The New UK NPPL

[nonradio]

THe NPPL is upon us at the end of the month, but I am having difficulty seeing any benefit in it. I expect the medical and revalidation requirements will be very advantageous to some, but as a method of increasing the number of folk who are going to learn to fly, how can it? I am genuinely at a loss here since most people take in excess of 45 hours to gain a private licence, and the NPPL syllabus doesn't seem that different so presumably the standard required to pass the skill and nav tests will be much the same as it is now? In which case 32 hours won't be enough will it? So where is the saving? Is it me, am I missing something? Or maybe a path from micros to SEP will result in savings? The same licensed field requirements and the same aircraft types and instructors so what's different? Help!!

[Evo7]

At the moment, the only real advantage does seem to be the medical, and that will apply to relatively few people. However, there is a lot that remains to be decided about the NPPL - I wonder if there is just not yet any advantage over a JAR-FCL PPL(A) for 'most pilots'. Something potentially more responsive than the designed-by-committee JAR-FCL licence can only be a good thing :)

Edit: as to the 'savings' involved in a '32 hour PPL', I've always thought that they were a bit of a distraction. Flying is an expensive hobby in this country, and you cannot change that with a licence that allows a little less training (if you're the son-of-Biggles type who can actually pass a skills test in 32 hours), a cheaper licence issue and lower medical requirements.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that the single most useful thing is the ability to cross-credit between the SEP, microlight, SLMG and ultimately glider ratings. This used to be possible, but was unilaterally removed by the CAA when they incorporated JAR-FCL.

But, for new PPLs, it also saves them from having to pay for expensive training in radio-nav, instrument flying, and suchlike frivolities that the majority will never use anyway.

Hardly anybody's going to do the 32hr syllabus in 32 hrs, but a lot will probably do it in 40-45, as opposed to the 60hrs or so that's the current average for a PPL(SEP).

I was chatting the other day to the BMAA's Doctor, who has been negotiating the reduction in medical standards from class 2 to the FCL150 standard used by microlight pilots. He told me that he's actually been receiving hate mail from AME's over the amount of revenue his negotiations have lost them. Now I'm all for people earning a living, but that lost revenue for the AMEs is staying in pilots pockets, or could even be spent on flying instead !

No it's not going to be earthshaking, but I think there's a point.

G

[nonradio]

Hmm, some good points, though not convinced about how much time will be saved by not doing radio nav - in the good 'ol days we didn't have to do that anyway and folk still took 6o odd hours. It does save 3 hr I/F though.
Talking about AMEs, apparently the country is divided up into areas and the number of AMEs in each is restricted and producing a waiting list. If that isn't a restrictive practice to keep revenues up, I don't know what is...

[QNH 1013]

I think the new NPPL will be of great (financial) benefit to many existing PPLs, particularly those with JAA PPLs which have to be renewed (more money) every five years.
The difference between the typical £100 every year for a 50+ pilot to an AME and poss £10 to get your GP to countersign your self-cert medical is significant and AME fees have gone up much more than inflation in the past few years. I'm not expecting them to go down in the future either.
Those who fly PFA aircraft have permit limitations on the aircraft that prevent IMC flight or even night flight so the new licence will suit many PFA group members who don't fly abroard.
Its no good to me because I do fly abroad and have an IR, but I thoroughly support the new NPPL and appreciate the work that so many have put into bringing it about.

[Evo7]

The difference between the typical £100 every year for a 50+ pilot to an AME and poss £10 to get your GP to countersign your self-cert medical is significant


Is it really? I'm not saying £90 is a trivial amount of money - of course it isn't. However, it's only an hour in the air in the south of England, so it isn't going to suddenly unlock the door to flying as a hobby. I guess that there may be people who feel happy that they're competent and safe when logging the minimum 10 hours (or whatever) a year, and may be able to manage that with an NPPL but not with the extra costs of JAR, but I doubt that there are many. Sad truth is that you have to have a reasonably large disposable income to fly in the UK, and while scrapping AVGAS duty may change that I don't think the NPPL does.

