NPPL v JAA

[thing]

This has probably come up before so apologies. I was talking to the CFI of a flying club yesterday and the question was do I go for an NPPL or JAA licence. They do teach NPPL there but he recommends people to do a JAA, although he said that in my case with gliding experience and silver C etc it would certainly be the cheaper route to go NPPL. My question is this:

I have no desire to fly in bad weather/night time conditions in a single engined light aircraft, it will be purely for pleasure and days out. I have no great desire to fly abroad. Out of all of you who did the JAA licence, apart from those of you who fly professionally or for business could you hand on heart say that you have made use of the difference between JAA and NPPL? I'm not counting the odd trip to Le Touquet just because you can.

[J.A.F.O.]

I originally had a CAA PPL back in the eighties then, after a longish break, came back to flying 7 years ago and decided to go for the NPPL due merely to the fact that it is easier and cheaper to maintain (not necessarily to obtain); certainly not for medical reasons.

I can honestly say that, as a fair weather bimbler, there has been no practical difference between the two.

I have never once wanted to do something and been prevented due to having an NPPL, in fact I've had more fun this time round.

The money saved on medicals can go towards the two-yearly instructor flight.

I honestly don't know why (unless they have ambitions beyond the PPL) everyone doesn't do it.

[thing]

Thanks, much as I suspected.

[Whopity]

If you examine the JAA PPL and the NPPL what is the difference? Both are examined to the same standard therefore the candidate needs a similar level of training. The quoted lower hours for a NPPL is a nonsense, it takes what it takes to achieve the standard. The only difference syllabus wise is that the NPPL does not include radio navigation or one exercise on basic IF; both of which are well worth doing from a safety perspective.

With gliding experience there is a saving to be made as the NPPL has better credits than the JAA PPL which at most gives you a 10 hour credit for 100 hours gliding. The medical is also cheaper however; with EASA approaching two things need to be considered.
a) the NPPL will not be valid on EASA aircraft post April 2012
b) the EASA alternative the LAPL is based upon an ICAO medical standard so any savings there may be lost.

The real point is that if you start training for a PPL it will make no difference to the training in the early stages which licence you finally decide to go for. See how it goes and then decide which way to continue by calculating the cost to the licence issue point. By April/May the EASA regulation will be incorporated into EU law and the way forward will be a little clearer. By the time you complete you training the NPPL may not exist.

[thing]

But might EASA fiddle around with the JAA licence too? And you say NPPL will not be valid on EASA aircraft, exactly what is an EASA aircraft?

[B4aeros]

Most aircraft, including gliders, will be EASA aircraft & require an EASA licence. The exceptions are:
microlights
light gyroplanes;
amateur built aircraft;
ex-military aircraft;
foot-launched aircraft;
“vintage” aircraft that meet specific criteria for date of design and manufacture; and
aircraft built or modified for scientific or novel purposes. NPPL holders will be allowed to apply for an EASA LAPL if they wish to fly EASA aircraft & at the same time maintain their NPPL if they wish to fly, for instance, a permit aircraft.

The medical requirements for the LAPL are yet to be finalised. The proposed requirements were broadly similar to the NPPL with the notable exception that you would require an actual medical examination rather than the counter-signed self declaration of the NPPL.

From memory, post EASA the 'recency' requirements to maintain a rating will be identical for LAPL & PPL licences.

The greatest advantage of the NPPL system to someone like you would be if you could use your gliding club membership & train for an SLMG NPPL at a gliding club. Hourly rates are typically half the PPL/NPPL rates, no instructor's fees, no landing fees & a realistic possibility of a power licence in very few hours, a licence which could then be upgraded to include an SSEA rating with a little extra training.

If you do your training at a local airfield in typical GA training aircraft, follow Whopity's advice.

[BillieBob]

But might EASA fiddle around with the JAA licence too?Nope. A JAA licence is considered to be an EASA licence.....exactly what is an EASA aircraft?Any aircraft that is not listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:079:0001:0049:EN:PDF)

[thing]

Crikey Billy Bob, basically you can't fly jack poo on an NPPL then? They don't tell you that when you're talking about parting with your hard earned at a flying school the crafty sods.

