. .. .(I found the following link useful in summarising the NPPL: <a href="http://www.ontrackaviation.com/NPPL" target="_blank">www.ontrackaviation.com/NPPL</a> (A).html. If it is out-of-date or incorrect, then so also are my comments based on it.). .. .There seems to be very little difference between the JAA and NPPL requirements, other than the minimum number of hours and the medical requirements.. .. .I think that one should remember that the word minimum means just that. A student who has not achieved the standard to pass the NPPL skills test in 32 hours will need to do more than the minimum number, just as they do with the 45 hours for the JAR/FCL PPL.. .. .This makes me wonder a) what the standard of the NPPL skills test will be compared to that for the JAR/FCL - if it is the same (subject to radio nav difference) than I would expect a high failure rate. If it is less rigorous then I cannot but feel that the standard of PPL aviation will fall, potentially with tragic consequences (I have accumulated 41 hours towards my PPL, and I only now have the confidence that I should be able to pass the skills test that I certainly did not have 10 flying hours ago).. .. .b) as the number of hours over and above the minimum 32 increases, does there not come a point where one "might as well" go for the JAR/FCL licence? Yes, there is the medical issue, but this is circa £100 for a class 2, or 1 hours flying and not, in the overall costs, that relevant. One has then none of the restrictions of the NPPL, for a very moderate increase in marginal cost / outlay.. .. .The current stance on flying training credits seems to be as follows:. .. .Quote: "As regards previously accumulated flying hours, the NPPL is envisaged as being a "stand alone" licence, with no read across or equivalence to the Joint Aviation Requirements--Private Pilot's Licence. It will, in effect, exist in isolation of other ICAO compliant licences. Therefore, training to the NPPL syllabus will not be permitted prior to its coming into effect, and no credit will be granted for flying hours acquired under other training syllabuses. . .. .This is a parliamentary response, and the last statement seems to me to be idiotic. Why on earth not? Especially as the intention seems to be that anyone with an existing PPL but without a valid medical can get a NPPL by simply paying an administration charge!. .. .However, the NPPL training appears to count towards the JAR/FCL requirements:. .. .Quote: "Any previous flying experience in single engine-piston (Land) aeroplanes gained during incompleted PPL(A) courses may be counted towards the 45 hour minima required for the grant of a JAR-FCL PPL(A), however the specific requirements under JAR-FCL (25 hours dual instruction and 10 hours supervised solo-flight time) must be completed in the state under whose authority the training and testing are carried out.". .. .I would expect that many students could obtain the NPPL en-route to the JAA PPL if they wished to pay for the additional examination. I assume that the QXC would be identical for both. This would enable them to fly NPPL PIC while still training towards JAR/FCL licence - presumably the hours could count towards this.. .. .It would be sensible if successful completion of the written exams for JAA provided an exemption for the NPPL exams (as a superset). After all, studying for and taking the exams is free!. .. .However, if it proves that moving from NPPL to JAR/FCL PPL licence becomes expensive and time consuming due to lack of exam / flying hours credits then I would say that the NPPL would be a complete waste of time and money for new pilots who may wish to gain night or IMC ratings or beyond, or travel outside the UK. The thought of spending 3/4+ of the JAR/FCL licence on the NPPL and then finding one had to spend more than the remaining 1/4 to fly to Europe or to begin to get an IMC is ludicrous - why bother?. .. .Its value as an enabler for new or existing pilots who are content to fly within its restrictions without requiring a class 2 medical would still apply, of course. I don't want to get into "fitness to fly" arguments! . .. .SD

[BEagle]

SD - I asked the CAA for clarification concerning whether training conducted towards the NPPL would be credited towards the JAR/FCL PPL - and the answer was 'perhaps'. It only says that such training may be credited, not that it shall be.. .. .Any NPPL training provider must ensure that their syllabus of NPPL flying training should state quite clearly which exercises may also be credited towards the JAR/FCL PPL and should make sure that their students are aware of this.

[HelenD]

As somone who may be forced into doing the NPPL because of a mild disability I dont like the idea of the training being reduced I personally want to do over and above the normal PPL syllabus to give me confidence in dealing with all possible situations that could arise. I intend to add an IMC rating to whatever licence I end up getting and the proposals for the NPPL dont allow for that in its present form. If the CAA wont grant me a Class 2 so I can complete the PPL course the only other option will be to go to another country like the USA or South Africa and gain their licence. I would rather not have to do that or the NPPL but if I have to I will.