However, please don't think that I'm knocking the NPPL - I'm not. I would like to add an IMC (ideally an IR, but cannot afford that) and I'd like to fly in the USA (my father-in-law owns a Bonanza :) ), but that's the only thing keeping me from the NPPL - and both of those will probably change in the future. There's also the rumour that EASA will hand private flying back to the national authorities, so we may all end up with a NPPL.... :)

[distaff_beancounter]

Evo7 I see that you are from the South Coast, so flight time to a French airfield for you, is probably well under an hour each way.

Personally, I would not be prepared to give up lunch & shopping in LeTouquet. :D

[GT]

nonradio, with regard to your original post, I tend to agree with you. I think that the NPPL's advantages lie in it's ancillary features, rather than in a vast saving in flying training costs, although there will be some saving in that respect, of course.

Incidentally, you say the NPPL is upon us at the end of the month. As I understand it (and no doubt I'll be shot out of the sky if I'm wrong) we can start training for the NPPL now, but the licence can't be applied for until the ANO is amended (at the end of the month).

Regards, GT.

[Evo7]

distaff - that's another one for the list... :D

[QNH 1013]

EVO 7, Please remember we don't all live and fly in the South of England. For our group a trip to France (even Calais) is a full day's flying in a PFA aircraft. Lunch in Scotland is much quicker and cheaper.

You don't need to have a large disposable income to fly a PFA group aircraft in the North of England. Example prices up here are £8 to £28 per hour (airbourne time) with a well run group (there are plenty) and dozens of airfields to land at with no landing fee.

Yes, if you have money to burn you can hire club aircraft, but we don't all have sufficient disposable income to do that.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Talking about AMEs, apparently the country is divided up into areas and the number of AMEs in each is restricted and producing a waiting list. If that isn't a restrictive practice to keep revenues up, I don't know what is...

Yes, it is, but on the flip side it costs about £5K to do the courses to become an AME and takes about four weeks so there is a certain amount of upfront investment required. If any tom, dick or harry could do it it you might get so many in an area there wouldn't be much money in it at all and then motivation and standards would slip. Also, individual AMEs wouldn't do enough examinations to maintain currency. There is a -- kind of -- rationale to limiting numbers if you want to maintain standards and make it worthwhile for GPs to be interested in the work.

It is expensive, but then you are paying for 10 years training to become a GP, plus the added expertise, training and experience to be an AME. Junior solicitors start to bill at £120 per hour plus, so in a free market context AMEs are good value.

Me, I'd love to become an AME, but I haven't even bothered writing to the CAA, so unlikely is it they would be interested. In any case, it's not all roses. The hard part would be taking someone's licence off them. Not fun. Spare a thought for the AME in those circumstances.

QDM

[QDMQDMQDM]

Also, I doubt you'd get your GP to sign a NPPL med cert for £10 if it's anything like an HGV medical, which I've heard it is. Currently, £60 is about standard for an HGV medical.

I may be on wrong on this, but it would have to be an utterly simple form for a GP to charge only £10. GPs are getting more and more militant on private fees, feeling they have been grossly undercharging for years and years. You have been warned. ;)

QDM

[QNH 1013]

QDM, You've got to shop around. Yes, my quack quoted something like £60 for my PSV/HGV medical and my AME took the biscuit by wanting to charge me an extra £55 to sign the HGV/PSV medical form at the same time as he was charging me £100 for the CAA (sorrry JAA) medical. I asked a few other drivers and went to a recommended quack who did the PSV/HGV medical for £25. Incidently this is valid for 5 years c.f. 1 year for the JAA medical.
The only way to keep prices in check is to shop around.

added in edit:

By the way, I think it is going to be a much simpler form that the PSV/HGV medical. I haven't seen the form, but from what I have read in the press releases, the medical form is going to be a self-certification. i.e. You fill it in, and your own GP countersigns it. I think this is what the microlighters already do. Perhaps they can give us some idea of how expensive the signature is?

