Hi ... some proper questions at last and not just rhetoric !

No ... Nothing subjective meant. I was simply trying to say that the fun and recreational side of group A (old term, but the only way I know how to differentiate between classes) seems to have gone from our clubs. If you want to just fly for pleasure you are better going the microlight route. The clubs that were, have morphed into the training establishment we now see, and they are more school like in their approach to flying.

The wealth of experience I refer to is those older PPL’s who have either drifted away or been forced out. Many turned to microlights as medicals became more frequent and expensive and some simply because the bar filled up with upwardly mobile young things who preferred to talk GPS, high finance, ect than listen to some old man tell tall tales. OK much of the bullshi-t is gone but those of us with the ability to filter out the rot learned a lot by humouring them … thing is, we listened. All that experience is wasted not just because they no longer frequent the bar but they no longer have a chance to teach. It’s all very well having a generation of accelerated CPL instructors whilst there are still a few of the old school left, but what when they too are gone? I know many of the new school will have done more than I give them credit for, but the bulk won’t. A sterile young instructor who has only ever flown spam cans from tarmac airports can hardly advise his fresh PPL student on the eccentricities of a homebuilt taildragger when he’s asked.

I would welcome any way to bring back some of that less formal fun back to our clubs … or am I really a Dinosaur at less than 40 years of age?

SS

SS:

Now we are seeing through the "fog of emotion" a little more.

It appears that there is indeed a point of view that the new and stricter medical standards have filtered out the older (and experienced) instructors THUS removing the enthusiasm and sheer love of flying that and ONLY they had.

In addition, it also appears that there is a "generation gap" that is difficult to master.

Whilst I can see how there will be a generation gap I cannot see how it can be stated generally that only the old instructors had a passion for flying in/out of strips in whatever they could fly in.

So, I would assert that there ARE younger people with the same passion (like my good self...) and that whenever we get the chance, we do try and point out that there is more to a PPL than giving it up after a year or so.

But, I also agree that there are some FTO environments where the training can only be described as "mechanical". The sad aspect of this is that the people that gain their PPLs in this type of environment continue to han around the same establishment and as a result never really venture further than the "local area".

I don't see what my attitude has to do with the fact that the case of NPPL's teaching not being full of holes.

I can't see where your idea of me being a vain and egotistical individual comes from. For the tenth time I don't think that ALL PPL's are muppets or that all people with a CPL and above are genius'. It simply isn't true, but when you talk ingeneral terms about competancies, the simple truth is that the average standards of CPL's compared to the 'average' PPL is much higher. How many PPL's have you flown with recently? In the past few years I have probably flown with at least 500 individual PPL's, so my comments are made with some knowledge, rather than just sweeping generalisations.

My first ever trip was with a PPL who had 320hrs, so he would have qualified under this scenario and had more hours than I did at the time, but he may as well have had 0 Hrs judging by his competance. Is this arrogance on my part? No, just a realistic view of his abilities. This is a business that doesn't tolerate fools gladly, so having to knock a few egos from time to time is very necessary. I will not apologise for trying to keep standards high.

Why do you think getting a CPL is waste of time? It is far more sensible than getting a high price FI rating after having spent at least 20K on a/c hire to get there and then only be able to earn around 10/hr. Why would you do that if for a similar price you could get a full CPL/frzn ATPL WITH an I/R that would allow you to do all sorts of other aerial work and teach to a higher level if you wanted to.

Depth of knowledge is not an argument I would use about PPL's Vs. CPL's.

Trapper, if the proposals that were put forward at the time were better than the ones that were eventually made 'legal', why did the not use them instead of the current ones? Or was there another agenda that we aren't aware of?

Shortstripper, remember the Pprune rules about 'playing the issue not the person'. Writing comments on a BB is not the easiest way of getting your point across without offending people. My tone is not meant to offend and again I don't think that PPL's are idiots, far from it. The licence is not important, their currency and attitude is far more important. It just happens that Pro's often have a very different attitude to amateurs. Just look at what has happened in Rugby since the start of the professional era to see the difference between somebody who does something for a living and somebody who does it for fun.

nppl
 

Short stripper has been eloquent in her input and very clear where she is on the issue.

