Official NPPL web site now live [Archive]

Kirstey

12th Jul 2002, 09:24

Oh come on Beagle don't get on your high horse, I'm not looking for a fight here!

I have just completed my JAR-PPL. The syllabus is identical down the exercise numbers!!! The skills test form (forget the number) the QXC form are the same as the ones if just dropped off at aviation house! although they may have new codes on them of course!!

The only difference I can see is the completion of a "Nav test" before the QXC (which is 50 miles less, apart from that no "bloody" different) which incidently I think is an excellent idea, although the fact that the Navigation Skills Test and the GST don't count to the 32 hours means you probably do nearer 37hours (I'm sure not a deliberate misguidance) to get your minimum time NPPL.

If there are other differences please explain them to me Beagle, I am always willing to stand corrected. As I interpret it there are no cost savings to be made from this to make "flying more affordable" becasue you are doing the same things as a JAR PPL - I completed mine in 45hrs, now I could have passed in 32hrs, but only with a bit of luck and bit of blagging! After 45hours I was completly ready for my test, passed it with comfort and no blagging - I learnt a lot of stuff in my last 13hours that "nailed" my flying and made me safer. Doesn't this worry you that someone is now in a position where they could "blag" their way through a skills test and prematurly qualify as a pilot? I think the odds of this are more likely with this NPPL.

Anyway I digress a bit. My remarks were not puerile and uninformed. All I needed to make an informed judgment was to compare and contrast the NPPL documents with the FCL docs for the JAR-PPL. Over and above that I did my PPL becasue I was encouraged to by family, friends and their collegues who populate the corridors of Belgrano. I may be a flying novice, but I'm in no way uniformed.

At a first glance Beagle I'd say you guys achieved in 14 meetings what could've been worked out in about 3. As for making flying more affordable to more people. If that's your objective then I suspect your aims will not be achieved. If someone has enough disposable income to afford 32 hours instruction they probably have enough to afford (or enough creditworthyness!) 45.

[extra comment]

no I didn't add my comments - when the documents were circulated I was still into fags and beers rather than flying. My school however objected.

Taildragger

12th Jul 2002, 09:55

Kirstey.....

The medical standards are quite different indeed. Also the licence has increased Minimum Vis standards, and is restricted to UK airspace only. In addition, complex singles require additional training, AND you can only fly aircraft with seating for a Pilot and Maximum three passengers. When you compared like for like you obviously missed them.

Kirstey

12th Jul 2002, 10:22

Hi Taildragger,

I understand that the constraints of the liscence are different (although I didn't realise the vis limits had changed). Surely you need additional training to fly a "complex" on a JAR-PPL as well?

The point I was making is the Syllabus itself is the same. Going over the same stuff will the same length of time whatever you call the liscence and whatever the minimum time is. If the key objective is to make flying more affordable at an "entry level" I think that is misleading - the training aspect is the same as the JAR-PPL and will take as long.

As I said before - I'm happy to be re-educated here! I'm not looking for a mindless ruck (constructive debate is fine!). I'm starting to go over the ground that has been covered many times on this forum, so I'll shut it now!

FNG

12th Jul 2002, 11:10

Congratulations to Beagle and others who worked on the NPPL. I was unconvinced by the NPPL concept when it was first announced, but have been persuaded by the well informed contributions of Beagle and others to this forum that it is a good thing, although I shall be maintaining my PPL rather than trading it in for an NPPL.

Congratulations also to Kirstey for being a perfectly formed, perfectly safe, extremely knowleageable and in all ways complete pilot after 45 hours. Alas I am a slow learner and find myself a very incomplete pilot after 250, but no doubt I can learn much from Kirstey's ever helpful, polite and experience-based comments here, on the Angle of Attack thread and elsewhere.

flying snapper

12th Jul 2002, 11:18

I would just like to reiterate my thanks to BEagle and his colleagues for the unpaid hard work and time that he and many others like him have put into making this sensible and well thought out licence a reality.

It must be a bit annoying to people who have just spent a great deal on medical examinations, fees to the CAA etc to discover that they could have saved money by applying for the NPPL.

It appears to be accepted by most on this forum that the JAA licence when it was introduced was a mistake which did GA no good whatsoever. The NPPL has set this right.

