NPPL for us all ...

[pjn44]

Great news-
A new outlet is now available to us all. The NPPL is almost here (July 1 2002) and it will mean that non career PPL(A) pilots will have the choice to stay or move to the NPPL.
Since the medical is signed off by your GP the old and young that don't meet the group A requirement will be able to fly again.
I don't think it's a cheaper way to fly because a hour in the air will cost the same no matter which licence you have.

So lets hear it for this great new oppertunity for us all. !!!!!!:)

[clear prop!!!]

Not quite 'all'

In fact, a complete waste of time for wannabes as it will fit nowhere in the JAA commercial scheme of thimgs.

:rolleyes:


edited 'cos this comment was made before this post was moved from wannabes.

However, as an FI I have grave doubts over the value of the NPPL

[englishal]

Not sure its a good idea to move from JAA PPL(A) to NPPL unless you have a reason, ie. medical.

EA

[notice]

Agreed- NPPL would be a great opportunity ....for a small substandard minority... but a practically useless alternative for anyone serious.

And, as the genius who started this topic worked out, it couldn't be any cheaper to fly with NPPL. It should be more expensive, as the hirers and insurers will be accepting a higher risk, of damage/loss claims, with NPPL pilots.

Also, with the price of a proper PPL course package now under £3k abroad, it will still be much more expensive and take longer to train here, even for an inferior NPPL.

[Evo7]

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS :rolleyes:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

IMHO the NPPL is not for everyone - but is a step in the right direction for 'fun flyers'. If you think it's a wate of time, wait until you get old and grey, and the blood pressure or whatever is just outside limits for your medical. Would you rather fly under an NPPL or take up gardening and the crossword?

And it should be no less safe. The training hours for the licence are a minimum. If guys don't reach a safe standard, they get more training before they get the qualification. Most will need the same as if they were going for a PPL; as I say, it's not for everyone.

But think where it might lead - fun flying becoming divorced from the neccessary tight regulation covering air transpor. Perhaps the PFA running it instead of CAA, just as the BGA do for gliding.

It can only be a good thing to seperate fun flying from the air transport industry - apart from commercial flying training, it just does not belong there.

SSD

[Fly Stimulator]

Is it actually confirmed that the NPPL will be introduced on July 1st? Given that that is only a month away there doesn't seem to have been much official news about it.

[flying snapper]

The NPPL is coming - accept it for what it is.

It is designed to appeal to the flyer who has no interest in commercial flying - the admin process will be cheaper and the medical will certainly be a lot cheaper. The previous post about removing the PPL from the tight control of the CAA is absolutely right - we do not belong there.

Notice, I take exception to your remark about "substandard" pilots. In my case I have better eyesight than the average pilot however I can not obtain a class 2 medical because of some arbitrary level which does not exist in the States. Are all American pilots "substandard"?

There certainly is an elitism in private flying!

[Aussie Andy]

Uselesss if you want to fly overseas... useful if you have a medical issue.

[englishal]

The other option to the NPPL is to get an FAA PPL. FAA medical standards are lower than JAR thats a fact. If you breath and your heart beats, its very easy to get a class 3 medical. In fact, if you read on the FAA website there is a whole list of ailments which you can have and still fly under medication / treatment.

The advantages? Well, the FAA PPL will allow you to fly a G reg aircraft in the UK, will allow you to fly an N reg aircraft anywhere, will allow you to fly IFR in an N reg anywhere with an FAA IR (if you're so inclined), will allow you to fly abroard etc. Also the FAA medical is valid for 3 years (at least if you're under 40), the FAA PPL is very easy to maintain, you only need a BFR every two years....plus it is a 'proper' ICAO recognised licence.

Cheers
EA

[Rod1]

All this carping about “substandard” pilots will soon die down. The NPPL is designed for amateur pilots; let the professionals get on with their ATPL's and leave the rest of us to get on with a bit of fun flying at the weekend.

The restriction on international flight is under discussion at the moment. If it if accepted internationally I would expect most PPL’s will be NPPL’s within a short space of time.

