NPPL: "Next Revalidation"....when?
Thread Starter
NPPL: "Next Revalidation"....when?
From AOPA
In September 07 I revalidated my SSEA by test. I believe that I may:
Fly 6 hours (with some stipulations I can't recall) by September; or
Have another reval flight with an examiner in order to stay current.
Question: If I keep using the former method to keep current, when will I move over to the new system. June 2009?
Cheers
CG
As from your next revalidation (which must be completed before 30 June 2009), all Class Ratings on NPPLs will have a 24 month validity period. In this period, a total of at least 12 hours flight time, including 8 hours as PIC must be completed in order to revalidate by experience.
Fly 6 hours (with some stipulations I can't recall) by September; or
Have another reval flight with an examiner in order to stay current.
Question: If I keep using the former method to keep current, when will I move over to the new system. June 2009?
Cheers
CG
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup in a nutshell.
However it is up to you if you want to change over prior to that. Provided you stay 'current' on the old system any examiner can then transfer you over to the new. Starting at the date of signing.
Could be a little awkward if you leave it right to the last minute so anytime next year would be good PRIOR to end of June 09. Unless you are happy to swap tomorrow then now it can be done too.
Remember that the examiner has an obligation to convert you over to the new system from now on - so if you do lapse and need a reval flight - he will have to put you on the new system - therefore, don't lapse currency!
However it is up to you if you want to change over prior to that. Provided you stay 'current' on the old system any examiner can then transfer you over to the new. Starting at the date of signing.
Could be a little awkward if you leave it right to the last minute so anytime next year would be good PRIOR to end of June 09. Unless you are happy to swap tomorrow then now it can be done too.
Remember that the examiner has an obligation to convert you over to the new system from now on - so if you do lapse and need a reval flight - he will have to put you on the new system - therefore, don't lapse currency!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starting when?
We're still waiting for the definitive AIC of course. However the above is the most often asked question that i'm currently asked.
My answer is that if you haven't changed over to the new system by the June 2009 but have remained current you will automatically go onto a 24 month cycle then, whatever. In such a case therefore you will not need to see an examiner until June 2011.
I'm then asked if the rules prior to the change apply until a formal change over takes place or June 2009 has passed. My answer is that as the new rules are effective immediately and to your benefit then yes they are applicable now.
My answer is that if you haven't changed over to the new system by the June 2009 but have remained current you will automatically go onto a 24 month cycle then, whatever. In such a case therefore you will not need to see an examiner until June 2011.
I'm then asked if the rules prior to the change apply until a formal change over takes place or June 2009 has passed. My answer is that as the new rules are effective immediately and to your benefit then yes they are applicable now.
My answer is that if you haven't changed over to the new system by the June 2009 but have remained current you will automatically go onto a 24 month cycle then, whatever. In such a case therefore you will not need to see an examiner until June 2011.
There will be no 'automatic' changeover, so please do not start such a groundless rumour!
The AIC should be released before the end of April, according to the CAA. The reason for the delay was an intervention by a member of the public.....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When?
BEagle
Thanks for the clarification, which is helpful.
But you forget a very important thing! Since when did pprune become an official organ for the promulgation of laws. However, your original information posted here was clear and helpful so far as it went and I sincerely thank you for that. Not a lot of good though for those who do not read pprune nor wish to, which will be the majority.
Over and over again rules and much worse laws are being changed by the CAA without published notice and worse are not promulgated until sometime afterward. Confusion is obviously bound to reign supreme. I have checked the NPPL website, other than the change to the document outlining flying credits for conversions between classes, there is NOTHING at all about the new maintenance of validation standards. Your comment that I was spreading rumours was a stupid one and unfounded! I even prefaced my contribution with, 'My answer is ......'.
Most important, will every holder of an NPPL be written to in order to ensure that they know that they must present themselves to an Examiner before 30th June 2009 or else will become invalid and possibly be flying illegally!
Thanks for the clarification, which is helpful.
But you forget a very important thing! Since when did pprune become an official organ for the promulgation of laws. However, your original information posted here was clear and helpful so far as it went and I sincerely thank you for that. Not a lot of good though for those who do not read pprune nor wish to, which will be the majority.
