NPPL Instructors
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle, it is clear that we are never going to see eye to eye on this matter - they do say that there is none so committed as a convert.
It is also clear that it must be my memory that is at fault since, not only is my recollection of the 'industry's' involvement in the introduction of JAR-FCL at variance with yours but also, I have no recollection of your presence on any of the advisory committees at the time. Ah well, I suppose it's inevitable that memory fades with age.
For the record, my recollection is that, at every step of the implementation process, amendments were being put out to consultation. Looking back on my notes from the time, it seems that plenty of comments and suggestions were received from the airlines and the , then, CAP 509 schools.
It is also interesting to note that many comments were received from the USA, including one from the wife of a FAA instructor complaining that introduction of JAR-FCL1 would adversely affect her husband's income. The volume and content of comments from the US were instrumental in the drafting of provisions, later included in NPA 14, to allow for training to take place outside of JAA member states.
However, among all this feedback, I can find none from AOPA, or any of the other bodies now involved, until it was all too late.
Incidentally, it would appear, from your last post, that it was only recently, when the CAA stepped in and started banging heads together, that AOPA began properly to consult with the 'industry' whose support for the NPPL it had long, and fraudulently, claimed.
I have no 'objection' to the NPPL per se, I believe it be an irrelevance that will do nothing either to improve safety or to decrease substantially the cost of recreational flying. Few, if any, will reach an adequate standard in the minimum hours. It will, however, be interesting to examine the statistics concerning the relative levels of involvement of NPPL vs PPL holders in incidents and accidents. You can bet that SDAU and the UKAB will be polishing their microscopes.
My real concern is that none of this would have been necessary had the PPL not been included in JAR-FCL in the first place, something that would not have happened without the interference of AOPA and which, far from being entirely reasonable, was completely unnecessary when mutual recognition of PPLs was already, effectively, in place with a minimum of bureacracy. I never encountered any problems getting my licence validated for use in other european states prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL1, all that was normally required was an exchange of faxes. (Apart, perhaps, in france and it seems that JAR-FCL has done little to improve that situation.)
It is also clear that it must be my memory that is at fault since, not only is my recollection of the 'industry's' involvement in the introduction of JAR-FCL at variance with yours but also, I have no recollection of your presence on any of the advisory committees at the time. Ah well, I suppose it's inevitable that memory fades with age.
For the record, my recollection is that, at every step of the implementation process, amendments were being put out to consultation. Looking back on my notes from the time, it seems that plenty of comments and suggestions were received from the airlines and the , then, CAP 509 schools.
It is also interesting to note that many comments were received from the USA, including one from the wife of a FAA instructor complaining that introduction of JAR-FCL1 would adversely affect her husband's income. The volume and content of comments from the US were instrumental in the drafting of provisions, later included in NPA 14, to allow for training to take place outside of JAA member states.
However, among all this feedback, I can find none from AOPA, or any of the other bodies now involved, until it was all too late.
Incidentally, it would appear, from your last post, that it was only recently, when the CAA stepped in and started banging heads together, that AOPA began properly to consult with the 'industry' whose support for the NPPL it had long, and fraudulently, claimed.
I have no 'objection' to the NPPL per se, I believe it be an irrelevance that will do nothing either to improve safety or to decrease substantially the cost of recreational flying. Few, if any, will reach an adequate standard in the minimum hours. It will, however, be interesting to examine the statistics concerning the relative levels of involvement of NPPL vs PPL holders in incidents and accidents. You can bet that SDAU and the UKAB will be polishing their microscopes.
My real concern is that none of this would have been necessary had the PPL not been included in JAR-FCL in the first place, something that would not have happened without the interference of AOPA and which, far from being entirely reasonable, was completely unnecessary when mutual recognition of PPLs was already, effectively, in place with a minimum of bureacracy. I never encountered any problems getting my licence validated for use in other european states prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL1, all that was normally required was an exchange of faxes. (Apart, perhaps, in france and it seems that JAR-FCL has done little to improve that situation.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beagle there are over 300 registered facilities in the UK conducting PPL training. With the exception of AOPA Corporate Members, not one has been asked for its opinion on the NPPL.
