NPPL Instructors
Guest
Posts: n/a
NPPL Instructors
Hello all
I'm a PPrune virgin. This is my first time so be gentle with me ok?
I decided last year I wanted to become a flying instructor in my spare time so I started the CPL studies with PPSC. I made decent progress but considered after studying the nav subjects that I wouldn't have time to complete the whole syllabus before the date of the last exam. not wanting to waste money I regretfully pulled out and decided to wait until the JAR CPL route was established.
Well from listening to people in the industry, magazine and PPrune comment this JAR seems like a real shambles so I was at a lose end until I heard about the possibility of PPLs being allowed to take an FI course and instruct NPPLs. I have a full time job that allows me plenty of time at home so the (probabally) poor pay isn't an issue. It seems right up my street.
Any comments?
There, that wasn't so bad. How was it for you?
I'm a PPrune virgin. This is my first time so be gentle with me ok?
I decided last year I wanted to become a flying instructor in my spare time so I started the CPL studies with PPSC. I made decent progress but considered after studying the nav subjects that I wouldn't have time to complete the whole syllabus before the date of the last exam. not wanting to waste money I regretfully pulled out and decided to wait until the JAR CPL route was established.
Well from listening to people in the industry, magazine and PPrune comment this JAR seems like a real shambles so I was at a lose end until I heard about the possibility of PPLs being allowed to take an FI course and instruct NPPLs. I have a full time job that allows me plenty of time at home so the (probabally) poor pay isn't an issue. It seems right up my street.
Any comments?
There, that wasn't so bad. How was it for you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well if the JAR thing is a shambles you will be comforted to know that the NPPL has been dreamed up by the same organisation that dragged GA into JAR-FCL. AOPA!
The NPPL is likely to appear next year despite the fact that few actually support it. It is of course a CON; if the same course took 55 hours two years ago how can it now be done in 32hours? unless you go to Florida!
The NPPL Instructor part remains a mere proposal, and unlikely to get off the ground until the NPPL has established itself as a raging success. How long will that take? quite a few years at best.
My advice is to take the JAA CPL exams and do your instructor course especially as you are well on your way.
The NPPL is likely to appear next year despite the fact that few actually support it. It is of course a CON; if the same course took 55 hours two years ago how can it now be done in 32hours? unless you go to Florida!
The NPPL Instructor part remains a mere proposal, and unlikely to get off the ground until the NPPL has established itself as a raging success. How long will that take? quite a few years at best.
My advice is to take the JAA CPL exams and do your instructor course especially as you are well on your way.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks S&L, I probabally will try the JAA route just as soon as I can find a ground school that is geared up for the JAR CPL (Distance learning).
While we're on the subject though, supposing that this proposal comes off and 200hr PPLs with the instructor rating are allowed to instruct NPPLs for pay, how are you pofessional instructors going to feel?
I mean you've taken the time & effort to pass the CPLs etc then the goal posts have been moved. How Will you view these new types of instructors?, will flying schools want to employ instructors who can't instruct ALL their students? & how much less will they be paid than the 'fully'qualified instructors?
While we're on the subject though, supposing that this proposal comes off and 200hr PPLs with the instructor rating are allowed to instruct NPPLs for pay, how are you pofessional instructors going to feel?
I mean you've taken the time & effort to pass the CPLs etc then the goal posts have been moved. How Will you view these new types of instructors?, will flying schools want to employ instructors who can't instruct ALL their students? & how much less will they be paid than the 'fully'qualified instructors?
Guest
Posts: n/a
This might sound harsh but it's a gut reaction to what appears to be a compromise of standards, brought about by pressure groups who think people have a God given right to fly.
Yes I agree JAA/JAR is like everything else European a farse but the sensible thing would be just to stick with the CAA PPL.
If the NPPL does uphold anything like acceptable standards of safety then the 32 hours minimum will have to be just that - a minimum, just like the minimum 40 hours for the original CAA PPL ,or 45 hours for the JAA. I think that when people find they are not automatically getting there licence at 32 hours then the NPPL will lose much of its initial attraction.