The licence is designed for us, so why would we not want to use it? The training is very similar to that which I did to gain my CAA PPL. Are all CAA PPL’s inferior pilots too? If so, then you JAR trained pilots are in the minority, and are presumably somewhat less experienced than the rest of us.

;)

[BEagle]

The latest official news I have had is that because the Privy Council only meet once each month and due to last minute discussions both internally in DTLR and externally, the ANO amendment submission allowing the NPPL to come into being cannot go before Council until 26 June 2002. Consequently, assuming that no-one will "pray against" the ANO amendment (which would be highly unlikely to happen!), legally nothing of the NPPL can come into force until 29 July 2002 due to these parliamentary processes.

So - just a bit more patience please.

There will be an official CAA Press Release on the subject of the NPPL very soon.
.

[StrateandLevel]

The NPPL will not be a lower standard than any other PPL, how can it be? the Skill Test will be conducted by the existing Examiners who will apply exactly the same standard as that required for the old national PPL and now the JAA PPL.

The illusion is that it can be done cheaper or quicker, what takes 55 hours for one system will take 55 hours for the NPPL.

The reductioin in Medical standard is not likely to have any statistical influence on safety.

The daft thing about all of this is that the standards will be the same, the costs will be the same but the privileges will be less (forget overseas, its not an ICAO licence) and the cost of converting it to an ICAO licence will make it a very expensive option.

The cost of administration is probably going to be higher than that for a JAA PPL, the £40 charge by the CAA is only one part of it, the organisation processing the paperwork will have to charge around £120 so expect at least £160 for licence issue.

As the revalidation requirements are likely to be different to JAA requirements the examiners will disappear under a mountain of paperwork, you think JAR was beaurocratic, wait till this lot descends upon you!

[Rod1]

I understood the proposal being put forward to remove the overseas restriction was based on the fact that NPPL did qualify as an ICAO licence?

There are supposed to be several other European states looking into similar national licences.

If the International restriction is removed, I would expect the JAR PPL to become irrelevant for the average fun pilot.

[englishal]

SO what we're in fact seeing is an undoing of JAR! We'll be getting a CAA CPL next, closely followed by the UK IR and UK ATPL.....just like it used to be.

Your tax dollars at work.

EA

[long final]

Just can't see why they didn't apply nppl style medical to the existing ( or God forbid, the perfectly reliable old ) ppl sylabus. Seems to be a whole load of work and regulation for very little benefit.

LF :rolleyes:

[FlyingForFun]

I asked exactly that question on a previous thread, LF. The answer was something to do with JAR...

FFF
-----------

[Rod1]

PPL licence applications are down 30% and this is not just in the UK, it is carried through most of the European states. JAR PPL is a failure, but I do not know about the CPL. I would not expect that to be next, I think the professionals will carry on with JAR.

Rod

[BEagle]

The NPPL Standards group also plan, with the agreement of the CAA, to negotiate an upgrade path from NPPL(SEP) to JAR-FCL PPL (SEP) for those who meet the appropriate medical requirements but wish to start their flying with the slightly simpler training requirements of the NPPL. There seems no point in any simpler theoretical requirements than the current JAR-FCL PPL exams and, as these also carry generous CPL groundschool theory time credits, it is in the interest of most to 'bite the bullet' and to study for these exams.

It seems that there will probably be 3 types of NPPL(SEP) applicant:

1. Those who cannot meet JAR medical standards - particularly current ex-PPL pilots with reduced medical levels.
2. Those who wish to add SEP qualifications to existing Microlight, glider or SLMG licences.
3. Those who just want to learn to fly as cheaply as possible in the UK and for whom the NPPL will represent all they will ever wish to achieve.

[LowNSlow]

Does anybody know if France is creating an NPPL as well and that there will be a mutual acceptance agreement between France and the UK? :confused:

If this is the case, why did we waste so much (of our tax)money implementing JAR at PPL level? :mad:

[slim_slag]

longfinal

From my disinterested and distant vantage point, it appears the only real reason to get the NPPL is because of lower medical standards. I think the CAA medical requirements for "real" PPLs are ridiculously high, and FAA like standards should be introduced. Planes rarely fall out of the sky in the US because of medical problems with the pilot.