[QUERY]

This is no prejudice but all about the interests of the public, consumers and private flying generally. BTW, BEagle's interest is financial.. .. .Re. '...... very little difference between the JAA and NPPL requirements, other than the minimum number of hours and the medical requirements.'. .They are, actually, big differences. Some are concerned about the capability and safety levels produced by the current system, let alone NPPL pilots being let-loose with even less competence and worse medical standards. . .. .Why would the CAA agree to this Naff Private Pilots Licence proposal and isn't it obviously motivated by a desire to sell shoe-string (=more profitable) courses to shoals of sucker students?. .If a reduced standards 'National' Driving Licence were to be proposed, the driving schools, insurance companies, motoring organisations and politicians would all ridicule it, for all the reasons that this NPPL proposal cannot be in the public interest.. . . .As in driver and other licensing regimes, there shouldn't be any objection to 'grandfather' rights (to renewal) for existing licence holders who can meet the current technical and medical requirements. . .. .Many are justifiably concerned or jittery about who/what is flying over or, maybe, into them.. .Private flying is already unpopular enough, so why make excellent ammunition for those who believe, already, that it is a 'cowboy', corner-cutting, anti-social and dangerous nuisance?. .. .Never forget that, in public perception and the media, any activity or hobby or 'industry' is only as good as the worst of its enthusiasts or operators or practitioners. This NPPL would mean more undesirables and notorious incidents.

[BEagle]

Query, my interest is certainly not financial. None of the work I do towards the NPPL is paid for in any way at all and I resent your libellous comment.. .. .At the RF for which I'm Head of Training, we are only permitted to offer flying training to a restricted group of people. We do not advertise and we are currently NOT taking on any new business from the general public.. .. .I have not yet decided whether we'll be conducting NPPL training; however, we will certainly be facilitating the opportunity for those who once held PPLs but cannot now meet the JAA medical standards to come back to flying if that is their wish.. . . . <small>[ 19 March 2002, 08:15: Message edited by: BEagle ]</small>

[gasax]

I love this bulletin board - you can guarantee ill informed comment on almost ever topic!. .. .Nice try Query! Presumably you have chosen to forget that the only people who opposed the NPPL were the flying schools and medical examiners?. .. .Or perhaps you are one of them and trying to protect your income under the spurious hat of safety?. .. .If the NPPL is going to be so incredibly dangerous why not insist the JAR course is 100 hours - surely that will make it much much safer? And while you're at ban anyone over 35 from flying - they might have an undetected medical condition!. .. .The NPPL brings the licence back much nearer to where a PPL should be. The whole idea that more training equate to more safety is spurious. In many cases because the course is much longer than it was there is no incentive to make people progress - look at the time to first solo - used to be 5 to 7 hours, now its hitting 15 - are people stupidier, aircraft harder to land, or is it just lets be very very careful?. .. .Happy landings

[Skylark4]

Query.. . I`m really worried about you, Query. When I was working as a Computer Engineer, as you are now, I used to drive 35,00 miles per year. I assume you are doing this too and yet you only have a standard driving licence. (Assumed). I really would feel much safer if you had PSV and HGV Licence with the added qualifications for Flammable and Chemical loads.. .The time difference PPL/NPPL is insignificant and is a minimum anyway.. .. .Mike W

[Polar_stereographic]

BEagle/Pete Morris. .. .I should not get up tight with Query. He as you rightly says, either has some alterior motive, or has no idea what he's talking about.. .. .Perhaps he'll enlighten us.. .. .PS

[Tocsin]

Polar,. .. .You're right - Query has already lost the argument, resorted to innuendo and sarcasm, and blown any credibility he(?) may have had.... .. .Love it!

[DFC]

Why do pilots give up flying?. .. .In many cases it is because they become bored with flying in circles round the local area and find a new way of spending their cash.. .. .Now how do you keep the interest of pilots whose licence restricts them to the local area.. .. .A NPPL for pilots who are just slightly outside the JAR medical requirements is a good idea since most of those people express a longing to get back into the air and the NPPL is the only option. Colour blindness being a good example.. .. .However how long before a new fully fit NPPL gets very tired of spending £250 for hiring an aircraft to fly in circles over Kent while a fellow PPL (JAR) can spend the same money and have a lovely day out to France.. .. .Thus I feel that the NPPL will not in any way be the saviour of aviation as some would like to make out but will be taken up by those who for medical reasons have no other option and experienced PPLs who have had enough of seeing the world beyond where you can drive or walk.. .. .IMHO a very small training market.. .. .DFC

[QUERY]