If that is not the case then I'm quite happy for someone else to get involved in the instruction of it. I have no desire to see my name in a statistic's logbook.
As I said this is a gut reaction so it is open to moderating influences.
Yes I agree JAA/JAR is like everything else European a farse but the sensible thing would be just to stick with the CAA PPL.
If the NPPL does uphold anything like acceptable standards of safety then the 32 hours minimum will have to be just that - a minimum, just like the minimum 40 hours for the original CAA PPL ,or 45 hours for the JAA. I think that when people find they are not automatically getting there licence at 32 hours then the NPPL will lose much of its initial attraction.
If that is not the case then I'm quite happy for someone else to get involved in the instruction of it. I have no desire to see my name in a statistic's logbook.
As I said this is a gut reaction so it is open to moderating influences.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not sure I agree about the lack of support, I hear quite a lot of people very enthusiastic about it. Personally, I think so long as the GFT/Skills test standard of handling, VFR navigation, and airmanship is not dropped, there shouldn't be a problem.
If you want to teach part time only, why not go for a microlight AFI/FI rating? There's no requirement for a CPL, and the course costs about 2/3 of what a light aircraft AFI course costs. Microlight instructors are in short supply, and get paid slightly better than light aircraft instructors (because you can't hour build for an ATPL on a microlight, so they actually have to pay a living wage!).
G
[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 28 February 2001).]
If you want to teach part time only, why not go for a microlight AFI/FI rating? There's no requirement for a CPL, and the course costs about 2/3 of what a light aircraft AFI course costs. Microlight instructors are in short supply, and get paid slightly better than light aircraft instructors (because you can't hour build for an ATPL on a microlight, so they actually have to pay a living wage!).
G
[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 28 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ghengis - You may well have heard that "quite a lot of people are very enthusiastic about it". Unfortunately, the people who are expressing enthusiasm are not those who are going to have to deal with it, i.e. those in the industry.
AOPA, in its usual manner, elects to listen only to those who support it's collective point of view. The vast majority who think the NPPL is a complete waste of time and effort are somehow dismissed as 'unrepresentative'.
Let's not forget that it was the bungling ineptitude of AOPA that got us into this mess in the first place.
The chances of there ever being a 'NPPL Instructor' are vanishingly small. If anything a more highly qualified instructor will be required to acieve a safe standard in so few hours.
AOPA, in its usual manner, elects to listen only to those who support it's collective point of view. The vast majority who think the NPPL is a complete waste of time and effort are somehow dismissed as 'unrepresentative'.
Let's not forget that it was the bungling ineptitude of AOPA that got us into this mess in the first place.
The chances of there ever being a 'NPPL Instructor' are vanishingly small. If anything a more highly qualified instructor will be required to acieve a safe standard in so few hours.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rolling Circle - sorry, but your facts are incorrect.
There is now a NPPL Steering Committee which indeed represents the views of industry. This was formed following the CAA's request that NPPL proposals should represent the view of all industry bodies, rather than the CAA having to arbitrate over every objection to AOPA's own proposals. Hence AOPA, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA, GAPAN, PFA all have representation on the NPPLSC which is chaired by AOPA. The Flight Examiners' Association are also in favour of the NPPL, as is the CAA (FCL, GAD and Medical). Rapid progress is being made towards a solution acceptable to all the bodies representing the industry as soon as possible; the NPPLSC has had 2 formal meetings and will report progress to the CAA in March. The next NPPLSC meeting will be held in early April and all members are very keen to achieve the industry solution as soon as possible; this is not some stagnant euro-committee fond of its own voice, it is a group of aviators working together towards a common goal.
The NPPL will be a generic licence containing ratings appropriate to the categories of aircraft operated by the constituent organisations of the NPPLSC, cross-accreditation proposals, theoretical knowledge requirements, pre-entry training requirements for Night, IMC and NPPL/FI ratings are also being worked on. The emphasis for the NPPL/FI will be firmly on relevant knowledge rather than JAA esoterica; it is intended that the NPPL/FI will have roughly the same rights and privileges as the old PPL/FI or Restd. BCPL/FI including the right to receive remuneration within appropriate constraints.