If she is not understood, I would say that the lack of understanding speaks volumes. You don't have to agree with her to understand her arguement.

There has been a lot of input from myself and others also, as to what changes need to be considered for appointing Instructors and the contributions have been comprehensive and constructive.

If someone wants to become an instructor in order to build hours thats fine with me. That is their life. Many will do a usefull and sincere job of instructing. But, SUDDENLY GONE! "just had a phone call. Start my type training Monday, sorry to let you down at such short notice. I hope you understand". Of course I understand and wish all heading in that direction all the best with THEIR CAREERS. I'm usually proud to see them flee my nest.

But, I need a fair number of 'part time' and 'full time' Instructors who will be around for many years providing enthusiasm and continuity to the club. These types of Instructor also put a lot back into their clubs. In the modern world only a dedicated FI qualification which is more reasonably achieved LOCALLY! will capture an individuals willingness to do the FI training required. For many who have their own businesses and careers and a family to take into account, the courses must be available at weekends and PART TIME! Most professional schools really don't like part time students unless they're slack and will not work weekends. Strange for an industry that operates in all other respects seven days a week.

The cost is not an issue if the cost is directed at the ACTUAL NEED in meeting the requirements of being an Instructor. Spending large sums of hard earned dosh on becoming a Mini Airline Pilot is simply out of the question when wishing only to instruct ad hoc as your club needs you! It is wasted effort, an extravagant expense and also time wasting for the local pilot wanting to 'help out' and have fun at their 'club'.

Meeting the absolutely necessary minimum standards and finding only the genuine associated expenditure is not resented or opposed by anyone that I know. Wasting effort, time and hard earned family dosh is!

Oh deary me!

WTW ..

There's no fog of emotion where I'm concerned. I'm a 38 year old farm manager and in perfect health so I don't come from the angle of someone who is faced with eviction on health or age grounds. I just hate to see older more experienced people thrown on the scrap heap too soon. We live in an ageing society where minor health problems are easily overcome with drugs enabling us to be productive far longer ... is this dangerous? dunno I'm no doctor, but is it objective to on the one hand allow us to get in a lorry with a far higher chance of killing, than on the other hand ban us from a two seat aeroplane with a more likely "lower death by incapacitation rate"?

I've never meant to imply that younger instructors have no enthusiasm for flying. What I mean is, that now the self improver route to CPL has gone many (broad statement alert) CPL/FI are simply young lads with ambition and money who have qualified in 2-300hrs and maybe 18 mths. In the past this may have taken years, flying as glider tug pilots, err instructors, dropping parachutists ect to reach 700hrs. Whilst these PPL instructors may have been less technically qualified and actually working toward a CPL, their peers will have had a wide range of experience for them to draw on. When the majority of instructors are from the the accellerated CPL route I can't see how they can advise on the broader picture. Sure some will be keen and will have flown tailwheel, farm strips ect ... but many will have be too focused on their airline ambitions. Maybe I'm being sceptical ... but the evidence I have experienced of late does nothing to raise my hopes :(

SAS

£20K to a family man is a high price! I get sweaty if I pay more than £20/hr to fly. There are cheap ways to build experience and like I said what if you already have 200 hrs+? why have to pay out to do CPL if you really don't have any ambition to fly for airlines ect but do really just want to teach? You can always tag on a CPL later if you so desire, it is after all just a technical recognition of experience. Unless you use all that knowledge you've learnt, much will be forgotten in two years anyway!

I'm really not trying to be personal, it's just that you happen to be the person most knocking down my point of view and presenting your own ... I'm just answering back. I really really don't mean to be disrespectful or insulting.

SS

I understand Shortstrippers argument very clearly and I agree that having full time career instructors is very preferable, but the economics of the situation will ensure that this never happens.

You can't expect ANYBODY to want to be a career instructor if they will only ever earn £10/hr. No matter how keen you are at the start this will eventually Pi** you off. If students were willing to pay £40/hr you may find that you will get som
ebody to do it as a long term job.

PPL's who teach on the side are subject to the vageries of their own jobs, I know many part-time BCPL instructors (most very good as it happens) who will work regularily, but may let down people at short notice, at least a fulltime CPL will be there everyday until they get another job.

I know many CPL FI's who would love to stay as instructors, the job is great, but they cannot afford to do it longterm.

