ppl v nppl

[ChasG]

Why does the nppl theoretically take fewer hours - same tests and exams. The only differences I can see are that the medical is less stringent, you cant add gradings and can only fly in UK and France. I can't see why the differences allow fewer hours.n Apologies if this is a daft question.

[BEagle]

The Joint Aviation Requirements for Flight Crew Licensing (JAR-FCL) Private Pilots’ Licence (PPL) was introduced on 01 July 1999, following the signing of the 1990 Cyprus Arrangements that bound the United Kingdom to comply with Joint Aviation Authority regulation. The JAR-FCL PPL(A) was more onerous and placed greater training, testing, renewal and revalidation requirements on licence holders than the UK Private Pilots’ Licence. This discouraged a number of private pilots in the United Kingdom, and private pilots’ licence issues declined after the introduction of the JAR-FCL PPL.

In addition, the JAR-FCL PPL(A) was issued for 5 years as opposed to the lifetime validity of the UK PPL(A).

The requirement to hold a JAA Class 2 medical was also more onerous than the CAA Class 3 medical of earlier years.

To encourage sport and recreational flying following the introduction of Joint Aviation Regulations, the United Kingdom introduced the National Private Pilots’ Licence in July 2002. The NPPL is a sub-ICAO pilot licence that is not compliant with Joint Aviation Requirements; consequently it only confers privileges within United Kingdom airspace, to aircraft of certain classes that are of a mass restricted to 2000kg and below.

32 hrs + 2 tests works out at about 35 hours - the same as the UK PPL used to be in around 1968 if conducted at 'approved schools'.

Basically, the JAR-FCL PPL(A) course was too gold-plated for many; the shorter NPPL course often requires more than 35 hours, but given good continuity and reasonable weather, should easily be 'do-able' in the UK over the period of a month. It doesn't include the radio navigation requirements of the PPL, but concentrates slightly more on core flying skills.

[Fake Sealion]

If I may say so Beagle....an comprehensive and clear answer to the question.
A good example of what this forum should provide for newcomers.

[julian_storey]

If I may say so Beagle....an comprehensive and clear answer to the question.
A good example of what this forum should provide for newcomers.

Couldn't agree more :ok:

[Miroku]

should easily be 'do-able' in the UK over the period of a month


I would have thought this was a tad optimistic unless the person was able to assimilate a great deal of knowledge quickly. I know I wasn't but then I'm old!!!

One other thing to bear in mind is the possibility of the LAPL taking over the NPPL in early 2012, which may require a more stringent medical.

As a matter of interest, are flying schools pointing this possibility out?

[Whopity]

Why does the nppl theoretically take fewer hours - same tests and exams.Its called Marketing!
Last week I tested a JAA PPL candidate who had the minimum of 35 hours; yes it is acheivable, but he is the first one I have ever seen, and was well above average for a PPL candidate.

The BMAA produced statistics for Microlight training and on average it takes 55 hours to qualify on a 25 hour course.

[ChasG]

thank you to summarise then :- the NPPl equates to the old PPl. The bar having been raised for the new PPL.

[J.A.F.O.]

Not really.

They say that it's theoretically possible in fewer hours because you don't do radio nav and there are one or two very minor differences (like length of QXC) but, in all honesty, you'll take whatever you take and the difference between getting one and the other will be minimal. There are some differences in the cost and simplicity of keeping an NPPL, though (at least for the time being).

I did a PPL in 38 hours in 1986 but I was young and did it all in one summer, so I suppose 35 hours is possible but I think it's unlikely for most people in most circumstances.

[Viscount812]

I gained my (lifetime) CAA PPL in 1996. At that time I was of the age that a CAA medical was only required every few years. As I progressed into my 50s the medicals became a more frequent requirement and at £150 a throw it paid me to take out a (lifetime) NPPL against a 5 year sign-off by my local GP at a cost of £12 (plus self assessment prior to any flight as normal, of course). Provided the limitations were accepted, the cost of the NPPL was covered in the first 12 months. Plus, provided that I have currency, I can revalidate my full PPL at any time by simple compliance with that licence's medical requirement. Kind of best of both worlds.

[Lister Noble]

I 'm sorry if this is not the correct place.
But....if the medical standard is "raised" for the NPPL,with a linked increase in medical fees, then I fear many NPPL pilots will give it a miss.
I have other interests in life,like old cars,sailing,walking and gardens.
If the medical,(for that read financial),bar is raised too high,we will not jump!
Which is a great shame after working so hard for the privilege to fly.

They seem to manage the sports,recreational,experimental pilot licences OK in the good old US of A,why do we always try to cock it up.
Maybe we should go back to being the UK,and stuff Euroland?
Lister

[J.A.F.O.]

Lister

You're absolutely right. I first did my PPL in the eighties, then had a long lay off and came back to private flying in 2004 when I decided to get an NPPL just because it allowed me to do everything I wanted to do and was easier and cheaper.

I don't have to pay for a licence every five years and the money that I would have spent on a medical pays for my biannual instructor trip (probably a few times over, actually). I could pay for a Class 2 and it wouldn't be a problem but I don't know if I would; as you say, there are other things equally worthy of our money.

I always think that it's a terrible shame that over here in Europe our air is different and the laws of physics are more rigidly observed than in the USA.

[WaspJunior]

As Lister Noble says:

But....if the medical standard is "raised" for the NPPL,with a linked increase in medical fees, then I fear many NPPL pilots will give it a miss.

This will happen literally with private owners on their own strip. If their own GP's are no longer allowed to certify them at a professional driver level for the carriage of passengers, some will say stuff it and carry on flying anyway. And if you're fit enough to drive 52 folk down a motorway or drive a 32 tonne truck, why should you be stopped from having an afternoon bimble in a Cub?

Irresponsible maybe, but many people have had enough of bureaucracy.

[Lister Noble]

Wasp,I understand your feelings,but are you saying you would fly with no medical?
If so you will also have no insurance,which is not such a good idea if you hit an aircraft taxiing,crash on someones house,or even worse injure someone.
Lister

[WaspJunior]

Lister, I personally would not fly without a valid medical because of the reasons you outlined, but I'm sure there are those who'll risk it especially in the uncontrolled environment I described above ie. own aeroplane and strip. Wasp.