The NPPL will be a product of industry's requirements endorsed by a highly enthusiastic CAA; in contrast, the JAR-FCL PPL requirements were forced upon the recreational flying industry by a heavy-handed Authority without proper consultation.
The licence will ONLY be valid in the UK, for that reason it is considered essential that the just-revised syllabus of a minimum of 32 hours of training and consolidation PLUS 2 Skill Tests (1 GH and 1 Nav) may only be carried out in the environment within which the licence will be valid. That means the UK, not Florida!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 March 2001).]
There is now a NPPL Steering Committee which indeed represents the views of industry. This was formed following the CAA's request that NPPL proposals should represent the view of all industry bodies, rather than the CAA having to arbitrate over every objection to AOPA's own proposals. Hence AOPA, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA, GAPAN, PFA all have representation on the NPPLSC which is chaired by AOPA. The Flight Examiners' Association are also in favour of the NPPL, as is the CAA (FCL, GAD and Medical). Rapid progress is being made towards a solution acceptable to all the bodies representing the industry as soon as possible; the NPPLSC has had 2 formal meetings and will report progress to the CAA in March. The next NPPLSC meeting will be held in early April and all members are very keen to achieve the industry solution as soon as possible; this is not some stagnant euro-committee fond of its own voice, it is a group of aviators working together towards a common goal.
The NPPL will be a generic licence containing ratings appropriate to the categories of aircraft operated by the constituent organisations of the NPPLSC, cross-accreditation proposals, theoretical knowledge requirements, pre-entry training requirements for Night, IMC and NPPL/FI ratings are also being worked on. The emphasis for the NPPL/FI will be firmly on relevant knowledge rather than JAA esoterica; it is intended that the NPPL/FI will have roughly the same rights and privileges as the old PPL/FI or Restd. BCPL/FI including the right to receive remuneration within appropriate constraints.
The NPPL will be a product of industry's requirements endorsed by a highly enthusiastic CAA; in contrast, the JAR-FCL PPL requirements were forced upon the recreational flying industry by a heavy-handed Authority without proper consultation.
The licence will ONLY be valid in the UK, for that reason it is considered essential that the just-revised syllabus of a minimum of 32 hours of training and consolidation PLUS 2 Skill Tests (1 GH and 1 Nav) may only be carried out in the environment within which the licence will be valid. That means the UK, not Florida!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 March 2001).]
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
Beagle thanks for a balanced and well informed post that shows that the NPPL is an industry wide idea.
As for the anti AOPA posts i feel that the JAA-PPL probably looked like a good idea at the time but once all the nations have stuck there bit in it turns into buracratic mire.
You have to ask your self this ,what would the JAA have done if AOPA had not been fighting the GA corner ?
The reason that GA in the UK gets pushed around is that most of the UK,s pilots are to tight to pay the subscription to the reprisentative bodys such as AOPA or the PFA ,and spend to much time just slagging them off in forums like this when the time would be much beter spent writing emails to your MP in support of GA.
End of rant!.
As for the anti AOPA posts i feel that the JAA-PPL probably looked like a good idea at the time but once all the nations have stuck there bit in it turns into buracratic mire.
You have to ask your self this ,what would the JAA have done if AOPA had not been fighting the GA corner ?
The reason that GA in the UK gets pushed around is that most of the UK,s pilots are to tight to pay the subscription to the reprisentative bodys such as AOPA or the PFA ,and spend to much time just slagging them off in forums like this when the time would be much beter spent writing emails to your MP in support of GA.
End of rant!.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Concur entirely with BEagle. Like BEagle I work in the GA industry (albeit on the engineering side) and hear overall support for the NPPL, but equally strong concerns that it must be implemented sensibly.