Well done BEagle, and thank you for making a flying licence possible for me and many like me.:D :D

WeatherJinx

12th Jul 2002, 12:10

BEagle/All

Perhaps Kirstey was a little combative in tone, but his/her point remains (I have talked this over at length with qualified FI's and other pilots)-

What is the NPPL for, exactly?

Apart from the lower medical costs, how the award of a licence within the lowered hours requirement is going to be acheived by a majority of applicants is a mystery to myself and others, especially given that the average time taken by both CAA and JAA students is much higher, (anecdotally 55-65 hours, with some of that admittedly due due to delays caused by the lovely weather we enjoy in these tropical islands).

This 'mission creep' is not going to magically disappear under the NPPL. To my mind, what will happen is that in addition to schools being able to advertise a JJA PPL package for aroung GBP 4500-5000, they will be also able to offer the NPPL for around GBP 3000 - 4000.

That may well prove to attract more people initially, but when they too find that this estimate of costs proves to be somewhat, er, elastic, (I spent WELL over GBP 7000 to get my JAR PPL all in all) it won't be long before we are back at square one again.

BEagle, I have no doubt that you and your colleagues have worked extremely hard and dilligently on this project, what I would question is the validity of the project itself.

If you want to attract more people into flying and GA, make it more affordable. IMHO, the energies of the PFA, AOPA etc. would be much better spent campaigning for:

Reduction or abolition of taxation on AVGAS

Reduced landing fees for students (this is a BIG component of any PPL course)

Restoration of some kind of goverment credit/VAT exemption to all, or at least genuine career students (I believe that NVQ still applies to certain Yachting courses, for example, so why not a pilots licence? Much more useful to society;))

WxJx :)

Evo7

12th Jul 2002, 12:17

When was the last time you saw someone from the JAR-FCL PPL Steering Committee posting on PPRuNe? Anyone have any idea who runs it, for that matter? Me neither...

The NPPL probably doesn't impact many UK PPLs - yet - but I cannot see how we can possibly be worse off with it around. I'd rather have BEagle et al. thinking about what's next than JAR and EASA....

WeatherJinx

12th Jul 2002, 12:24

Evo

I'm not saying that we will be worse off without the NPPL - but is that the best reason you can think of for adopting it? There are, in my opinion, much more effective ways of getting more people into the air.

It is indeed a good thing that a member of the NPPL Steering Comittee is posting on PPRuNe. However, in doing so he/she should also expect to answer questions from an informed audience.

Jx

Kirstey

12th Jul 2002, 12:32

Now FNG,

I am no way a perfect pilot after 45 hours - But I am a 100% better than the one I was after 35 hours! My point being that at 30 odd hours I knew enough to pass the test and with a bit of "luck" could've got through it without genuinily being ready for it. Surely that is a danger with the NPPL?? do you disagree FNG if so in what ways? Or are you just looking for an excuse to be a keyboard warrior? I'm always up for a disagreement matey, but if you do disagree then don't just bitch, let's have some reasoned debate.

As for my comments on "Angle of Attack" thread. My points were all valid and correct. Again if you disagree lets here why you think so?? I am again willing to be reeducated.

over to you chap.....

Evo7

12th Jul 2002, 12:39

WxJx

I'm not claiming that is a reason for adopting it - I think it will only really impact people who cannot get a Class-2, at least until evolves a bit (there is a lot still to be decided, it seems). Anyone who thought that the NPPL was going to change GA in this country is nuts - changing AVGAS duty is probably the only thing that can do that - but it seems that some people can only criticise the NPPL and those involved for not doing the impossible.

Even if it doesn't apply to most of us, we are far better off with the NPPL than without. If nothing else it gives us all options when some aparatchik - who has probably never been in anything smaller than a Gulfstream V - decides that all PPLs need an IR 'to be safe'....

Edit,

It is indeed a good thing that a member of the NPPL Steering Comittee is posting on PPRuNe. However, in doing so he/she should also expect to answer questions from an informed audience.