Pay is a very emotive issue. Unfortunately market forces dictate that flying instruction is bound to be poorly payed, certainly at the lower levels. This isn't fair but it is a fact of life. Farm workers are often highly qualified (does that surprise you?) they work long hours and need a very broad spectrum of experience ... but the pay is crap. It isn't fair... but it is a fact of life.

Is there such a thing as a career in instruction? Well, those that stay tend to become CFI's, who maybe freelance or teach at higher level and get a bit better renumeration. Or they may end up as part owners of the flying school. Thing is, can an instructor ever really be payed what he/she is worth? probably not! This then is surely another argument for the amatuer instructor? At least they can afford to remain long term with a school/club unlike your CPL who needs to eventually go where the money is?

Get real lads, learning to fly in the uk is expensive. Paying FI(R)'s any more is untenable in the present climate. Thinking that new flashy aeroplanes, swanky office type briefing rooms and the like will attract more punters and raise your wages is unrealistic. I understand your frustrations and I do hope that the airline jobs you so deserve soon become available. But please let's not imagine that you are so so clever that only you can teach people to fly.

One last thought ... If you are a product of your training and you now consider yourself competent. Who taught you? Chances are that you were still of a generation that were taught by PPL instructors or by those who started off as such.

SS

Please don't confuse me with somebody who worries about pay, I make the comment as part of the argument about why there will never be any full-time career instructors at PPL level. I am very lucky as I have an income from elsewhere though I wouldn't complain if I suddenly got paid enormously.

It is possible to allow instructors to be renumerated properly, Heli instructors get paid a decent amount of money, (most of them are PPL's aswell) but it is a very small market and prices are high. People are still willing to pay for it though.

If we could attack the cost base, fuel, parts or insurance (I don't include engineers as I feel the rates aren't great for them either.) then we could start to pay people properly, but this thread isn't really about pay as a subject.

There is of course such a thing as a career in instruction, you can make a career out of anything and it is up to the individual what that is.

We can change the industry for the better, but it will take time, effort, guidance, luck and money. I would like to end up in a shiny jet for a bit, but I don't want to spend my career in the airlines.

All my instructors were CPL's at least, I have never been taught by a PPL instructor.

The comments about market forces are very easy to make and are true, but as an instructor who is also in business, The market can be changed. Eventually this will happen, but not with the most of the current crop of flying schools and owners.

nppl etc.
 

SAS

Take us to anywhere in the world where there is a PPL Flying Club/School that is making any money and can be ran according to normal business principles. Instructing in the USA is just as poorly paid as it is over here. But, you will find plenty of 'Career Instructors'. The reason, because there is less bull!!!! and it is achievable by everybody. Just the same as here in the UK there is no money to be made. Club owners in the states work 7 days a week from dawn to dusk to pay the bills like here and anywhere else in the world.

What is it about the current crop of club owners/members (clubs often owned by the members) for which you appear to have so much disdain?

In sport and in the arts, as with so many recreational/vocational ways of life that evolve later into a profession, they have at their heart, the first club which is where you start and WHERE the vocational professional LIFE blossoms.

All that many of us want to see is the heart of flying retained and it needs surgery if it is to be recovered. Fuel, insurance, maintenance even if they could be reduced is just tinkering. We need what you appear to reject.

The JAA ( the BCPL by the way was created in the knowledge of the oncoming shadow of the JAA) is designed primarily for the airlines and it is good for them. However JAA is not good for GA or the recreational clubs.

You say that you cannot make a career as a PPL Instructor. Not enough money in it. Maybe not for you. But G-KEST for whom you dismiss, 'tough' that he can no longer instruct, would no doubt have been quite pleased with a tenner per hour or the past equivelant during his CFI days. I remember him well when he was at Leicester. He in fact signed my QXC Cert. in the late seventies.

As short strip says, money isn't the only inducement. Go to many Parachute Clubs, Gliding Clubs etc. Many of the Caravans you will see are the homes of Instructors. Instructing is what they do. Some will have a private income others a pension but many will have nothing. I gave up my old profession and bought my flying club because it was what I chose to do. I earn very little, have a lot of hassle, struggle to pay the bill, often need to subsidise thye place but I love it, so eat your hat

The current demands create an impassable barrier for many, including the young, if they are without a heritage to collect or by not being able to borrow on Mum & Dads mortgage.