I'm not a fan of UK AOPA either, and consider PFA, BMAA, BGA to offer far better representation for the individual, plus they're cheaper and do better magazines. But, frankly the problem with the JAR-FCL license fiasco wasn't the concept, it was the appauling way it was implemented, particularly by a CAA FCL dept who didn't consult or think hard about the consequences of the way they were doing business.
The new head of FCL, who was previously the head of GA department, learned at GA dept the necessity of consulting with everybody and getting full agreement. He seems keen to continue this previous habit, and we should applaud him for it.
G
I'm not a fan of UK AOPA either, and consider PFA, BMAA, BGA to offer far better representation for the individual, plus they're cheaper and do better magazines. But, frankly the problem with the JAR-FCL license fiasco wasn't the concept, it was the appauling way it was implemented, particularly by a CAA FCL dept who didn't consult or think hard about the consequences of the way they were doing business.
The new head of FCL, who was previously the head of GA department, learned at GA dept the necessity of consulting with everybody and getting full agreement. He seems keen to continue this previous habit, and we should applaud him for it.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Going Around,
I'm currently studying, via distance learning, for my JAR CPL with Four Forces, wishing to follow a similar path to you want.
All I'll probably end up doing with my CPL FI is teaching PPL level students at a club.
Although the NPPL instructor rating (If/when it becomes available) will possibly allow an easier route to being an FI, it won't allow for tuition of JAR PPL students. Since the NPPL will be fairly restrictive, I guess the demand for JAR PPLs will still be fairly high (?).
As I wrote in another thread;
...Yes it's a joke isn't it. If you do decide to do a CPL (and not just add a FI rating onto yr PPL), it will probably take you over 400 hrs of flying instruction before you even break even...
For those people who only want to ever teach students to PPL level at clubs (and get some pay/reward). You would have thought the CAA would have introduced a way of people being able to take FI ratings for training JAR PPLs and get paid for teaching students without having to go through the time consuming and costly process of gaining a full CPL. I guess what I'm refering to is a sort of restricted CPL (restricted to PPL level instruction only) available to anyone who can pass a FI(R) course.
Although I'm all for maintaining high standards of knowledge and instruction, I fail to see why you need JAR CPL knowledge for teaching students to fly C152s.
But then again, I guess the average PPL student will of course be asking what article 3 of the Tokyo convention of 1963 includes....
I'm currently studying, via distance learning, for my JAR CPL with Four Forces, wishing to follow a similar path to you want.
All I'll probably end up doing with my CPL FI is teaching PPL level students at a club.
Although the NPPL instructor rating (If/when it becomes available) will possibly allow an easier route to being an FI, it won't allow for tuition of JAR PPL students. Since the NPPL will be fairly restrictive, I guess the demand for JAR PPLs will still be fairly high (?).
As I wrote in another thread;
...Yes it's a joke isn't it. If you do decide to do a CPL (and not just add a FI rating onto yr PPL), it will probably take you over 400 hrs of flying instruction before you even break even...
For those people who only want to ever teach students to PPL level at clubs (and get some pay/reward). You would have thought the CAA would have introduced a way of people being able to take FI ratings for training JAR PPLs and get paid for teaching students without having to go through the time consuming and costly process of gaining a full CPL. I guess what I'm refering to is a sort of restricted CPL (restricted to PPL level instruction only) available to anyone who can pass a FI(R) course.
Although I'm all for maintaining high standards of knowledge and instruction, I fail to see why you need JAR CPL knowledge for teaching students to fly C152s.
But then again, I guess the average PPL student will of course be asking what article 3 of the Tokyo convention of 1963 includes....
Guest
Posts: n/a
I find it curious that nobody in the industry seems to know who the people are on the NPPLSC that are representing them. If they did, they could voice their concerns. Who are they Beagle? or is it a secret? No doubt the usual bunch of professional committee goers.
I note the recent AOPA meeting on the subject was for Corporate members only.
[This message has been edited by Noggin (edited 01 March 2001).]