[Evo7]

QNH

My apologies - my southern bias is fairly obvious. I had thought about mentioning groups in an earlier post, but as far as I can tell down here you need to do a lot of flying for group membership to pay. Several thousand quid in and £50+ a month before per-hour costs doesn't match up with a £60 quid saving on a medical. I'd forgotten that elsewhere might be different - just add a darn sarf disclaimer to what I've written :)

[QNH 1013]

Evo 7, No problem, and perhaps I should have admitted that I used to work and live in London. My wife and I drove North until we could afford the houses !

[QDMQDMQDM]

I asked a few other drivers and went to a recommended quack who did the PSV/HGV medical for £25. Incidently this is valid for 5 years c.f. 1 year for the JAA medical.

QNH 1013,

Always worth haggling / shopping around to get the best deal.

QDM

(P.S. Tell me who the scab was and who did it cheap and I'll have him drummed out the union ;) )

[nonradio]

Hmm. QNH I think you make some interesting observations but the thrust of your argument seems only to apply to those lucky enough to have been able to afford a licence in the first place; which is what Evo's point was with respect to being able to 'afford' to fly. I am afraid I cannot see the new licence being a spur to new folk learning to fly - it doesn't affect the hourly rate on the aircraft you fly nor the landing fees you pay etc etc .Please don't think I am knocking the new licence, I think it is right that recreational flying should be administered this way and that's a good thing but I do get fed up when people keep saying it's going to be 'easier' (by which I am presuming we mean cheaper) to obtain a flying licence now.. We are effectively importing millions of pounds worth of flying training (mostlyfrom the US) and nobody seems to mind.
3QDM - nice spiel about standards! Are you really saying that you personally would need a month's course to learn how to do an 'aviation' medical? Most humans operate the same way so I imagine an HGV driver is subject to much the same inspection as a PPL or ATPL for that matter. I wonder on the argument about up front costs we could do the same thing for Flying instructors, or helicopter pilots since it takes a bit of dosh to get qualified and would be nice to have one's own patch...

[FormationFlyer]

Hmm..

Well Ive been told Ive got to teach NPPL.

However, as no syllabus is forthcoming explaining where the 13 hours disappear I cannot do so....

As for those who said 'savings on i/f and radio nav'...obviously dont understand the current JAR syllabus. The old UK PPL was 5 hours i/f...however under JAR it is 'sufficient training to be able to perform a 180deg turn by sole reference to instruments' (my wording not theirs). There is *NO* stipulation of i/f hours required under JAR. I personally teach basic IF in 45mins - and refresh this enough to pass the test.

As for radio Nav? Well once again lets see...1:00..oh yeah and it covers VOR/DME/VDF/ADF/RADAR and oh yes GPS...like guys on the NPPL wont be using that either.. ;)

So at the moment we have speculated about dropping 1:45...yet the licence covers 13 hours less....hmmm...

So..as far as I am concerned no NPPL courses until someone defines what on earth us instructors should be teaching....Im still waiting for BOTH the flying clubs I teach at to provide a syllabus...

Ho hum.

FF

[QNH 1013]

Nonradio,
Yes you are quiet correct in that I was just refering to the advantages of the NPPL for (some, many?) existing pilots. This is because this aspect seemed to be being overlooked in discussions of the NPPL, and yet it offers real advantages to some pilots, particularly those flying pfa aircraft where the aircraft restrictions mean that they aren't missing out on much by changing to the NPPL.

I didn't feel well-enough informed to comment on ab-initio training, but surely this is only the first step, with other advantages like an American style single theory exam still in the future. Its early days yet, but I felt sorry that there seemed to be so much grumbling about the NPPL when it seems to be the first official move in the direction of reducing costs that I can recall.
Again, I express my thanks to those who have put so much effort into making this possible.