B4, does that mean as a glider pilot I'll need an EASA licence? We have a motor glider at our club, we have motor glider instructors at our club, but the motor glider belongs to a syndicate and you can't fly it solo unless you're a syndicate member, insurance and all that.............you can do all the non solo training though........and before you ask there's a queue to join the syndicate.........

The cost at Saltby which is about 30 miles away from here to train in their motor glider is £75 an hour plus I think about £300 per year club fees, the cost at my local flying club about 6 miles away is £120 per hour for training in a C172 and it's a tenner a month club fees. So once you take petrol and time into consideration there's not that much difference doing it in a motor glider.

[Whopity]

B4, does that mean as a glider pilot I'll need an EASA licence?Yes, thanks to good old Europe!

[kevkdg]

I hold an NPPL SLMG and am in a Motor Glider syndicate. It is a T61F Venture which is subject to EASA CofA.

Does this mean I'll need to apply for an LAPL.

If I get an LAPL do I still need to maintain an NPPL, or can an EASA LAPL be used on non EASA aircraft such as LAA registered Motor Gliders.

How and when do I get an LAPL>?

[peter272]

The legislation isn't in place, but the intention it will be from 8th April 2012 so not before then.

The CAA does (did) intend to allow the EASA LAPL/PPLs to apply to non-EASA aircraft.

But you will need to have to meet the new medical standards (still to be confirmed) or else you will only be able to operate on the current NPPL on non-EASA aircraft

Clear as mud.

Basically, no point in worrying about things for a while as there is still a lot to be finalised. EASA has a habit of working to an immovable deadline, even though the process has been delayed. It means that there will be an unholy rush to meet the deadline with insufficient time to do a proper job.

There will probably be a period of transition, possibly as much as 3 years.

[kevkdg]

I assume there will be grandfather rights? If so, is it likely to be just a question of getting the required medical and sending off the paperwork... and no doubt a fee!

[BillieBob]

I assume there will be grandfather rights?What gives you that idea? I haven't heard that EASA are planning any grandfather rights for the NPPL other than crediting the PIC flight time i.a.w. FCL.110.A(d) (i.e. you will still have to do at least 7.5 hours of dual instruction and 6 hours of supervised solo to get a LAPL(A)).

BEagle may have heard something(?)

[J.A.F.O.]

Oh, Borrox :(

[kevkdg]

I wonder if the T61F can be classed as ex-millitary. The one I fly was Air Training Corps, so must have been owned by the RAF. It's CofA is EASA, but ex-millitary aircraft will still be able to be flown on NPPL from what I can ascertain!

[B4aeros]

The CAA published a helpful document (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?gid=2061) last year.

Section 3 deals with transitional arrangements. Basically, the conversion of licences for anything other than SEPs & helicopters will be subject to a conversion report compiled by the national authority. This report is supposed to outline the rules, privileges & limitations of the national licence.

As the NPPL SLMG syllabus is comparable with the proposed LAPL syllabus, I would be confident that an NPPL SLMG licence will morph into an LAPL TMG licence.

FCL.110.A will apply to someone applying for their first licence. FCL.110 is more relevant to someone with an existing licence:FCL.110 LAPL — Crediting for the same aircraft category
(a) Applicants for a LAPL who have held another licence in the same category of aircraft shall be fully credited towards the requirements of the LAPL in that category of aircraft. Draft regulation on Part FCL. (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/2010/04/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20on%20personnel%20licensing %20%28LW%29.pdf)

[BEagle]

A lot is going on right now.

The NPPL won't disappear in 2012.

The pointless LAPL won't come in until 2015.

In March 2011, the CAA will be in a better position to promulgate information on their website. Until then, don't jump to any conclusions or listen to rumour. €ASA twists more than a twisty-turny thing and the latest move is the proposal to form an FCL Partnership Group to help them sort out the mess of their own making....:mad:

[Miroku]

Excellent news! Many thanks BEagle