The CAA has done nothing other than to agree that its someone elses problem to sort out.
The CAA has done nothing other than to agree that its someone elses problem to sort out.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RC - you're probably right about the way that AOPA claimed to represent the views of industry and acted as though it had universal support 'negotiating' JAR-FCL PPL proposals.
But that is water under the bridge now. This time there is a NPPL steering committee representing the industry - or rather those parts of industry which have an organisation through which to present their views.
So what do you do if you're not a member of AOPA, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA, GAPAN or the PFA, you're concerned about the NPPL and you want to make your views known? Perhaps the best solution is to e-mail AOPA and ask for your views to be put before the next NPPLSC meeting.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 05 March 2001).]
But that is water under the bridge now. This time there is a NPPL steering committee representing the industry - or rather those parts of industry which have an organisation through which to present their views.
So what do you do if you're not a member of AOPA, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA, GAPAN or the PFA, you're concerned about the NPPL and you want to make your views known? Perhaps the best solution is to e-mail AOPA and ask for your views to be put before the next NPPLSC meeting.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 05 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was at the meeting where the NPPL was first proposed by AOPA to CAA. PFA, BMAA,BGA, RAeS, GAMTA, and various others were all there. Within a month or two of that meeting, there was detailed discussion about the proposals in "Popular Flying", the PFA's magazine. PFA became very involved, and BMAA, BGA and RAeS LAG became involved on the fringes.
After the initial burst of enthusiasm, AOPA did go through a period of playing a "lone game", until several organisations complained about this to the CAA - and then the NPPLSG was set up, under CAA control. There now appears to be very wide "buy-in" through all these representative organisations.
It is not feasible to individually consult all 300 GA schools, 75 microlight schools, (lots) glider schools, that is what associations are there for. I concur with BEagle's sentiments, joint the most sensible club(s) and use them, they do listen to their members. If that doesn't work, write to the head of FCL, who I believe chairs said steering group.
I am not, incidentally, directly involved myself, so please don't ask me.
G
[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 05 March 2001).]
After the initial burst of enthusiasm, AOPA did go through a period of playing a "lone game", until several organisations complained about this to the CAA - and then the NPPLSG was set up, under CAA control. There now appears to be very wide "buy-in" through all these representative organisations.
It is not feasible to individually consult all 300 GA schools, 75 microlight schools, (lots) glider schools, that is what associations are there for. I concur with BEagle's sentiments, joint the most sensible club(s) and use them, they do listen to their members. If that doesn't work, write to the head of FCL, who I believe chairs said steering group.
I am not, incidentally, directly involved myself, so please don't ask me.
G
[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 05 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
FNG
Sorry for the delay, If you want more information regarding a Civilian Instructors post with the Air Cadets its probabally best to E-mail me. My address should be at the top of this reply. If not I'll send another post with basics but do remember - It's voluntary. Free flying but no pay.
Sorry for the delay, If you want more information regarding a Civilian Instructors post with the Air Cadets its probabally best to E-mail me. My address should be at the top of this reply. If not I'll send another post with basics but do remember - It's voluntary. Free flying but no pay.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For what it's worth, the Vigilant in Air Cadet Service is certified to an MTOW of 908kg. The civil limit for a motorglider (enshrined in JAR-22) is 850kg, therefore your hours in the Vigilant / G109b with the Air Cadets are legally (in the CAA's eyes) light aircraft hours, not motorglider hours.
Not many people know that!
G
Not many people know that!
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't mean to go off-topic hear.
But what does this actually all do to the cost of flying, as far as I can see the only benifit is the reduced minimum hours.
average for a PPL is about 60 - 70 hours, way above minimums.
A NPPL will have little use as a "step-stone" to a CPL surely its more for those who want to go flying as a hobbie for fun?
details are hazy but I'm sure the Aircraft will require all the paperwork the CAA can possibly muster, approching that for a commercially opperated Light A/C, if not the same, as it will be run for profit. I suspect as Training establishments who will offer this will be currently offering JAA PPL's, continure to do so, and as such the Aircraft will be maintained and operated to the standards (and induced costs) required for that kind of work.