I note the recent AOPA meeting on the subject was for Corporate members only.
[This message has been edited by Noggin (edited 01 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fantastic response Guys 'n' Galls.
As BEagle & Rolling Circle demonstrate, the factors that led us to this unsatisfactory situation are numerous and highly debatable.
The pragmatic view would be that few organisations are totally incompetent, few never make any mistakes and the best method will come out on top through reasoned debate. (This fence post is killing my Butt!)
For my two pen'orth, JAR is simply a nice Idea poorly executed and the NPPL is in danger of going the same way. Anyway, to reply to some specifics:
Toohottofly - Thanks for the tip about PPSC, I'll give them another call.
Genghis - Microlite AFI? never thought of that, I'll give it some consideration if my latest GOOD NEWS doesn't work out.
UKPPL - I like the idea of a restricted CPL. Tell you what, we could call it a Basic Comercial Pilots Licence!
Finally the GOOD NEWS is that in April I start as a volunteer civillian flying instructor with the Air Cadets teaching them to solo standard on Grob 109 SLMGs! The RAF provide the training for me, accommodation, food, uniform and as many girls as I can lick!
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
As BEagle & Rolling Circle demonstrate, the factors that led us to this unsatisfactory situation are numerous and highly debatable.
The pragmatic view would be that few organisations are totally incompetent, few never make any mistakes and the best method will come out on top through reasoned debate. (This fence post is killing my Butt!)
For my two pen'orth, JAR is simply a nice Idea poorly executed and the NPPL is in danger of going the same way. Anyway, to reply to some specifics:
Toohottofly - Thanks for the tip about PPSC, I'll give them another call.
Genghis - Microlite AFI? never thought of that, I'll give it some consideration if my latest GOOD NEWS doesn't work out.
UKPPL - I like the idea of a restricted CPL. Tell you what, we could call it a Basic Comercial Pilots Licence!
Finally the GOOD NEWS is that in April I start as a volunteer civillian flying instructor with the Air Cadets teaching them to solo standard on Grob 109 SLMGs! The RAF provide the training for me, accommodation, food, uniform and as many girls as I can lick!
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Noggin -
The NPPLSC members are NOT the 'usual bunch of commitee goers' as I tried to make clear - all are aviators who want things to happen!
NPPLSC consists of:
AOPA
BGA
BMAA
GAMTA
GAPAN
PFA
If you are not a member of any of these organisations and wish to make a contribution, you have 3 choices:
1. Join.
2. Write to the Head of GA at the CAA and ask for your view to be communicated to the NPPLSC for sympathetic consideration.
3. Do nothing and whinge.
The NPPLSC members are NOT the 'usual bunch of commitee goers' as I tried to make clear - all are aviators who want things to happen!
NPPLSC consists of:
AOPA
BGA
BMAA
GAMTA
GAPAN
PFA
If you are not a member of any of these organisations and wish to make a contribution, you have 3 choices:
1. Join.
2. Write to the Head of GA at the CAA and ask for your view to be communicated to the NPPLSC for sympathetic consideration.
3. Do nothing and whinge.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The NPPLSC members are NOT the 'usual bunch of commitee goers'
NPPLSC consists of:
AOPA
BGA
BMAA
GAMTA
GAPAN
PFA
Why do the words 'non' and 'sequiter' spring to mind?
The first draft of JAR-FCL1 (all those years ago) made no mention of PPL training, it concentrated entirely on professional training and was intended to be the training companion to JAR-OPS 1. AOPA then muscled in on the act and, without consultation or consideration, demanded that private flying be included. I know....I was there.
Now, the same incompetent bunch, having finally woken up to the consequences of their ill-considered demands, are desperate to disengage private flying from the JAA. The latest demand is that all reference to General Aviation be removed from JAR-FCL.
A and C wrote:
"You have to ask your self this ,what would the JAA have done if AOPA had not been fighting the GA corner ?"