I agree - but "So how come it took so long to come about?? It's identical to the JAR-PPL - apart from the reduced and unattainable minimum hours. Even the forms are the bloody same!!" doesn't really count, does it.... :)

WeatherJinx

12th Jul 2002, 12:43

Evo

Nothing Paxman wouldn't come out with... :D

Jx

Evo7

12th Jul 2002, 12:47

:D

BEagle would probably tell him to f@rk off too... :)

Kirstey

12th Jul 2002, 12:57

Alright EVO!! I know it was a daft statement - it was only meant to be a bit of fun. However 1)I am essentially correct you must admit 2)It put Beagle in a position where he felt he had to say his piece. Which is fair enough and which I responded to with my own not ill informed opinion.

I truly hope he isn't offended. I am strictly an aviation consumer, all I put into and intend to continue to put into aviation is hard earned cash. Unlike Beagle and co who put so much more into aviation than they have to make things better for all of us. Don't think I'm not grateful!

keendog

12th Jul 2002, 13:29

If it wansn't for the NPPL I would, for medical reasons, have to go across the pond and get an FAA PPL that would have given me identical priveleges to the NPPL. I would have done just that, and given my money to an instrutor there rather than an instructor here.

Other people might well be able to get a JAR Class 2 but regard the undertaking of a formal medical as something of a barrier.

I doubt that anyone who undertakes the NPPL will seriously believe, after a few hours, that they can come out perfect after 32 hours, but that is not the point. The point is to get people started, with temptations such as easier medicals, fewer training hours etc. They will soon realise that its going to take longer than they thought, and probably be more expensive, but it will have achieved another person starting out who, hopefully, will become hooked and carry on.

On another note, duty will never come down on AVGAS, so there is no point even thinking about it. Duty never comes down on anything, particularly a fuel that is going to be obsolete in a few years. There have been several discussions recently about how to fund LARS - and many have suggested a duty on AVGAS. This is a dangerous precedent. If the treasury gets accustomed to the idea that GA is happy to have GA related costs directly related to AVGAS (or any subsequent fuel) we can expect significant and frequent rises in the future.

WeatherJinx

12th Jul 2002, 15:15

Keendog

I'm very pleased that the NPPL system allows you to get a licence where you would have been unable to do so under the old system. However, that is not, as far as I was aware, the stated objective of the NPPL.

As I understand it (and I may be wrong) it is to both reduce costs and ensure a better supply of future pilots (especially commercial pilots who will have to go on and pass a Class One medical).

A nice by-product of the new system, but unfortunately not an indication that it will be ultimately able to do what it says on the tin (perhaps someone can answer my questions and prove me wrong)...good luck to you personally, though!

WxJx:)

nonradio

12th Jul 2002, 15:39

Beagle et al: I think the point people are making is that no matter how great a victory the NPPL is for common sense with respect to the way it is administered, i.e. " by industry" I am afraid there is no way , practically,this can induce hordes more folk to learn to fly - because it isn't cheaper, unless we split hairs and talk about medical costs and renewal costs which are not exactly things that a lot of people have been overly concerned about. Yes, of course there are folk for whom the reduced medical requirements will be a godsend, and it's certainly high time the medical requirements for private licences came in line with micros, gliders etc. BUT when it comes down to it, the same aircraft, instructor, and aerodrome requirements are there! I cannot believe you seriously suppose the flying part of the syllabus is going to be completed in fewer hours? We all know what changes would bring about genuinely reduced costs. Will it reduce the number of folk crossing the Pond? I think not. We are talking about 'significant' changes afterall...
Is this all part of a slowly slowly catchee monkey game that is being played with the powers that be to effect real change in the near future? If it is, let us all in the secret and we can all be enthusiastic about it. The NPPL is a great step forward for all the reasons discussed already, but at the moment cheaper, it ain't..:confused:

PS why no heli NPPL - presumably cos there are no microhelis, the PFA don't want 'em, they don't make good gliders, and the powers in AOPA are all dyed in the wool plankies:(

keendog

12th Jul 2002, 15:59

WxJx

I did not understand it ever to have been the objective of the NPPL to provide a pool of future commercial pilots. If anthing that effect (if it materialises) is the spin off of what was an attempt to disentangle VFR GA from the tentacles of JAA.

I agree that it is not going to be so significantly cheaper that the cost consequence of having an NPPL would ever alone determine someone's decision to fly, or not to learn to fly. I suspect many people (me included) will wish to have the training required for a JAR PPL, notwithstanding that we will not hold the actual licence.

