PPL(A) Substandard Pilots......

[pjn44]

Are PPL(A) pilots substandard if you compare them to Commercial Pilots.?

If any of you think that NPPL pilots are substandard compared to PPL(A) then you should not be allowed to fly as with that view you are substandard to the Commercial Guys.

Look at your licence and treat others with respect above you and below.

Well done to everybody considering flying the great new NPPL !!!!

PJN
-------------------------------------------
Additional Entry -
After reading the following messages I just want to say that I posted a new thread informing any reader that the NPPL was coming and that it would be a good thing and an additional avenue open to everybody.

I could not understand the negative replies from some of the readers some of whom said the NPPL was for substandard pilots.

I may have been a little unfair and that was not my original intention but I wanted to make the point that we may all fly dirrerent classes and respect each other.

No offence meant.
PS - This was only my second entry on this site - so I do not leave messages and run.

Happy and safe flying to you all.

PJN

[ComJam]

As an ex-instructor with a lot of experience in the PPL field, I think the use of the term "sub-standard" is unfair.

Less experienced? Yes

Less practiced? Yes

Less current? Usually

Less skilled? Not necessarily, depends on experience in general and on experience on type. I know lots of "Commercial Guys" (myself included now) who probably couldn't hack a PFL properly!

Do have some kind of chip or have i missed the point?

CJ

[notice]

There is no point, to miss in this, because there are no NPPL pilots.

[bcp]

What is a NPPL ??:confused:

[Evo7]

The NPPL is the proposed UK National Private Pilots Licence - it seems to have been a few months away for most of this year, but should (allegedly) appear on the 1st July.

If I remember correctly, it is UK and VFR only, with reduced medical requirements, but there are rumours that the first two restrictions may be temporary.

Notice seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder about it for some reason - post anything about it on PPRuNe and within moments he'll appear to make disparaging comments. Don't bother asking him to justify them though - he finds it easier to just make snide remarks and disappear.... :rolleyes:

[FlyingForFun]

As a 200-hour PPL, I consider myself "substandard" compared to the guys who fly in/out of LHR every day. That's one reason why I wouldn't go to LHR. (Others are the cost, the fact that it's quicker for me to drive there, and the fact that they won't allow single-engined private flights in anyway except under some very rare circumstances!)

However, I don't consider myself substandard compared to the rest of the guys who fly out of White Waltham (or any similar airfield around the country, for that matter). I'd probably consider myself average, maybe slightly below average - there are other White Waltham regulars who are far better pilots than me, and others who aren't such good pilots as me. (Most of those in the latter category are less experienced than me, and will gain skill as their experience increases.)

Personally, I don't believe that NPPL pilots will be "substandard" compared to PPL pilots. Most NPPL candidates will fall into one of two categories:


Pilots who are borderline for a Class 2 medical, and so can't get a PPL but will qualify for a NPPL - but will ask their instructor to instruct them in the full PPL sylabus anyway. There's no reason why their flying skills should be any lower than any other PPL
Pilots who are training under the misguided impression that it will save them money. It might save a bit of money, but not very much, because instructors won't allow the candidates to take their skills test until they're safe, and this will take around the same amount of time as it takes to get to PPL standard. The minor differences in the sylabus will make very little difference to how safe these pilots are (in fact, I argued on another thread that, rather than introduce a new license, it might be easier to simply adapt the PPL sylabus to be close to the proposed NPPL sylabus - I think there was some JAR reason why this couldn't be done, but can't remember the details).

So, pjn44, although I agree with the general sentiment, I don't think that the NPPL/PPL/CPL comparison is a fair one.

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

[STATLER]

Don't agree with the substandard bit, I fly with PPL's on a regular basis doing the Bi annual checkouts, and they fall into the Good,the bad and the ugly catergories.
You only become substandard if you dont do your own ongoing training, the bit you think you might not need(PFL's,Stalls in the approach config,relying on GPS too much etc etc). A lot just want to take their mates and grandma for a jolly its more fun than a bit of practice cos the engines never gonna quit is it !!!!!
As for the NPPL the majority of the training is very similar to the PPL just shorter,no reason for them to substandard then. IMHO it will get people into the air at a SLIGHTLY reduced cost (medical,hours req'd etc), should be good for the small clubs but reserve judgement as for the punter.
Maybe an upgrade course to a full PPL might be a good idea.