M14P

Thanks for the flap retract correction. Although the Airbus captain screwd up, I would not even know where to put the key to start his plane's engines. Be grateful about that :)

EnglishAl

Yeh, meteor crater is up around 5000ft and it can get into the 90s there no problem in the summer. It can also get VERY windy and turbulent close to the ground, which they were below :eek: Also, to get out of meteor crater you need to be turning lots or else you hit the walls, and even the lowliest NPPL holder should know that when you turn, you lose some vertical component of lift. It's still too early here to think maths to work out whether it would be relevant, but I wonder if they forgot about this and used climb performance figures when taking off in a straight line.

Maybe they were flatlander ATPs who didn't know how to really fly in the mountains (and most of mountain flying advice is myth). The most imporant thing when flying close to the ground at high DAs is "ALWAYS HAVE AN OUT" (no different to low DAs really). There is no out when you are putzing around in a crater, so they really screwd up big time.

NPPL standards

In my experience, people who solo around or below 10 hours either are hiding unlogged time, are just some rare smart kid with excellent hand/eye kid coordination, or they haven't had any real "how to save your skin" training in slow flight/stalls etc. I always like to hear students say they don't want to solo early. You can then go to the practice area and teach them how to fly the plane first, then spend time in the pattern teaching them how to land it. The other way round is weird, nobody gives a toss how early you soloed five hours after you did it!!

All these entry level certificates prove is that you are just safe enough to fly a plane with passengers on a cross country. They are indeed just a licence to learn, nobody expects you to be a hot shot acro-pilot with a PPL. So given that it appears that both the NPPL and PPL provide similar X-Ctry passenger carrying priviledges, I would expect the standards for issuance to be the same. That means training is going to be the same, which means costs will be the same.

In the US, the recreational certificate provides fewer real priviledges than the FAA PPL (which provides extra priviledges over the CAA PPL), so you don't need to do night work, go to towered fields, do long cross countries etc when you are training. In the US, it is therefore possible for a reduced priviledge certificate to be earned quicker - but you still need to prove to the examiner you are safe to carry passengers to PPL standards in the local area!!! Look at the take up of the recreational certificate in the US, pretty insignificant - but then it's a lot cheaper and less hassle to get your PPL in the States.

I would hope that in a year or two, when they look at the number of training hours required to get to NPPL issuance, it will be the similar to that for PPL issuance. If it isn't, something is being done wrong, and it is probably safety related.

[bookworm]

BEagle

I think your breakdown of potential NPPL applicants is very sensible. I can see the case for 1 and 2, though surely all you have to do for that is take a standard PPL and endorse it as not being up to ICAO standards, as has always been done in the past.

But I'm still struggling with 3, and I think you need to address StrateandLevel's issues head on.

How is the task of getting and retaining the PPL to be made cheaper? Is it:

a) that the NPPL test will be of a lower standard than the JAR-FCL PPL

b) that the JAR-FCL PPL syllabus includes items that are unnecessary for a pilot exercising the privileges of an NPPL

c) that the JAR-FCL PPL syllabus overestimates the time that needs to be spent on these items.

?

I'm also at a loss as to why the requirements for revalidating the licence need to be different from the JAR-FCL PPL.

[slim_slag]

bookworm

Good point,

c) that the JAR-FCL PPL syllabus overestimates the time that needs to be spent on these items.

or

the NPPL syllabus underestimates the time that needs to be spent on these items.

Nowadays with modern aircraft systems, and controlled fields, it's not so easy to get a student through his PPL in the minimum times. Those that get close usually have unlogged time in somebody elses plane, imo.

If you look at a structured FAA Part 141 private pilot syllabus, designed to get you to PPL in 35 hours, the progress is quite improbable. I think actual Part 141 average is 50 hours, part 61 (not structured) is around 70 hours, or so I have heard :) Round these parts, Part 61 PPL is around 55-60 hours - but then the weather is sunny 350 days a day, and you can usually just walk into the flying school and they have planes to spare.

Subtract 5 hours for the FAA night portion of the PPL. Then take into account the weather and my perceived less availabilty of planes in the UK, so perhaps adding hours because you get rusty while waiting for your next flight, and come up with a reasonable CAA PPL number. Why is that different from the NPPL?