Over and over again rules and much worse laws are being changed by the CAA without published notice and worse are not promulgated until sometime afterward. Confusion is obviously bound to reign supreme. I have checked the NPPL website, other than the change to the document outlining flying credits for conversions between classes, there is NOTHING at all about the new maintenance of validation standards. Your comment that I was spreading rumours was a stupid one and unfounded! I even prefaced my contribution with, 'My answer is ......'.
Most important, will every holder of an NPPL be written to in order to ensure that they know that they must present themselves to an Examiner before 30th June 2009 or else will become invalid and possibly be flying illegally!
homeguard, if you don't know, then admit it and don't guess - or tell others what your guess is. To do otherwise is, to use your own word, stupid.
There is no information yet concerning the changes published on the NPPL website, because the policy is not to release anything definitive before the AIC is released officially.
The updated cross credit document was released on the day the ANO became law. That was an obligation which had to be honoured. We expected the AIC to be released shortly afterwards, but the CAA had to address an intervention from a member of the public who was not prepared to abide by the lawful consultation process which had led to the ANO. So, regrettably, it will be some weeks late as it has had to wait in turn at AIS to be printed.
There is no information yet concerning the changes published on the NPPL website, because the policy is not to release anything definitive before the AIC is released officially.
The updated cross credit document was released on the day the ANO became law. That was an obligation which had to be honoured. We expected the AIC to be released shortly afterwards, but the CAA had to address an intervention from a member of the public who was not prepared to abide by the lawful consultation process which had led to the ANO. So, regrettably, it will be some weeks late as it has had to wait in turn at AIS to be printed.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What?
BEagle
Why then if the new regulations couldn't be published in time was the whole validation process bit not put on hold. Surely a law shouldn't be changed and only promulgated through pprune. That in itself could be unlawful.
When you say a member of the public was not prepared to abide by the lawful consultation process, do you mean - that a member of the public quite properly, if they so believed, challenged the process being undertaken on legal grounds. Presumably because they didn't believe proper consultations with those that it would effect had taken place.
I do not understand your arguments with regard to the AIC. There was once a day that changes to law were published prior to them becoming effective. An AIC was published, on occasion sometimes afterward, but usually only if necessary, to clarify. An AIC on its own is not the law. Where is it intended to publish the law?
On the point in question. Why is it necessary for a NPPL holder to formerly present themself to an examiner to have their bit of paper signed and dated when, if they don't, they will suddenly become illegal and therefore be breaking the law. They already have the bit of paper and if they are otherwise fully complient (not the 90 day rule which applies to all) why do they not continue to remain lawful until it is absolutely necessary for a signature and an expiry date to be entered.
Why then if the new regulations couldn't be published in time was the whole validation process bit not put on hold. Surely a law shouldn't be changed and only promulgated through pprune. That in itself could be unlawful.
When you say a member of the public was not prepared to abide by the lawful consultation process, do you mean - that a member of the public quite properly, if they so believed, challenged the process being undertaken on legal grounds. Presumably because they didn't believe proper consultations with those that it would effect had taken place.
I do not understand your arguments with regard to the AIC. There was once a day that changes to law were published prior to them becoming effective. An AIC was published, on occasion sometimes afterward, but usually only if necessary, to clarify. An AIC on its own is not the law. Where is it intended to publish the law?
On the point in question. Why is it necessary for a NPPL holder to formerly present themself to an examiner to have their bit of paper signed and dated when, if they don't, they will suddenly become illegal and therefore be breaking the law. They already have the bit of paper and if they are otherwise fully complient (not the 90 day rule which applies to all) why do they not continue to remain lawful until it is absolutely necessary for a signature and an expiry date to be entered.
Why then if the new regulations couldn't be published in time was the whole validation process bit not put on hold. Surely a law shouldn't be changed and only promulgated through pprune. That in itself could be unlawful.
Because the effective date for all new NPPLs was the date the ANO change came into force. Existing NPPL holders who wished to change to the new system also had a legal right to do so with effect from that date.