As for the difference between Commercial and PPL pilots the difference is that the commercial guys fly more,have done some form of greater depth study,with this USUally comes more confidence,better handling skills etc, flying skill wise its all down to GOOD quality hands on flying.

Try this then, you are a PPL who regulary flies long cross countries around the U.K with a fellow PPL'er into france etc 30 to 50 hrs a year each say(that 80 to 100 hrs flying experience each), and your mates a flying instructor living in his little training bubble just outside the airfield zone flying 4 to 500 hrs a year( he may stray a little further afield on the odd 150nm qualifier). Now WHO is the more EXPERIENCED????

[Luke SkyToddler]

What no one can deny is that there's ****** all training hours required for this NPPL. The outcome may or may not be 'sub standard' depending on the quality and commitment of the instructors involved.

What it is, is a tacit admission from the UK CAA that the out of control JAA bureaucratic monster was about to utterly and irretrievably engulf and destroy private flying in the UK at the expense of a great loss of potential government income. Remember that this new wondrous NPPL is still going to cost damn near twice as much as a 'proper' FAA PPL :rolleyes:

The UK government has pursued a single minded policy for many years of treating flying training as a rich idiots' luxury and bleeding it for as much tax income as it possibly can without putting anything back into the training infrastructure. They have done nothing but increase the cost, complexity and generally stick the boot into private flying training for many decades, and any encouragement that was on offer was reserved for the big commercial training providers. They were forced to sit up and take notice several years ago, when the large commercial schools in the UK began packing their students off in great numbers to places like Jerez, Michigan and Adelaide, proof positive that they had finally bled commercial training to death, and meanwhile by signing up to this JAA thing there wasn't much they could do to stop the commercial training business going elsewhere. In order to keep their cash cow alive, they then had to do something to stimulate the almost-dead corpse of private flying which the JAA had buried under a tidal wave of spiralling cost and complexity. They wouldn't of course have wanted to do something really radical to cut the cost of flying, like abolishing VAT on training or reducing Avgas tax, that could actually have the potential for long term reduction in tax dollars earned! Far better to attempt to get more people flying by reducing the number of training hours required for the licence, while still making the same extortionate tax profit on a per-flying-hour basis :rolleyes:

Hence the NPPL. Good luck to them all, I know I wouldn't have trusted myself to be turned lose on the flying public after only 32 hours. I'm sure the potential is there to rejuvenate private flying if it's all approached correctly and responsibly ... however it's been cut right to the bare minimum of safety in my opinion, and it's my fear that a few cowboy hour builder instructors will take advantage of these new regulations and end up with unnecessary blood on their hands. Only time will tell ...

[scroggs]

Can anyone tell me what this topic has to do with obtaining a commercial licence or first commercial flight-deck job?

Answers to the Private Flying forum, please.

[Whirlybird]

I don't understand what this topic's supposed to be about anyway. :confused:

I've read the first post three times, and I don't get it. Is it saying that PPL(As are substandard? Or complaining about people who say they are? And what's the NPPL got to do with it?

Pilots are as good as their experience and currency. A commercial pilot without a job will eventually get very rusty, if he doesn't practise. A PPL or NPPL who flies a lot will probably be very good.

Then there's sub-standard on what? Most airline pilots couldn't fly my little R22. I couldn't fly their 737. Does that make either of us substandard, or just different?


I'm not at all convinced that this whole thread isn't a waste of space. :eek:

[ppl(a)]

Scroggs

I shouldn't think this topic has anything whatsoever to do with "obtaining a commercial licence or first commercial flight-deck job?" - perhaps looking on the correct forum thread may be moe help?