Beagle

As an examiner, would you accept lower practical standards from an NPPL applicant compared to a PPL applicant?

[BEagle]

bookworm - the answer is (b) with a little (c)! Certainly NOT (a)! The revalidation requirements are designed to allow the NPPL holder to remain in better flying currency than the German-inspired 'nothing in year 1 but 12 hours in year 2' lunacy of JAR-FCL!! Just as it used to be pre-JAR but with the safety addition of a 'training flight' requirement

slim_slag - I will certainly NOT accept lower standards from a NPPL applicant than I would from a JAR-FCL applicant. Or from an ICAO non-JAA member state PPL holder converting to a JAR-FCL PPL for that matter!

[Rod1]

OK help me out here!

Most Existing PPL’s in the UK are interested in flying for fun in VMC and do not have commercial aspirations.

Why on earth would such people maintain a JAR licence?

My PFA contacts seem to think there is a strong chance the international flight restriction will be lifted in the near future.

Most current PPL’s have an old CAA PPL with a JAR medical.

Why would anyone want to keep the JAR medical? The NPPL with the international restriction removed will provide 80% of fun pilots with what they want, they will ditch the JAR PPL and move to the NPPL, which was specifically designed for them.

Several of the European states are looking at producing similar national licences.

Am I missing the point?

Rod

[long final]

RRod,

Basically I can count on one hand the number of people who disagree with the medical element - on pprune. The only real dispute is if the reduction in hours from the existing PPL to the proposed nppl has any effect on safety. The key elements removed for the nppl are radio nav and IM conditions.

Cost and such also appear, but in general it seems to be agreed that as long as instructors continue to do a good job, the cost effect is negligible.

Regards
LF

Edited cos I canna spell siht:rolleyes:

[slim_slag]

BeagleI will certainly NOT accept lower standards from a NPPL applicant than I would from a JAR-FCL applicant. Or from an ICAO non-JAA member state PPL holder converting to a JAR-FCL PPL for that matter!
That's good to hear, and hopefully will finally answer the 'standards question'.

long final
The only real dispute is if the reduction in hours from the existing PPL to the proposed nppl has any effect on safety. The key elements removed for the nppl are radio nav and IM conditions.
Is that it? So let's remove three hours for hood work, and three minutes for teaching somebody who is lost how to tune in a VOR and fly directly towards it :D :D

The deaths caused by inadvertant VFR flight into IMC are pretty well known, and they are quite substantial. Not as well known are the number of pilots who get into IMC, then execute the 180 they were taught at PPL level, and save their skins. That's not the sort of thing you are going to report to the regulators :) I wonder if the former is soon going to increase at the expense of the latter, or are we saying that clouds don't form when there is an NPPL pilot in the area??

...long as instructors continue to do a good job, the cost effect is negligible.

Call me a cynic, but the examiners are the guys who set the standards for entry level pilot certificates, instructors just do enough to keep the examiners happy, and the CAA/FAA print the certificates and tell themselves what a splendid job they are doing.

cheers

[long final]

Slim,

You won't hear me arguing with you. Having banged on about my deep concerns re. no IMC training in the nppl in other threads, I have tried to be a little more ..... Restrained on this one. I won't repeat it all again - but, IMC conditions kill more ppl'ers than anything else, and that 3-4 hours IMC training could well save your life one day. My point is that between the IMC training, and hour or so VOR tracking, etc. that is all the difference really from the old CAA PPL - the medical aside.

So I do beleive that safety is being reduced with the nppl.

Examiners? Well, I believe that most are very able and safety conscious. Most I have talked to regarding the nppl say that they would encourage nppl students to do all the PPL elements anyway. Many nppl pro comments have said the same. So Why don't we just change the medical and keep the red tape to a minimum?? :rolleyes:

Regards
LF

[Julian]

Yep couldnt agree more longfinal, inadvertant flight into IMC is a killer. During my IR one of the first things the FI had me do was to shut my eyes and maintain S&L flight. Everything felt fine and then not long after he asked me to open them, we had entered a banked dive!!! His point was to trust the instruments not was your senses are telling you and it definitely got the point home.