When you say a member of the public was not prepared to abide by the lawful consultation process, do you mean - that a member of the public quite properly, if they so believed, challenged the process being undertaken on legal grounds. Presumably because they didn't believe proper consultations with those that it would effect had taken place.
Either we have a properly constituted consulatation process (as we do), or we have anarchy. There is a move being considered, incidentally, which will advise any such folk who wish to intervene with the DfT that, should they lose their case, they will be required to pay the associated costs. That should put a stop to endless time wasters.
I do not understand your arguments with regard to the AIC. There was once a day that changes to law were published prior to them becoming effective. An AIC was published, on occasion sometimes afterward, but usually only if necessary, to clarify. An AIC on its own is not the law. Where is it intended to publish the law?
The law has already been published in the ANO amendment. The AIC is intended to explain the changes in everday terms and describe the implementation process. As there was no 'big bang' on this occasion (except for new licences), no existing NPPL holder was obliged to act immediately.
On the point in question. Why is it necessary for a NPPL holder to formerly present themself to an examiner to have their bit of paper signed and dated when, if they don't, they will suddenly become illegal and therefore be breaking the law. They already have the bit of paper and if they are otherwise fully complient (not the 90 day rule which applies to all) why do they not continue to remain lawful until it is absolutely necessary for a signature and an expiry date to be entered.
The current SSEA Class Rating has a rolling validity and, ipso facto, no 'expiry date'. The new system introduces a fixed validity period; this starts on the day the licence holder presents his licence to the Examiner and has the new validity period entered. The 'transition period' is intended to spread any demand peaks and to give people plenty of time to understand the new system. But the transition period has a fixed end date - anyone without a validity expiry date in their licence after that date will not have a valid Rating and will not be able to use their licence privileges.
Because the effective date for all new NPPLs was the date the ANO change came into force. Existing NPPL holders who wished to change to the new system also had a legal right to do so with effect from that date.
When you say a member of the public was not prepared to abide by the lawful consultation process, do you mean - that a member of the public quite properly, if they so believed, challenged the process being undertaken on legal grounds. Presumably because they didn't believe proper consultations with those that it would effect had taken place.
Either we have a properly constituted consulatation process (as we do), or we have anarchy. There is a move being considered, incidentally, which will advise any such folk who wish to intervene with the DfT that, should they lose their case, they will be required to pay the associated costs. That should put a stop to endless time wasters.
I do not understand your arguments with regard to the AIC. There was once a day that changes to law were published prior to them becoming effective. An AIC was published, on occasion sometimes afterward, but usually only if necessary, to clarify. An AIC on its own is not the law. Where is it intended to publish the law?
The law has already been published in the ANO amendment. The AIC is intended to explain the changes in everday terms and describe the implementation process. As there was no 'big bang' on this occasion (except for new licences), no existing NPPL holder was obliged to act immediately.
On the point in question. Why is it necessary for a NPPL holder to formerly present themself to an examiner to have their bit of paper signed and dated when, if they don't, they will suddenly become illegal and therefore be breaking the law. They already have the bit of paper and if they are otherwise fully complient (not the 90 day rule which applies to all) why do they not continue to remain lawful until it is absolutely necessary for a signature and an expiry date to be entered.
The current SSEA Class Rating has a rolling validity and, ipso facto, no 'expiry date'. The new system introduces a fixed validity period; this starts on the day the licence holder presents his licence to the Examiner and has the new validity period entered. The 'transition period' is intended to spread any demand peaks and to give people plenty of time to understand the new system. But the transition period has a fixed end date - anyone without a validity expiry date in their licence after that date will not have a valid Rating and will not be able to use their licence privileges.
The AIC was issued today, 24 Apr 2008.
It is available at http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...8_W_030_en.PDF for subscribers to the AIS website. I have also asked for it and other relevant documents to be uploaded to the www.nppl.uk.com website as soon as possible.
It is available at http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...8_W_030_en.PDF for subscribers to the AIS website. I have also asked for it and other relevant documents to be uploaded to the www.nppl.uk.com website as soon as possible.