As far as I can figure is the hourly rate of the Aircraft will be much the same as the rate of that used for JAA PPL, (minus the 50p for the instructor!)
Everyones raving on at how the reduced hours will reduce to cost of training. but wait, Pilots don't just want a Licence in a minimum time then sit on the ground, they want to go fly, as cheaply as possible. appart from the possibility of getting a NPPL quicker, I cant see Flying getting any cheaper.
[This message has been edited by little red train (edited 09 March 2001).]
But what does this actually all do to the cost of flying, as far as I can see the only benifit is the reduced minimum hours.
average for a PPL is about 60 - 70 hours, way above minimums.
A NPPL will have little use as a "step-stone" to a CPL surely its more for those who want to go flying as a hobbie for fun?
details are hazy but I'm sure the Aircraft will require all the paperwork the CAA can possibly muster, approching that for a commercially opperated Light A/C, if not the same, as it will be run for profit. I suspect as Training establishments who will offer this will be currently offering JAA PPL's, continure to do so, and as such the Aircraft will be maintained and operated to the standards (and induced costs) required for that kind of work.
As far as I can figure is the hourly rate of the Aircraft will be much the same as the rate of that used for JAA PPL, (minus the 50p for the instructor!)
Everyones raving on at how the reduced hours will reduce to cost of training. but wait, Pilots don't just want a Licence in a minimum time then sit on the ground, they want to go fly, as cheaply as possible. appart from the possibility of getting a NPPL quicker, I cant see Flying getting any cheaper.
[This message has been edited by little red train (edited 09 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Little Red Train - bit harsh, old chap! The whole idea of the NPPL IS to make private flying affordable!!!
One of the aims is to bring about an easing of FI requirements (but not standards), we also hope to ease current restrictions on both aerodromes and aircraft used for training. We are very aware, however, that this could open the door to some of the dubious characters who are lurking out in GA-land trying to peddle PPL instruction with fancy leterheads and a few clapped-out aircraft. Hence we are asking for the aircraft to be 'of a standard acceptable to the Authority' and the aerodromes used for NPPL training to be categorised in a similar manner. But 'approval' of all NPPL business may one day rest with an umbrella organisation - as will the processing of all NPPL applications - so some of the dodgy folk (if you're reading this, you know who you are and so do we!!) who think that they can make a quick buck will be seen off fairly smartly!
Softly, softly, catchee monkey. We are trying to ease things so that private GA WILL become more affordable, but not all changes can happen overnight.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 09 March 2001).]
One of the aims is to bring about an easing of FI requirements (but not standards), we also hope to ease current restrictions on both aerodromes and aircraft used for training. We are very aware, however, that this could open the door to some of the dubious characters who are lurking out in GA-land trying to peddle PPL instruction with fancy leterheads and a few clapped-out aircraft. Hence we are asking for the aircraft to be 'of a standard acceptable to the Authority' and the aerodromes used for NPPL training to be categorised in a similar manner. But 'approval' of all NPPL business may one day rest with an umbrella organisation - as will the processing of all NPPL applications - so some of the dodgy folk (if you're reading this, you know who you are and so do we!!) who think that they can make a quick buck will be seen off fairly smartly!
Softly, softly, catchee monkey. We are trying to ease things so that private GA WILL become more affordable, but not all changes can happen overnight.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 09 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think we seem to be getting bogged down in the detail of the NPPL when quoting minimum hours, comparative skills etc. The bottom line is that GA in this country needs more participants for its survival never mind growth.
The powers that be (I believe) recognise the importance of GA to the ecomomy so if the NPPL creates more pilots, whether it took them 30, 50 or 100 hrs to licence issue, then so much the better.
It gives us a louder voice (I'm being slightly hypocritical here as I'm not in AOPA yet - though I intend to rectify this soon), creates jobs at many levels and provides a future for our aviation industry.
The powers that be (I believe) recognise the importance of GA to the ecomomy so if the NPPL creates more pilots, whether it took them 30, 50 or 100 hrs to licence issue, then so much the better.