OK, I got it wrong and now feel foolish.. .My excuse is that I accepted, unquestionly, that flying is inherently difficult and definitely dangerous when, apparently, it is extremely easy and simply safe for anyone. . .I have been so bombarded and bamboozled with bureaucracy that I became indoctrinated with the official and professional notion that hours of instruction and experience, as well as good health, are fundamental to flight safety.. .Sorry, again, to all those who have pointed out that anyone should be able to have a PPL, regardless of competence or experience or critical illness. . .I now understand why you hate the CAA/JAA and love the NPPL proposal. . .But why bother with any licence?. .Couldn't it just be a National (or Naff) Pilot Registration Scheme or no control whatsoever? . .Yes, you are really radical but I now realise that no-one should be allowed to restrict our Human Rights to fly.. .P.S. My sincere apologies, also, to BEagle who appeared to benefit from flying but is apparently a true gentleman volunteer who refuses any reward or remuneration from anyone. That is now very rare and remarkable in running anything.

[Grim Reaper 14]

Wouldn't it be worth everybody waiting until the full syllabus etc. are published and available to all flying schools, members of the public etc., before all these discussions became so heated? We all want aviation to succeed (even those of us who consider ourselves pioneers and liberals....), so as far as I'm concerned, let's see how it develops, how it affects us all, whether it works or not in PRACTICE, not just theory, and applaud whoever has decided that the NPPL is a way forward for GA in this country. I am assuming that a skills test will still be required to gain a NPPL, so those of you out there who make your money from the 32 hours flying can still decide whether (under the slightly relaxed strictures of the NPPL), they are suitable for licence issue. If you don't think that 32 hours will be enough for your skills to develop, take your licence with open arms....AND KEEP TAKING INSTRUCTION! Is that such a difficult concept to come to terms with?. .. .I hope it works as much (or possibly a hell of a lot more) than everyone else out there, purely because the safety issues have to have been considered as appropriate for this system. Therefore the main concern has to be, "Will this give the GA industry in the UK the much needed kick in the arse?" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />

[Tocsin]

Query,. .. .Flying is (relatively) complicated and can be dangerous - but so is driving a vehicle.. .. .Why, when all I have trained and passed my test in is a four-seater hatchback, am I allowed to take 15 people in a minibus down a packed motorway at high speed? And I can do this - within the DVLA medical standards - "regardless of competence or experience or critical illness"!. .. .The proposed medical standard for the NPPL is _higher_ than the private driver licence. My argument that for private, non-commercial flying the JAR-PPL medical standard is out of kilter - see paragraph above.. .. .As for competence and experience, the training and testing for NPPL should be of the same standard, I for one would expect this.. .. .I may be wrong, and if so I apologise, but I detect a whiff of elitism in the argument. the trouble with elites is that they self-select and get smaller in number with time - a bit like the GA pilot population over the last half-century, despite the increasing affluence of the population...

[Tocsin]

DFC,. .. .I agree that boredom could afflict the NPPL as well as the JAR-PPL pilot.. .. .The NPPL can get a £100 hamburger just as easily, as long as it is good, daytime, weather. (France is a long way for me as a day trip! see sig line). S/he can also do aerobatic training and other fun stuff similarly.. .. .Personally, I favoured the IMC rating for the NPPL, and still hope to see it sometime.. .. .Not a salvation, but an additional string to the bow...

[Final 3 Greens]

BEagle et Al. .. .My concern with all of this is what value is added to private flying by the regulation in place?. .. .Doe the regulation in place make us PPLs any safer or protect the general public to a higher level?. .. .I am lucky enough to have a PPL (going on for 300 hours), a reasonable bit of a lovely Pup, a class 2 medical and funding to fly whenever I wish for all practical purposes.. .. .Also, I think I understand the operation of big aeroplanes reasonably well and the very different standards that apply to public transport flights and the pilots who conduct them. (Who have my total respect for their knowledge, ability and discipline). .. .But I still fail to see the benefits from the present system of regulation of recreational aviation.. .. .Personally, I'd scrap the NPPL and the JAR PPL and go for a BGA governance situation where the reduced costs (sans Belgrano) made the length of the syllabus much less of an issue and encouraged people to fly for the (affordable) fun of the experience.. .. .BEagle: I would like to state that I very much admire your efforts in relation to NPPL and am not implying any criticism of your efforts - if it were not for people like you, private flying would be in a very much worse state. You have applied great effort to deliver the NPPL in difficult circumstances for all the right reasons.