:confused:

[BRL]

Excellent points there Whirly. I was just wondering what to do with this post myself...... :)

[Evo7]

Whirly/BRL - it seems to be pnj44's 'response' to something said by notice in another thread. A great example of well reasoned argument, those two ;) :rolleyes:

ppl(a) - Scroggs moved this thread from Wannabes

[Mariner9]

During my ppl training, I was sent solo after only 11 hours. Some friends of mine soloed with less hours than that. My point is the NPPL pilot, with (at least) 35 hours, is surely competent by any standards.


Surely safety/competency is a matter of personal judgement, eg is the weather/aircraft/route suitable for my experience. In my opinion this judgement has to be made by all levels of pilots on all flights, and the individual qualification held is irrelevant

[slim_slag]

FFF

As a 200-hour PPL, I consider myself "substandard" compared to the guys who fly in/out of LHR every day. That's one reason why I wouldn't go to LHR.

200 hours? Don't put yourself down, you should be perfectly capable of going into LHR. If they bring you in via downwind or base, just keep a tight circuit. If they bring you in via final keep the speed up. Make sure you get it on the ground quickly when tower tells you to and get off the runway pronto. It's just like any other airport, even easier really as the runways are harder to miss. Hang on you are talking about LHR, I must be thinking about taking little planes into far busier airports :D

I've flown in light aircraft with heavy-iron skippers who were positively dangerous. I remember being with an Airbus captain in his cub when he had to go around at approx 6000ft and 90 degrees F. Idiot forgot to retract flaps, scared the cr@p out of me, apparently his plane does that automatically.

Hours count, but it's also all about how much you have flown that type recently. NPPL pilots could easily be more proficient than your PPL, CPL or even the almighty ATPL.

I still cannot see the point of the NPPL though, look at the take up on the recreational pilot certificate in the US. It's pretty negligible - but then PPL medical standards are more practical in the US. Why should somebody with a medical condition which is deemed too unsafe for them to fly a warrior over my head with a PPL piece of paper in their pocket, be safe to fly the same plane over my head with a similar piece of paper in their pocket, except it has an extra letter on it???

[englishal]

...and not to forget the two senior airline captains who took their C172 into the meteor crater in Arizona but forgot about density altitude and couldn't get out again....ended up ditching in the middle.

During my ppl training, I was sent solo after only 11 hours. Some friends of mine soloed with less hours than that. My point is the NPPL pilot, with (at least) 35 hours, is surely competent by any standards.

...or think they are :p

EA

[DB6]

Luke, RAPHHUM! (to quote Gabby Johnson).

[timzsta]

I think "Luke Skytoddler" makes a very valid point on the NPPL in saying that 32 hours is not enough. Whilst there will always be those that solo after 10-15 hours, you have to consider the average pilot in the average aircraft on an average day. I did my first solo at abour 25 hours and passed my skill test (1st time) at 51 hours. 32 hours just does not seem enough.

An amusing aside though - I have seen and heard the NPPL being talked about at as "Sporting Licence". Does that mean that us pilots, as the "sportsmen", can then charge all spectators and radio hams for watching us perform! Our clubs and companies could then pay us for our work with comparitive rates to sportsmen, perhaps taking footballers say as the benckmark:
ATPL Captain : 60K a week
ATPL FO : 40k a week
CPL : 25k a week
PPL : 10K a week

Any thoughts!

[Evo7]

I don't know where the 32 hour figure comes from - I suspect it is derived from the 25 hours dual + 10 hours solo requirement of the current PPL, minus a couple of elements (radio nav springs to mind) - but I think fixating on this figure is missing the point.

As Whirly recently said, hours are not a very good measure of a pilot, and this is reflected in getting a PPL or NPPL - the ultimate requirement is to pass a skills test, not to just total enough hours. The NPPL skills test is (supposedly) essentially the same as the current PPL test, and if 45 hours is not enough for most people at the moment, the 32 hours NPPL limit will be equally irrelevant.