It gives us a louder voice (I'm being slightly hypocritical here as I'm not in AOPA yet - though I intend to rectify this soon), creates jobs at many levels and provides a future for our aviation industry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I sort of get your point BEagle, slowly remove the responsibilty of Private flying to a seperate organisation than the JAA/CAA, good Idea, but (Harsh Hat on again) What the H*ll are the JAA/CAA up to, they should be trying to achive this, but instead they are proving themselfs so incapable that others have to do it for them, should we all go round to the food halls at hanseldorf (or whatever its called) and spoon feed them? we pay their salarys, why don't they get off there backsides and sort something out. the Commercial JAA is such a mess becuase they never listened to the industry, the private is in even more of mess because they pass it of as some pointless anoyance, name me one pilot who flys commercaily who has never made use of light aviation.
The setting up of the NPPL only highlights the shortcomings of the JAA. sort the system rather than fragment it more would be my prefrence.
..Harsh hat off.. fire at will..
For the record I love light aviation, flying in the airlines doesn't hold the luster that many others seam to be blinded like bunny rabbits by. I've flown alot in the states, and seen what can be done by a rationaly authoriy that sees the social and financial benifits of light avation. its not a perfect system but I'd gladly see the hole euro system be replaced in an instant.
[This message has been edited by little red train (edited 09 March 2001).]
The setting up of the NPPL only highlights the shortcomings of the JAA. sort the system rather than fragment it more would be my prefrence.
..Harsh hat off.. fire at will..
For the record I love light aviation, flying in the airlines doesn't hold the luster that many others seam to be blinded like bunny rabbits by. I've flown alot in the states, and seen what can be done by a rationaly authoriy that sees the social and financial benifits of light avation. its not a perfect system but I'd gladly see the hole euro system be replaced in an instant.
[This message has been edited by little red train (edited 09 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
But the Vigilant is not, repeat not, an unmodified civil G109b, it is a Vigilant T Mk.1, which has slightly different instruments, is flown with parachutes, has subtly different flying limitations, and (most importantly) an MTOW above the legal limit for a TMG.
G109b, civil CofA, MTOW=850kg
Vigilant T.1, Military CA Release, MTOW=908kg
JAR-22, the book the CAA certifies motorgliders against, says at paragraph 22.1(a)(2) "Single engined (spark or compression ignition) powered sailplanes, the design value W/bē (weight to spanē) of which is not greater than 3 (W[kg], b[m] and the maximum weight of which does not exceed 850kg"
W/bē still comes out at 2.98 (it's 2.8 at 850kg), but it's the MTOW that takes it outside the CIVIL definition.
[For what it's worth, I wrote the military CA release reports for the Vigilant. The CAA have also seen my logbook, with Vigilant hours (listed as such, don't call it a G109b) under light aircraft, and not queried it.]
If you want a comparison, there's a PFA homebuilt called a Minimax. Some variants are microlights, some are light aircraft - the difference is basically the fuel tank size and which particular engine is fitted. So you can have two nearly identical aeroplanes, one of which you log microlight hours on, and the other group A.
G
G109b, civil CofA, MTOW=850kg
Vigilant T.1, Military CA Release, MTOW=908kg
JAR-22, the book the CAA certifies motorgliders against, says at paragraph 22.1(a)(2) "Single engined (spark or compression ignition) powered sailplanes, the design value W/bē (weight to spanē) of which is not greater than 3 (W[kg], b[m] and the maximum weight of which does not exceed 850kg"
W/bē still comes out at 2.98 (it's 2.8 at 850kg), but it's the MTOW that takes it outside the CIVIL definition.
[For what it's worth, I wrote the military CA release reports for the Vigilant. The CAA have also seen my logbook, with Vigilant hours (listed as such, don't call it a G109b) under light aircraft, and not queried it.]
If you want a comparison, there's a PFA homebuilt called a Minimax. Some variants are microlights, some are light aircraft - the difference is basically the fuel tank size and which particular engine is fitted. So you can have two nearly identical aeroplanes, one of which you log microlight hours on, and the other group A.
G