GA's biggest complaint is not enough people, not enough of a voice. If this relatively simple scheme (with an unavoidably long gestation period) results in an increase of a few percentage points in those wishing to start, it will have done its job. Not to mention the advantages for older (from a medical point of view) permit flyers who have many hundreds of hours but simply wish to fly in an simpler and cheaper regulatory environment.

Taildragger

12th Jul 2002, 16:18

This is in danger of becoming a healthy debate.....let's keep it like that.
Can we examine who WILL benefit from the NPPL instead of who will NOT.
Medical renewal costs are not to be sniffed at. The NPPL needs simply a certificate signed by your own GP that you are fit to the DVLA standard for professional drivers....eg: Buses, HGV etc.
More of that later. The Doc is entitled to charge for the issue of that...typically 20 quid. If a person cannot pass even this, but CAN be signed off as fit to the DVLA standard to drive a private car, they can be issued an NPPL, limited to Solo flying only, or with a safety pilot if carrying passengers.
If a Pilot wishes to add IMC, Multi engine ratings etc etc. or carry more than 3 passengers, then they will still need a PPL.
In addition, several thousand PPL's who have been bounced, medically, by the JAR Class 2 Medical, will now be able to get back into flying and continue on the DVLA Standard, albeit with certain restrictions. The Doctor is guided here with Medical notes on certain conditions, and has to sign that he/she has read them. The length of validity of the certificate CAN be up to five years unless the doctor wishes to place shorter.
The thinking behind all this, is that the CAA recognises that the person who can really gauge a person's medical history, is not the person who does a bi annual or annual, or even six monthly medical, but the GP who sees the person regularly. Can Pilots be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to an AME.?? Well I think the answer to that one is clear.!!
Now, we are all getting older, and the time will come when you young tykes will be glad of this category of licence, which has existed in the USA for some time now.
Time to declare my own interest here.....as the holder of a PPL/Multi/Night/IMC for some 32 years, and an aircraft owner for around 25 of those, I lost my medical last year. Here I am with a JAR FCL Class 2, and owning a complex single, suddenly having the feet whipped away from beneath me. Not a good feeling, I can tell you. Now I can continue, in terms acceptable to me, and if I DO want to go over to Deauville for lunch, I can Fax the French CAA equivalent with a request for a dispensation ......something they have been doing routinely for years with Permit aircraft.
There has been a bit of the attitude in this thread which has existed for a long long time in the Amateur Radio world which says "Because WE had to take a Morse Test, and a Technical examination, you must too" Therefore, WE had to have a PPL then you must too.!! I am also a PFA Member....that fine grass roots aviation organisation which fights for us all regardless of whether we are members or not. They fought, along with AOPA, BMAA, and others to have this NPPL brought in. It is the first time, to my certain knowledge, that such a radical rethink of Regulations which heretofore have signified power, have been instituted. I think the organisations involved should be heartily congratulated for keeping me and thousands of others in the air, and making flying cheaper for all, and not criticised.
I applaud them and the CAA for their forward thinking.

FNG

12th Jul 2002, 16:55

Ah, Kirstey, I am glad to see that you have been issued with an Irony Rating along with your PPL. This is a good thing. I am rarely a keyboard warrior as being disagreeable to or about people I have never met is far less entertaining than the real thing, and in any event I make it a rule not to have arguments with people unless paid extremely large sums plus VAT for doing so (my profile with explain why this is). [Alright, I confess that I also make exceptions for the sommelier in L'Oranger, but it serves him right].

As for reasoned debate, I assume that by this you mean something like "Even the forms are the bloody same!!"

My observation was directed more at your assertive manner of expressing your opinions, which seems to me uncharacteristic of this strangely civilised backwater of pprune, and your indomitable confidence in asserting your opinions given your relative inexperience as a pilot, than at the opinions themselves.

I don't particularly wish to debate the NPPL, not because I have no views on the subject , but because my views generally accord with those expressed very clearly here, and many times before, by Beagle and others in the pro-NPPL camp. Like you I doubt that many people will achieve an NPPL in 32 hours, just as few people obtain a PPL in 45 hours, but this does not seem to me to invalidate the concept of a limited recreational flying qualification, assuming (perhaps a big assumption) that training standards are maintained and that people qualifiying under either system do so with a proper understanding of their own limitations and the need to work constantly and regularly thereafter at all aspects of flying proficiency.