I can see BEagles points 1&2 but I am not sure about 3. I dont think the NPPL is going to be all that cheap, very few will pass in the minimum requirements and end up paying the same as if they had gone for the full PPL. As someone has stated previously, after you get your NPPL the aircraft hire rates are the same no matter what licence you hold.

[bookworm]

BEagle

So which parts of the JAR-FCL syllabus are deemed unnecessary? [By all means just point me to the appropriate document, but since the CAA's new and improved WWW site came online, I can't find a thing there...] I'm still struggling to work out what we teach to PPLs that isn't important in keeping them, and their 3 pax, alive.

What are the revalidation requirements?

Rod1

I don't see how the NPPL can possibly qualify as an international licence. ICAO's Annex 1 lays down the conditions for a PPL, and the NPPL certainly doesn't meet it, either in terms of syllabus or medical standards. There may well be an upgrade path, but ICAO acceptance seems unlikely. Unless the UK is thinking of starting up a skunkworks version of ICAO... :)

[Evo7]

Will there be an EASA-FCL PPL?

[FlyingForFun]

slim_slag,

Instructors just do enough to keep the examiners happy
I disagree with this - it certainly isn't the case with any instructor I've flown with.

Quote from the instructor who taught me most of the PPL syllabus: "The syllabus says I have to teach you to do a 180-degree turn in IMC in case you fly into clouds. Well, that's great if you fly straight forward into a cloud, but no bl00dy use at all if you fly up into a layer of stratus, so I always get students to descend under the hood, too. And we'll probably do a bit of climbing, and some descending turns..."

Then there's the tail-dragger checkout: I don't believe there is a "syllabus", but many instructors won't just teach 3-point landings. I had a check-out in a super cub which also included wheel-landings (should be included in every check-out, but aren't required), dutch rolls, fast taxying, short approaches (slipping all the way from downwind to a few moments before flaring), and even landing in a side-slip (not something I'd recommend without a very experienced instructor - and the only thing in the check-out which I wouldn't be happy to do by myself - but a great confidence boost when you do it safely). None of this is required, but all of it helped me become a safer pilot.

Many instructors teach steep turns at 60 degrees of bank, even though the syllabus only requires 45 degrees. The argument is that if you can do 60 degrees consistently, you'll have no problems doign the 45 degree turn for the test - not to mention that you'll be able to do 60 degree turns after your test.

There are probably dozens of other examples where instructors teach beyond the syllabus because they believe it will help their students become better pilots. I can't see any reason why instructors shouldn't continue to do this just because their student is a NPPL candidate.


BEagle - I don't think anyone's thought to ask this before - at least not on PPRuNe - but what would be involved for existing CAA or JAA PPL holders to convert their license to a NPPL in order to take advantage of the lower medical standards?

FFF
-----------

[englishal]

Why on earth would such people maintain a JAR licence?

Me becasue I want to fly IFR (if it was a real possibility for the PPL in the UK), and ME aircraft.

However the more I think of it, the more I am considering letting my JAR PPL lapse and just excercise the privilages of my FAA licence either in an N reg so I can fly IFR, or in a G reg if I just want to fly day VFR.

Cheers
EA

[Julian]

Yep , or to put it another way - unless you have a medical condition that prevents you getting a PPL why on earth would you want an NPPL?

[Fly Stimulator]

Julian,

As a microlight licence holder the NPPL appeals to me because the current limits on cross-crediting of hours for the JAR-PPL mean that I'd have to do at least 35 hours more training just to be allowed to fly a Jabiru with slightly less wingspan than the one I fly at the moment.

More seriously, it appeals to me to be able to have the option to fly other types and to take more passengers and/or luggage sometimes, but at 35 x £100 or more it's currently a rather costly luxury. This is one area where the NPPL really will represent a large cost saving over the JAR-PPL for some people.

[Evo7]

<speculation>

Maybe we'll all end up with an NPPL.

If EASA displaces JAA and then decides that it has no interest in GA ... so no EASA-PPL?