[foxmoth]

I think one of the points that is being missed here is that the NPPL will NOT have more restrictions on it than the JAR PPL apart from flying abroad. Had there been more restrictions (ie you could fly with pax only under the authority of an instructor + you would be restricted in how far from departure airfield you flew -after their licence this is all many pilots use it for) THEN you could REALISTICALLY reduce the no. of hours for training and be offering a REAL bonus over the full PPL. Once you have flown restricted for a while you should THEN be able to do a short upgrade course involving IF and NAV to remove the restrictions, but this would NOT be compulsory and in the meantime you could still fly your mates. I have no objection to a NPPL, but lets actualy make it DIFFERENT to the full one with some REAL cost savings.

[LowNSlow]

I had avoided posting on this thread for a while but Query's comments motivated me to post.

As a PPL with a lapsed IMC and twin rating with one trip to France under his belt (6 years ago), my operations fit nicely into the NPPL category. If it saves me shelling out for an expensive Extra Cash Generator (ECG) every couple of years it suits me fine. Don't forget that virtually every doctor on the planet agrees that the ECG does NOT predict imminent heart failure.

It would also put a person I know back in the air. He is in his early seventies and gave up his CPL when he turned 70 cos he had to have a medical every 6 months. He is fitter and more active mentally and physically than a lot of 40 year olds that I know. Plus he's ex RN FAA, flown pretty much everything from big piston carrier fighters, early jets, and a large selection of light aircraft since. I would have no qualms at all about flying with him and look forward to him getting an NPPL.

I'd also like to add my thanks to BEagle and his fellows for getting this common sense attitude established with the CAA.

I've heard rumours that France is going down the NPPL route also and may set up a mutual recognition with the UK regarding the validity of their respective licences.

[BEagle]

Thanks for your comments, chums.

One big difference between the NPPL and the JAR/FCL PPL is that you will only be able to use the NPPL in UK, day VFR conditions. Anything more and you'll need to upgrade to the JAR/FCL PPL.

The NPPLSC will be forming an Examinations Group to consider future examination requirements for the NPPL. Will people opt for the JAR/FCL exams and their 100 hours of CPL ground theory time credit, or would they prefer a simpler exam - either as a single consolidated paper or as a simplified set of papers?

The upgrade accreditiation route to JAR/FCL PPL from NPPL will also be looked at - this will probably require theoretical and practical training as well as the JAR/FCL Skill test and JAR Class II medical, but the actual level of accreditation won't be known until the CAA has had a chance to assess the NPPL training syllabus.

So it looks as though multi-step flying training may be achievable at last:

Start with gliding.
Obtain a NPPL medical approval.
Obtain a NPPL with microlight rating.
Earn accreditation towards the NPPL with SEP rating
Obtain a NPPL with SEP rating
Earn accreditation towards the JAR/FCL PPL
Obtain a JAR Class II medical and pass the appropriate theoretical exams.
Pass the JAR/FCL PPL Skill Test
Upgrade to JAR/FCL PPL
Upgrade to include night qualification and IMC rating

...and then think about professional flying?

[slim_slag]

So just to quantify the potential savings (and these are all back of the beer mat figures), lets say the NPPL doesn't allow you to do long cross countries. I've checked my records and had 12 hours of xc prior to ppl issue.

I still think the student would need to do at least 3 hours xc with an instructor just to make sure he knew how to do it if he got lost/weather closed in, so lets say there are around 10 hours to save in training. Obviously (to me) all the rest of the training (stalls, landings, slow flight, ground reference, emergencies, steep turns, etc etc etc ) would need to be taught to the same standard of the 'normal' PPL so I would hope there is no cost savings envisaged here.

So work out your cost of 10 hours at your favourite flying place and that might give you an indication of cost savings.

It scares me that you can keep current with only six hours a year (there is no way I'd go up with somebody who had logged that little in the previous 12 months unless I had the controls in front of me) but that's another issue. Obviously once you start flying then the costs will be the same, I don't think the cost of an ECG is much in the grand design.

Just out of interest, this sounds very similar to the Recreational Pilot in the USA. I think this was also introduced with the best of intentions, public demand, everybody thought it would be a good thing and would bring more punters in. However, if you look at the actual facts (yeh, I know, how tedious:D :D ) there has been a ridiculously low take up.

Out of 633675 'active' pilots in the USA, there are a massive 321 recreational pilots USA Pilot figures - it's down the bottom (http://registry.faa.gov/activeairmen/PILOT_SUMM.htm#GRAND TOTALS) , I haven't knowingly met one.

I would think it's essential for the NPPL pilot to be able to 'upgrade' to a full PPL and his NPPL experience has to count for this. I wouldn't allow extra ratings to be tacked on to the NPPL. As for medical issue, I think the CAA should seriously consider making it easier to get a class 2. Other countries have sensible standards and there doesn't seem to be an issue with planes dropping out of the sky because you cannot read a colour chart!