Fly Stimulator

12th Jul 2002, 17:37

Hear, hear Taildragger & FNG!

There are actually quite a lot of pilots out here who will see a very significant financial saving with the introduction of the NPPL: microlight and glider pilots who wish to add a SEP rating to their existing licences.

A microlight licence holder can only be credited with a maximum of 10 hours towards a JAR PPL at present, leaving at least 35 hours more training to pay for. The NPPL brings that down to an absolute minimum of three hours plus tests. Even after adding a reasonable margin on to that there is a very substantial saving to be had in training hours, especially for those who fly the more Group A-like microlights where the conversion to the likes of C150s will be less of a change.

BEagle

12th Jul 2002, 19:29

When first proposed by AOPA, the NPPL had, in the view of many, certain flaws. So AOPA invited us all to discuss the matter and to negotiate. Not an easy process. But Martin came up with inspired blackmail at our first meeting when he said that we weren't going to break for our sandwich lunch until we agreed! So after some to-ing and fro-ing, we came up with certain proposals. Much of which had to be referred back to member organisations.

Now, if we all worked 100% of our time for NPPLSC, no problem. We'd perhaps have had an agreed framework reasonably quickly. But time was needed for further voluntary work, consultation, etc - and to reflect upon the guidance from our good friends from the CAA who also came to the meetings.

There were also mandatory legal processes to go through until the CAA were able to take the matter forward following consultation - and they were as quick with this as the law permits. And fair - due to the level of concern at the first letter of consultation, a further one was needed - even though the CAA was as keen as we were to get the NPPL airborne.

So who will benefit? Not the person who thinks that there's now an easy path to becoming an hours-building FI. But principally:

1. Those who are unable to hold a JAR Class 2 medical.
2. Those who can't afford a JAR-FCL PPL course - but could afford to start with gliding or microlighting (both of which are substantially cheaper and lead to a good sense of airmanship and caution for the weather!).
3. RFs who don't wish to pay for expensive VOR or ADF receivers (and their annual checking) in their aircraft.
4. Those who aren't sure about a career in aviation, but want to dip their toes in the pool first. They obtain a NPPL(SEP) which also means that they've got 100 hours credit towards CPL groundschool in the future, having passed the same exams as are required for a JAR-FCL PPL. Thay potter about the UK on nice sunny days for a while, then decide that they want to go to the next stage - so they 'upgrade' to JAR-FCL PPL. Then they add an IMC rating....then a night qualification. Then they decide to go for a modular CPL....then an IR...then a MEP Class Rating...then MCC.......

And, as a UK/FE(PPL), I can assure you that the 'bloody forms' are most certainly NOT the same as the JAR-FCL ones. Similar in layout, but not in content.

Thank you to those of you who made such generous comments - we are very heartened to know that many are keen to embrace the NPPL with enthusiasm.

We will continue to debate the sites, aeroplanes and qualifications required for NPPL training - but that is unlikely to be a speedy process as there are several complex issues at stake.

nonradio

12th Jul 2002, 19:55

Beagle: "several complex issues at stake" here's your chance to 'fess up - what are they?

Evo7

12th Jul 2002, 20:04

nonradio - I was about to ask exactly the same thing.

"Something" has been alluded to a number of times. I suspect that "something" may be part of a game of politics, in which case I can understand that PPRuNe probably isn't the place to discuss it, but I would be interested in where the NPPL might go :)

BEagle

12th Jul 2002, 20:18

1. Commercial interests of certain NPPLSC organisations' members conflicting with individual interests of aspirant pilots.
2. Safety. There's no doubt that a first rate Europa is a jewel compared to a tatty old Spamcan maintained by Bodgitt and Scarper. Sadly, regulation must take the lowest common denominator and the likelihood of certain (well known, but no proof!) dodgy operators into account....so there are very strict regulations now in place as a result.
3. Flying sites. Perhaps some well-run organisations would operate from well-maintained sites - but certain 'dodgy geezers' would flee from mud hole to mud hole with nothing more than an accommodation address and mobile phone number as their 'business address'.....
4. Instructors. There is some cautious work being done on investigating a possible way ahead to introduce something similar to the 'old' PPL/FI or R/BCPL/FI - but only if everyone is in agreement. In fact it's recorded as an action item in the minutes that we've agreed to begin debate on this as soon as the NPPL is introduced. But please don't expect something overnight!