I believe that there would be a few people who could do it safely in 32 hours - I know two pilots, sons of an airline pilot, who grew up immersed in aviation, soloed in less than 10 hours and had time to add a night rating while building up the 45 hours needed to apply for a PPL. However, these people are natural pilots - most of us aren't :)

[M14P]

slim_slag - No Airbus retracts flap automatically on the Go-Around (in fact the standard call is "Go Around, Flaps"). There is an autoretract function at the lowest flap setting when close to the limit speed but this is unimportant. Your Airbus captain was just a bit cr@p.

Sub-standard? If you have passed a test relevant to your license then you have REACHED THE REQUIRED STANDARD! Why compare apples and oranges. There are very different skill and ability levels within private flying. As a PPL you may find it very difficult to operate an airliner in an effective and safe way making full use of crew and adhering to SOPs. Similarly the airline pilot may be somewhat out of his/her depth in the private environment.

The only thing worth comparing is ATTITUDE. This can apply to any pilot at any level. If you are too proud and too big headed to receive constructive advice and further training then you are a bad pilot (but you may actually FLY very well). The human aspect of flying is (and always has been) a huge part of how a person flys.

In my experience lots of PPLs reach a very good standard in actually flying an aircraft but can be let down by decision making skills. Don't stop learning and don't stop trying to get better.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Slim Slag said :

"Why should somebody with a medical condition which is deemed too unsafe for them to fly a warrior over my head with a PPL piece of paper in their pocket, be safe to fly the same plane over my head with a similar piece of paper in their pocket, except it has an extra letter on it???"

Depends whether they are *really* unsafe - or just don't reach the standards for a class 2 medical. What the NPPL admits to is that for fun flying a class 2 is OTT. US pilots don't need it, glider piolts don't, nor microlighters. And I can drive my big heavy motorcar at speed past pedestrians and cyclists and need *no* medical so to do. If I suffer a heart attack whule so doing, the pedestrians and cyclists (not to mention other road users) would be put at very high risk. If I flake out in the Chippy, the chances of any 3rd party (other than my passenger, who knew and accepted the risk) being involved in the subsequent accident are very slim indeed.

SSD

[BEagle]

SSD - how right you are Sir!!

[Chocks Wahay]

During my ppl training, I was sent solo after only 11 hours. Some friends of mine soloed with less hours than that. My point is the NPPL pilot, with (at least) 35 hours, is surely competent by any standards.

Time to solo is no measure of someone's skill as a pilot. It proves you can drive an aeroplane round a circuit without killing yourself after doing it numerous times with an instructor. There's a helluva lot more to being a decent pilot than being able to fly a circuit on your own.

I solo'd after 11 and a bit hours, but no way was I fit or safe to be let lose on the world after 35 hours. Was I a slow learner? Dunno, ask the guy who taught me. I got my licence after 55 hours, which included about 40 hours dual. I didn't feel that a single one of them was wasted, and I don't recall learning anything (in the air at least) that was irrelevant to the kind of flying I do now.

If competent pilots are to be turned out in 32 hours (which presumeably includes some solo time) then the methods of teaching will have to change with a lot more emphasis on ground school than is the case at almost every school currently. However, as long as schools continue to treat instructors as slave labour it will never happen.

Another thought - NPPL students will have less training - what effect will this have have on insurance premiums for schools hiring aircraft to NPPL holders?

[Spiney Norman]

SSD- You're completely correct there. I can't help thinking that one or two people here are missing the point re the 32 hour NPPL, and that is that the 32 hours, (if that is indeed what it is to be), is a MINIMUM requirement.

Spiney

[long final]

SSD,

As I read Slim Slags post I didn't detect that he was being critical of the nppl's lower medical stance, but instead agreed with it and the US approach to the medical. Maybe I read wrong.

This medical seems to be the biggest bugbear. I don't agree with all the nppl particularly, but the medical issue is a strong one. It appears to be a Europe issue throughout all levels of aviation - US commercial pilots fly overhead every day with lower medical standards to us, so why aren’t they considered unsafe?

LF
:(

[BRL]

Seeing as this has turned into a NPPL discussion, i am closing it. Already a good NPPL thread going.