</speculation>

Otherwise I don't know why a holder of a JAR-FCL PPL(A) would want a NPPL(A) :)

[md 600 driver]

the nppl is not for every body it does not do helicopters

englishal

your comments are slightly wrong with the faa ppl

a holder of a faa ppl can fly a n reg aircraft anyware in the world
if you are a uk citizen you can fly a g reg on your faa ppl anyware in jaa countrys i have this in a letter from caa

[Julian]

Aarthur, 35 hours more to convert to PPL rather than NPPL??
What are the hours conversion required?

MD600, As I understand it you may take a 'G' reg into a JAA member country on an FAA licence but you must first get advance permission of each country you intend to overfly and you must do this EVERY time you go.

[englishal]

Even better then !:)

[Fly Stimulator]

Julian,

Aarthur, 35 hours more to convert to PPL rather than NPPL??

PPL/Microlights holders can credit 10% of their hours, up to a maximum of 10 hours, towards the JAR-PPL minimum requirement, leaving at least 35 more to do. The NPPL will have rather more generous cross-crediting terms as I understand it, so saving perhaps 25 to 30 hours of conversion training time for some people.

[slim_slag]

FFF

Re: Instructors teaching beyong 180 deg turn under hood.

Not sure where you got your PPL, but all those "extras" you got are in the FAA syllabus. The examiner will want to see them done to his satisfaction.

FAA PP Practical Test Standards (http://av-info.faa.gov/data/practicalteststandard/faa-s-8081-14.pdf)


IX. BASIC INSTRUMENT MANEUVERS
A. STRAIGHT-AND-LEVEL FLIGHT
B. CONSTANT AIRSPEED CLIMBS
C. CONSTANT AIRSPEED DESCENTS
D. TURNS TO HEADINGS
E. RECOVERY FROM UNUSUAL FLIGHT ATTITUDES
F. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES


Then there's the tail-dragger checkout:

Again, I believe you are talking about FAA land, no syllabus for this, you are already rated if it's single engine, you get an endorsement, never see an examiner. Being a cynic again, I would say the insurance companies set the standards for those endorsements, not the instructor.

You quote from the Chandler Air syllabus, their own, that place certainly has the best instructors. If you do a basic aero course with them, they even teach and require competition standards before they let you lose on your own. But again, no examiner to please (though they have an examiner on the staff, so maybe again it is the examiner setting standards).

Teaching 60 deg bank

As you said, they do this because it will make them able to do a 45 deg bank easier, so keeping the examiner happy on the test. :)

But I'm a cynic, of course there are lots of superb instructors out there who will do the best they can for their students. There are even more who will just get the student through the exam. The original poster suggested it was the high quality of instructors who will maintain the standards, I disagree. It's the vaster experience of the examiners, they who can tell whether the guy will pass before he has taken off, who will ensure standards are kept high. When they keep sending students back for some re-training, then the instructors will notice and improve. Cynic, eh?

cheers

[FlyingForFun]

Well, slim_slag, there aren't too many of your posts that I disagree with, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, and I'll just put your opinion down to a healthy dose of cynicism :D

You are quite right in spotting the C.A.S taildragger syllabus. The PPL syllabus I was referring to which requires only a 180-degree turn on the instruments is the UK JAR syllabus - if the FAA syllabus requires more, then that's excellent, but my instructor told me that the 180-degree turn is all that's required in the UK, and that's all I was tested on.

I don't believe that any instructor would let any student, whether it be for a PPL, NPPL or any other license or rating, go for a skills test unless they were a safe pilot - regardless of what skill level they believe the examiner will be looking for. (And I also don't believe that examiners will pass candidates unless they are safe - but since they get to spend only a few hours with the candidate, the instructor's opinion will probably be closer to the mark.)


I wonder if the reason we're disagreeing on this is a difference between UK and US instructors? I've seen comments from lots of Americans who are critical of the level of commitment of US instructors - not so much on PPRuNe, but quite commonly on AvWeb's Question Of The Week (when it's relevant to the question, of course). The only experience of American instructors which I have is the instructors as Chandler, who, as you say, are the best there are. But are American instructors - Chandler excepted - lacking the dedication that UK instructors have? I hope this comment doesn't start a "them and us" type debate, because that's not my intention - I'm just trying to clarify why I believe that instructors will not allow NPPL candidates' skill levels to become a safety problem.