Incidentally, I've never met anyone who thinks that he/she is a 'perfect pilot'. If I ever do, I hope that it will be on the ground, not in the air!

Sorry, but we owe it to the great unwashed general public to demonstrate that currently sound safety standards will not be compromised by any aspect of the NPPL.

nonradio

12th Jul 2002, 20:24

Beagle: thanks for that, cheers.

Who has control?

17th Jul 2002, 13:00

I just thought I'd sound out my GP about getting my medical renewed under the NPPL. The conversations/e-mails/faxes have gone something like this:-

WHC I'd like to renew my medical under the new NPPL can you do an examination?
DOC NPPL - Whats that?
WHC Its the new PPL that means my GP can sign me off as opposed to an AME. Its the same standard as HGV, how much will it cost please? I'll fax you the info sheets.
DOC We charge £100 pounds for HGV medicals.

Sounds of fax machine whirring

Later....
DOC We've phoned the British Medical Association and they say its £140 so thats what we will charge.
WHC But thats the rate for an AME and you said it was £100 for HGV!

The moral of this story seems to be that the medical profession are totaly unprepared for NPPL.

QDMQDMQDM

17th Jul 2002, 15:58

The moral of this story seems to be that the medical profession are totaly unprepared for NPPL.

Indeed so. They generally don't know anything about it and, to be fair, why should they? The average GP will probably get one of these to do every ten years or so.

It's a bit unlucky for people that the NPPL has come just at a time when GPs are generally upping their private fees to bring them closer to a 'market rate'. They've been undercharging for years because they're frankly not a very worldly bunch. I write this as a GP who works as a locum -- in other words I generally don't get paid the fees charged for any medicals I do -- so I don't have much of an axe to grind in this.

QDM

englishal

18th Jul 2002, 06:48

My JAR class 2 renewal was £50, and with it the doc gave me an FAA class 2 for free.....

I'm afraid I can see no advantage with the NPPL, other than for people who have been flying micro's / gliders possibly, and this is why:-

The NPPL will not save anyone much money, and as Beagle said in earlier posts, the skills test will be as thorough as the JAR PPL. This says to me that the 30something hours is unobtainable by most people.

NPPL medical renewal costs are likely to be similar to JAR medical renewal costs. If the CAA / Government wanted to, they could introduce a national medical certificate which would allow a holder to fly on their JAR PPL in UK airspace, without meeting the requirements of the JAR class 2 medical.

You are limited to UK arispace. Great if you live in southern England or want come cheap flying abroad (maybe this is the idea??)

Hourly rental / instruction rates look likely to be similar to JAR PPL costs....so no saving there. Post NPPL costs will remain the same as JAR PPL costs.

If you want to add more ratings, you need to up-grade to a JAR-FCL PPL. Now your costs are similar to doing the JAR PPL in the first place.

It may be correct to compare the new NPPL with the FAA 'recreational' certificate.....but bear in mind that nobody bothers with this certificate in the US.

Although I do sympathise with people who are unable to obtain a JAR Class2 medical certificate, I think that some people think that JAR is the beall and endall of flying. If I had an aircraft, and (or) if I could no longer get a JAR Class 2 medical, I would pop over to the US, get myself an FAA PPL or CPL, plus medical, stick my aircraft (or get) on the N register and fly on the privileges of my US certificate. The FAA Class 3 medical is valid for 3 years, is as easy or easier to pass than an HGV one in this country, and is renewable in the UK / Europe.

Although I think the idea of having a UK national PPL is a good one, I don't think the NPPL in its current for is really offering any advantages.....

Cheers
EA ;)

nonradio

18th Jul 2002, 07:24

QDMQDMQDM

18th Jul 2002, 08:15

If the argument for charging £100 plus for a 'proper' aircrew medical was all that extra costly training and equipment costs, how can £100 plus for a declaration signature from your GP stack up

Just warning GP prices have gone up of late. ;)

If it's just a signature to say that the applicant is more or lessing telling the truth, I'd be surprised if even the most mercenary of my compatriots charged £100. If, however, it is a form like the HGV medical or -- much, much worse -- the fostering medical, hang on to your hats.