The answer, of course, is that the JAA would have ignored private aviation, as it always intended to, all of the member states would have continued to issue PPLs to the same rules that they had always done and would have continued to recognise each others licences as they had always done. In short - we would have retained the old, tried and tested, system that everyone is now trying to get back to.
If only AOPA had not stuck their noses in.....
NPPLSC consists of:
AOPA
BGA
BMAA
GAMTA
GAPAN
PFA
Why do the words 'non' and 'sequiter' spring to mind?
The first draft of JAR-FCL1 (all those years ago) made no mention of PPL training, it concentrated entirely on professional training and was intended to be the training companion to JAR-OPS 1. AOPA then muscled in on the act and, without consultation or consideration, demanded that private flying be included. I know....I was there.
Now, the same incompetent bunch, having finally woken up to the consequences of their ill-considered demands, are desperate to disengage private flying from the JAA. The latest demand is that all reference to General Aviation be removed from JAR-FCL.
A and C wrote:
"You have to ask your self this ,what would the JAA have done if AOPA had not been fighting the GA corner ?"
The answer, of course, is that the JAA would have ignored private aviation, as it always intended to, all of the member states would have continued to issue PPLs to the same rules that they had always done and would have continued to recognise each others licences as they had always done. In short - we would have retained the old, tried and tested, system that everyone is now trying to get back to.
If only AOPA had not stuck their noses in.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rolling circle, what positive contribution are you trying to make about the NPPL? Please let us know what your objections are in clear, unemotive terms. They may then be addressed and acted upon or resolved.
AOPA's original idea to bring PPL training under the framework of JAR-FCL was entirely reasonable; what was totally unreasonable was the (then) attitude of the CAA in refusing to address the concerns of the recreational flying training industry at the manner in which JAR-FCL PPL matters were later being executed without proper consultation. AOPA's original concept was effectively sabotaged by the heavy-handedness of the CAA. Whereas the views of industry ARE being listened to regarding the NPPL and we now have new heads of GAD and FCL who are rather better at working with industry than perhaps was the case hitherto; they are also enthusiastically supportive of the NPPL, as is CAA Medical.
I say again, Rolling Circle, please state your points about the NPPL so that they can be fairly addressed.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 March 2001).]
AOPA's original idea to bring PPL training under the framework of JAR-FCL was entirely reasonable; what was totally unreasonable was the (then) attitude of the CAA in refusing to address the concerns of the recreational flying training industry at the manner in which JAR-FCL PPL matters were later being executed without proper consultation. AOPA's original concept was effectively sabotaged by the heavy-handedness of the CAA. Whereas the views of industry ARE being listened to regarding the NPPL and we now have new heads of GAD and FCL who are rather better at working with industry than perhaps was the case hitherto; they are also enthusiastically supportive of the NPPL, as is CAA Medical.
I say again, Rolling Circle, please state your points about the NPPL so that they can be fairly addressed.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beagle
As one who was not prepared to contemplate training for the NPPL at your school a few weeks ago, it seems you have now taken the pills, done the course and been brainwashed.
My question was, Who is on the committe? Committees consist of people not organisations.
As one who was not prepared to contemplate training for the NPPL at your school a few weeks ago, it seems you have now taken the pills, done the course and been brainwashed.
My question was, Who is on the committe? Committees consist of people not organisations.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Because, Noggin, certain concerns were presented to one of the organisations referred to. They then asked for further information and a working group formed which reported to the head of the organisation. As a result, the organisation sent a letter to the Head of CAA SRG. Following the response to this, the CAA also wrote to AOPA and other organisations advising them to seek an industry consensus. This led to the first meeting of the NPPLSC at which the majority of the concerns were satisfactorily resolved and the proposed NPPL syllabus amended. Further progress was made this week. Hence the NPPL is now a workable proposal, whereas beforehand it wasn't.
In that NPPL students will probably now have to pass a NFT, most concerns about them being able to cope with mixed traffic in Class D airspace have been addressed.
In that NPPL students will probably now have to pass a NFT, most concerns about them being able to cope with mixed traffic in Class D airspace have been addressed.