While not being sufficiently informed to comment on the training hours for the NPPL I can say from experience that many hours of my PPL training were wasted because of poor organisation. I don't think my experience was particularly exceptional.

QNH

[QDMQDMQDM]

3QDM - nice spiel about standards! Are you really saying that you personally would need a month's course to learn how to do an 'aviation' medical?

nonradio,

Well, yes actually. There's a lot of applied physiology involved and you need to understand the rationale behind the licencing standards and how the whole system works. Like everything in life, it looks simple from the outside when all is going swimmingly. When stuff doesn't go swimmingly or simply it needs experience, expertise and training to carry you through. Like flying itself, in fact.

A good bluffer with reasonable common sense could do 80% of my job as a GP, but the other 20% they couldn't and that's what I get paid for. Same with AMEs.

QDM

[flying snapper]

Formation Flyer

The full NPPL sylabus can be found on the AOPA website which is at

http://www.aopa.co.uk/

This should clear up what is and isn't covered! My impression is that this syllabus is just for starters and that changes will occur over the years.

[nonradio]

FF ring up the PFA 01273 461616 and they'll be able to help with the syllabus
QNH you are, of course, absolutely right about the NPPL, I do believe it is the start of something good but let's not get too excited about overstating the opportunities in its current form e.g.Latest PFA mag: " without doubt the new NPPL will open up opportunities to pilot training for a new generation of pilots. Cheaper and easier to obtain and retain......"
Now, if we could just get rid of the Licensed Field/fire cover requirement....
3QDM I'll take your word for it, but I suspect you do yourself a disservice :D


Memo to self: Stop banging on about NPPL

[FormationFlyer]

Thanks for the info.

Released 24 June 2002. In good time for organisations to view it then....:rolleyes:

The syllabus is um 'interesting' (if it were in the Comedy Store I would be laughing...put it that way). Lets see: S&L currently we spend 2 hrs teaching S&L over 2 lessons - one of the most important things you will ever learn...now they want exactly the same but over 1:00 instead...

um..pardon? How is that supposed to work then?

Now im just confused...can someone now post a link giving instructors a guide on how the hell we are supposed to teach the same amount in lower times....remember it takes 15-20 mins out of every lesson in taxying, TO & transiting to and from the training area.....so....they now want S&L1 & S&L2 both in about 40minutes.....yep sure I can show you once you may just about practice once but Ill have to hurry you to complete in that time....um...lets face it - that isnt workable...

Other opinions...?

FF

[tacpot]

And in plenty of time for them to understand the new rules so that they can be explained to any enquirers who have been given short shrift by the CAA (see
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59078 !)

So far as I can see, the lower number of hours required for the NPPL is just a sop to schools who may be scratching for students, and need to convince newbies that the path isn't long/expensive.

In reality, an instructor will teach S&L until the student has made the required progress - probably after 2 hours. So the NPPL course will take 43 hours instead of the JAAs 45, and the NPPL pilot will probably not fly for the next 12 months because the money they had budgetted for flying had to be spent on training. And all because they were not given a straight story.

Progress?

[formationfoto]

FF
All I can offer by way of reduced time is that if (and a big if) the NPPL is capable of being instructed at non licenced airfields in uncontrolled airspace there may be a saving on taxi and transit time. Beyond that we have to assume that a lower competency level is regarded as satisfactory unless you have a student who can achieve the required standard in less time. When I gained my PPL I had to fly around four hours at the end of the course doing whatever I wanted even after some pre IMC additional use of instruments training. Not trying to prove that I was a smart a**e but that some people will be able to achieve the required standard in less than the current required hours. Unfortunately I suspect those who progress rapidly will want to go beyond the NPPL so the advantage falls away. Oh well I will just have to try and find another argument beyond 'lower capability' pilots.