Log in

View Full Version : NPPL(M) vs EASA PPL(A)


flyingpot
12th Oct 2016, 22:14
Hello all,

Long time lurker, first-time poster... looking for some thoughts and advice. Hopefully this is the right section of the forum -- I did originally consider posting in the instructor/examiner's forum.

To give a little bit of background -- have always wanted to fly, did some flying in the ATC (mostly upside down) as a teenager and originally had thoughts of going in to the airlines but life (and the world economic situation!) took over somewhat around about the time I suppose I had originally envisioned heading down that path.

However, still being just about the right side of 30, I am now looking at taking some steps in to aviation.

First off -- in the medium to long term, I would love to do an FI course. I do some training in my current job and I love it -- so the ability to combine that passion with my love of aviation would be just about perfect for me. I am not necessarily looking to completely change career and immediately become a full time FI (though I would certainly consider it) -- I would be very happy doing some part time instructing alongside my current career, at least to start with.

With that in mind, I would like some advice. Originally I had assumed that the way to go would be to do an EASA PPL(A), followed eventually by a CPL/CPL theory & FI course.

However, a friend has just started an NPPL(M) course and looking at the options I have to say on the face of it is very attractive: the training costs being around half that of an EASA PPL, cheaper landing fees, no need for a full Class 2 medical... well, cheaper everything, really, much less faff and a very accessible way to get in to flying.

With the longer term FI goal in mind, reading the BMAA website the process for gaining an AFI qualification seems relatively (procedurally: I am well aware that the course itself is no cakewalk!) straightforward and it appears (though I may be wrong) that unlike the Group (A) FI there is no requirement for a CPL in order to be paid to instruct.

However, doing some further searching (particularly around these forums) suggests that the NPPL(M) + AFI rating is in practice a bit useless due to the complications regarding students who may elect to switch during their training from an NPPL to an EASA PPL, etc etc, thus meaning that actual employment opportunities are highly limited. However, most of the posts I found in that vein were several years old, and I am unsure as to whether the situation has changed now.

In addition, converting to an EASA licence at a later stage appears to be a tremendous faff (especially from an NPPL(M)), and the NPPL hours appear to be next to useless in terms of 'upgrading' as well. With that in mind, I'm also a little concerned about the restrictiveness in terms of adding further ratings (much!) further down the road.

As I say, I absolutely recognise that in terms of progressing down the FI route I would first need to build a solid lump of experience, but equally if I am ultimately going to need a full EASA licence anyway then it would seem logical to just bite the bullet and do the full PPL(A) in the first place. But if microlight instructing on an NPPL(M) is viable then there would seem to be some merit in saving the cash and avoiding some of the administrative faff involved in a full PPL.

So -- any thoughts, experiences or general advice?

Thanks in advance -- much appreciated!

m.Berger
13th Oct 2016, 11:20
Microlights are more popular to learn on for all the reasons you mentioned. It would make sense to instruct on them as you will have more business.

Whopity
13th Oct 2016, 14:39
A Microlight FI can earn more money than an Aeroplane FI, but will need to invest in owning aeroplanes possibly an airfield and all that goes with it. As an employed FI, or part time FI, you will have more opportunities as an aeroplane FI.

flyingpot
13th Oct 2016, 20:44
Thank you both for your responses!

It does seem to confirm what I had suspected/gleaned: that a microlight NPPL + FI is in theory a good thing and that the rates are generally better than an aeroplane FI, with the trade-off being that the opportunities are limited compared to an aeroplane FI (especially if one is employed rather than running one's own operation -- and I imagine a big difficulty might be finding somewhere to work under supervision as an AFI).

Hmm. Food for thought!

Thanks again!