Been away so not been able to respond sooner. Noted the point that nobody has stated what is wrong with the current crop of instructors. As I train instructors may I just point out a few perceived shortcomings and suggest improvements?
1 If they learn in the USA there is a lack of skill, total blank where briefings are concerned and no experience of short field or grass landings plus useless RT - remedy learn here.
2 The guys who take the integrated route to CPL have virtually nil experience of any of the "fun" flying elements which I consider essential for the PPL and post PPL instructor. - remedy ensure all basic PPL instructor candidates have at least 300-500 hours general experience, but include a tailwheel conversion, some aerobatics, cross channel experience and entering club competitions as a bare minimum
3 Most candidates have no experience of teaching anything and many can barely spell, have poor grammar and stutter like mad when asked to give a briefing. Remedy - ensure a minimum basic educational standard of high grades in English, Maths and science such as Physics, Geography and Biology plus some youth work experience or public speaking training. Otherwise we had better have a full teaching course.

After all the public are paying and deserve to have high standards of teaching skill including professionally delivered briefings. There is absolutely no excuse for not having gained the school qualifications even if you cannot afford the CPL!

Having gained a qualification to teach at basic level, then the restriction should not be removed for at least a year to allow experience in the vagaries of the British weather. Then an upgrade test should be passed to include the important subjects of duty of care when sending a student first solo - something that is too often completely overlooked.

I realise that my ideas are not universally popular but having canvassed a number of people in a number of countries I am aware of widespread support for change and somebody has to start the ball rolling.

From my reading a summary of the majority of posts since my last reads like - money, money, money, can't influence European institutions.

Last one first - one can influence European decisions just as easily as UK ones. The JAA has a well defined route for individuals to propose amendments to the JARs and for individuals to comment on future amendments. Is the UK the only country that sents people to these institutions with only a few sandwiches in their case? - I suppose it leaves room for the cheap ciggies!

Money, money, money. If PPLs want to instruct for the NPPL then by all means have a dedicated NPPL instructor course for NPPL pilots (not JAA ones) made available at clubs where the instruction for both potential instructors and future students is given for free. Remember that flying a C150 for free and thus eliminating more than the basic requirement to keep current at one's own expense must be income of a sort.

Spend 2000 on a NPL FI course and fly for free for the rest of your life would attract some PPLs.

There is of course absolutely no reason for making any form of upgrade available because these club PPL instructors are simply instructing for the fun of it and to give something back.

The self improver route may be gone in the UK mindset but it is alive and well in the rest of the JAA countries - It is called the modular route.

Very ironic that a someone suggested post PPL flying such as cross channel flying.

There was I thinking that the whole idea of having an NPPL was to ensure that the channel remained a barrier never to be crossed because the recreational PPL could get everything they ever wanted within the limits of the UK (which is all they can fly in as an NPPL).

I agree that a GP who has known a person for 20 years can make a more informed decision regarding general health of an individual presenting thmselves for an NPPL declaration medical than an AME can for a 1 off class 1 applicant. The point I made was that the CAA clung to it's high standards for decades until money became an issue and then capitulated.

Finally, remember that many of the JAA requirements are as a result of the UK proposing the UK method of doing things. The flight test for instructors every 6 years as a minimum being a good example. How can one blame that on other European countries when some had no requirement for instructor renewal tests until the UK put it's all in. Read the PPL sylabus from JAR-FCL 1.....it is a list of paragraph headings from a well known UK flight training manual.

Isn't it ironic that the UK followed ICAO decisions for over the past 50 years and nobody complained of not being able to influence ICAO!

Why didn't the CAA implement an NPPL 30 or 40 years ago to avoid maintaining ICAO standards......could it be that the problem is not what it is made out to be? :ooh:

Regards,

DFC

nppl etc
 

Lady in Red.

By your contribution I'd take a bet that your an ex Roedean girl.

Presumably your FIC students nowadays will have passed, at the minimum, the CPL exams and probably the ATPL but by the sounds of it the physics, maths and science hasn't helped, has it.

We're looking for a way into the 21st century. going back into the 19th won't take us forward.