Haven't seen one myself, I'm afraid.

QDM

QNH 1013

18th Jul 2002, 09:17

As I understand it, the NPPL medical is a self-declaration. In other words you fill in the form yourself, all your GP does is countersign it. I believe it has been stated that the GP is not required to examine you, although they obviously could if there was a valid reason. Doing so in order to charge a larger fee is not a valid reason. The effort / time on the part of the GP is therefore not to be compared with that of a PSV or HGV medical.

I don't think GPs should be trying to charge an hourly rate similar to others for the simple reason that they are already well paid just for having you on their books. It always strikes me as a bit much that they then want to charge for signing a form for one of their own customers. I bet very few pilots will spend more than five minutes WITH their GP when he countersigns the self-declaration. A charge of 10 pounds is therefore an hourly rate of 120 quid per hour on top of the standing payment for having you on their books.

Sorry to rant on about this QDM, nothing aimed at you personally, especially since you are a locum (for which I have the highest regard). Its just its a bit of a sore nerve with me.

QDMQDMQDM

18th Jul 2002, 10:06

I don't think GPs should be trying to charge an hourly rate similar to others for the simple reason that they are already well paid just for having you on their books. It always strikes me as a bit much that they then want to charge for signing a form for one of their own customers. I bet very few pilots will spend more than five minutes WITH their GP when he countersigns the self-declaration. A charge of 10 pounds is therefore an hourly rate of 120 quid per hour on top of the standing payment for having you on their books.

Uh oh. Tell you what, for a small consideration (say an hour of my time at £120), I won't post the link to this thread at any GP websites I know. ;)

For their level of training and the degree of responsibility they carry, GPs get reimbursed poorly for providing a limited range of services for patients under what is known as the 'General Medical Services' contract, a contract which they hold with the NHS. That contract does not say that no matter what medical service a patient should require it will be performed at no charge by their GP.

NPPL or HGV medicals, or any other medical for that matter, are not covered under the GMS contract, hence there is a charge for them. It does not seem unreasonable that GPs should charge for their time at rates which are comparable to those of solicitors and other professionals. And as anyone who has been to see a solicitor will know, £120 / hour is cheap.

QDM

englishal

18th Jul 2002, 17:32

For their level of training and the degree of responsibility they carry, GPs get reimbursed poorly for providing a limited range of services for patients under what is known as the 'General Medical Services' contract

QDMQDMQDM,

Didn't you know, only Professional Pilots are allowed to Whinge about 'time and money invested and responsibility':)

(Anyone this offends......take this post with a pinch of salt before any of you go into a keyboard frenzy;))

Cheers
EA:)

englishal

18th Jul 2002, 17:35

...better not (the salt bit) as its bad for your blood pressure ;)

englishal

19th Jul 2002, 10:25

Back on the subject of NPPL medical, this is what AOPA want for the US 'recreational' certificate. Makes sense really......

AOPA PETITIONS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE IN PLACE OF MEDICAL
AOPA has petitioned the FAA to allow pilots to use a driver's license as a medical certificate, provided those pilots limit themselves to recreational pilot privileges. Recreational pilots can fly Normal-category, fixed-gear aircraft of up to 180 hp with no more than four seats in VFR day conditions, and may carry only one passenger. "The FAA itself argues in its Sport Pilot proposal that a driver's license, which allows men and women to drive an automobile at high speeds just inches from other automobiles, provides an equivalent level of safety for recreational purposes," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "And AOPA's own analysis of GA accidents over the past 20 years supports that contention." See AOPA Online.

bluskis

19th Jul 2002, 14:10

EA
The aopa suggestion only makes sense in the UK if you want to see additional bureaucracy added to the driving licence.

It would mean a medical would be required for the DL.

englishal

19th Jul 2002, 18:57

With your driving licence its up to you to inform the DVLA (in the UK) if you are unfit to drive (yea, right:)). I believe there are words in the original licence agreement which put the onus on the licence holder to inform the authorities if unfit, and should you not do so and crash, then you'll no doubt be in the sh*t or dead. I reckon its fair to assume that if someone if fit enough to drive their car then they can be assumed fit enough for recreational flying....If you don't hold a driving licence then they could have a self certification medical certificate as mentioned. Therefore no extra costs involved for a driving licence holder.

Cheers
EA;)