FFF
-------------

[englishal]

But are American instructors - Chandler excepted - lacking the dedication that UK instructors have

Nope. I've met good, bad and ugly instructors in both the UK and US....

Maybe some of the best NPPL instructors would be high time PPL's who clearly have dedication to flying for fun (no pun intended;) ) but who are clearly not hour builder's to get into the right seat of a boeing....Now the costs could really be brought down

:eek:

EA

[BEagle]

Chaps - just a bit more patience please and all your questions will be answered. Please remember that the NPPL is something that our industry asked for - so we've delivered. We'll also be developing the JAR-FCL PPL upgrade requirements in concert with the CAA SRG once the NPPL training syllabus is released.....

[slim_slag]

FFF

I'm not too much of an expert on UK instructors, not bothering with flying in the UK so much, but I would assume that standards in the UK/US are generally similar.

If I was to stick my neck out, I'd guess the average standard was higher in the US because it's easier to fly here, so you can keep current, and you give more instruction so learn more yourself. For the same reason, I'd say the top 10% of US instructors are better than the top 10% of UK instructors.

I'd also guess the bottom 10% of US instructors are worse than the bottom 10% of UK instructors because it's easier to fly in the US, so the schools have to scrape the barrel a bit more to get employees. More hour builders in the US too, I would guess, who in general make inferior instructors to those who teach and fly because they like it. At least that would be the case pre 11/9. Very contentious, and I really don't care, so don't bug me on it :D :D

If instructors set the standards, why do we need examiners? I do understand the concept that the examiner is purely rubber stamping the instructors opinion that the student is safe to let loose, and I think it is a good one, but the examiner makes the judgement call that counts. I suspect that in practice, the instructors will teach NPPL students to the same standards as their PPL students, but just miss out parts of the syllabus. BEagle confirms that he will be examining the applicants the same way. In the US, somebody who wants a significantly restricted recreational certificate would be trained to the same standards as someone who wanted a PPL, though I have never actually come across such an animal.

BEagle

NPPL is something that our industry asked for..

Ever heard the saying that goes something like 'we gave them what they asked for, but not what they needed'??

Cheers

[BEagle]

Which is why the NPPL was developed by a Steering Group which has representatives of all UK recreational flying organisations and to whose meetings the CAA also sent advisors. So the original NPPL was developed into something acceptable to all representatives.

Far better that than being something 'imposed' without any consultation!

[bluskis]

As BEagle has tried to say twice during this thread, the NPPL is at least a licence under the control of the UK flying community, CAA included in that, and can and perhaps does get some pilots out of the tangled compromise of the JAR.
I know personally of European pilots who have hung up their wings rather than grapple with what they perceive as a burdensom set of new regulations.
I also understand that the flying communities in France and other countries are sufficiently impressed with the UK finally showing some independent thought with respect to EU/European rule making that they are intending to follow suit with National licences.

[bluskis]

I have just read in GA BUYER a two page advert by the European Pilot Project which appears to be the JAA in another guise.

They apparently want to further legislate on the flying requirements for qualifying for a licence as they think that just passing knowledge of their ever complex regulatory maze still leaves pilots responsible for 66.6% of all crashes.

Any pilot qualified before JAA existed should feel suitably humbled.

Anyone doubting the value of the NPPL project should read this advert, and after due consideration, give prunners the benefit of their thoughts.

They do not give any indication in this advert that the effect of the restriction of available airspace, the lack of ATC and Radar help for VFR traffic, in spite of the requirements for the carriage of more and more expensive equipment, have any influence on the accident rate.

With easier, although more complex aircraft, to fly today, they appear to say that it is not the regulatory complexity that causes the pilot errors, but a lack of basic flying skills.

How did our predecessors achieve what they did without the JAA?

[Fly Stimulator]

I see that the CAA have now posted a statement on the NPPL on their website here (http://www.caa.co.uk/caanews/caanews.asp?nid=510) . It doesn't tell us anything new, but I suppose the fact that it's there at all is progress.

Nothing about the date of introduction, but it does mention a press conference at Cranfield.