I understand much of what you say though and have also been appalled by the poor standard of breifing standards that I've witnessed at the two Instructor seminars so far attended.

What is happening at the testing standard that is not picking this fact up following Instructor courses? Instructing is also about presentation (which dosn't have to be Powerpoint - given that it is fantastic ) I agree.

From what you say - and it is my opinion - the faults show the inadequate nature of the current FIC training.

I'm getting a bit lost in the detail here, but....

I spend a lot of time flying, hanging around flying clubs, know a lot of people. I've lost count of the number of pilots of many hours and years experience who say they'd love to instruct, maybe part time, maybe as a career change, but can't afford the time and money for a CPL etc. These are not "just PPLs". Most of them have years of flying experience, own or have owned aircraft, have done tailwheel conversions or flown out of short strips, have entered competitions and flown round Europe. Many have taught other things and have good people/teaching skills. They know anything and everything about how aeroplanes work, how they fly, met and nav in practice rather than just from the books, how to use the radio in practice rather than just what the rules say, etc etc etc etc. They fly because they love it and would like to share that love and give something back. They'd happily do a relevant and specialised vocational FI course...but not an expensive bunch of exams that they don't need. And I'm not talking about one or two; I really do mean lots of people! Instructors don't often meet them...why would they; these guys/gals don't need instruction, apart from a biannual check ride.

We need these people! Why shouldn't they instruct? They'd be an asset to GA, to flying schools, and to new students. There's must be a way.

Whirlybird:

I feel that there IS a way in utilising this type of resource in the form of PPL mentoring. The US AOPA have a .pilot mentoring system that appears to work very well. It doesn't appear to be a replacement for intructing

nppl etc
 

Whirly bird

If we could get people like the lady in red on our side and eradicate the 'jump through a hoop' and become 'one the chaps' mentality I think she would be pleasantly surprised by the results. Mature, articulate and motivated people who are not chasing a free lunch would be attending her FIC courses, they would make her day.

But the lady in red and too many others chase the exam pundits and live with their own folly. The current FIC students are able to achieve good physics, maths and science passes at school, GCSE or A level and they have passed the CPL/ATPL exams, but it does not then follow that they are articulate or motivated and are capable of raising their eyes and talking to anyone above the listeners knee level.

The Open University has outwitted and pushed to one side the old british pompus elite attitudes, many years ago. The Open University now produce one of the most highly regarded degrees in the world. Entrance qualifications required - NIL!

I want to open the doors to more people that are not in the ques at present. I believe that as with the OU we will then induct a much more challenging, highly motorvated, articulate and mature FI back into the flying clubs.

Walkingthe walk,

What you are asking for is already available under JAR-FCL. It is called a Class Instructor Rating (CRI). The PFA coaching scheme has produced several CRIs who provide their services to PFA members.

If you have not come across the idea, the requirements for a single engine class rating instructor are;

Have 300 hours flight time of which 30 on the type or class of which 10 must be in the last 12 months.

Complete a 3 hour course at an FTO

Pass a skill test.

Experience gained can be credited towards gaining an FI rating.

The only instruction that can be given is to licence holders. But with checkouts, cross-channel work, IMC brush-up, 2 yearly dual flight, one can give something back at little expense and at the same time possible earn some money to pay the 1500 or so required to sit the CPL theory exams.

Remember there is no requirement to hold a CPL to instruct. Only the exams are requried. Shop around Europe and you may get the exams for 1000.

Regards,

DFC

DFC,

Earn money to pay for the exams! without a CPL! with my reputation.:}

That does sound like a pretty good work-around the problem with the current regulations.

Don't forget to add on approx 600 quid for the CPL exams as well as the CPL groundschool course. Oh and accomodation for the brush up courses too:ugh:

As regards to the expenditure required to get to the instructor level another possibility would be doing something similar to the FAA system i.e. training only as required and then a flight test.
I'm sure there are super/duper PPL's out there that could do the CPL test with very little or no extra training.

Personally I needed the 25 or so hours on my CPL to tidy up all the bad habits/poor instruction I had been given prior to doing the course. :{

FIS.

DFC:

Re. "...already available under JAR-FCL. It is called a Class Instructor Rating (CRI). The PFA coaching scheme has produced several CRIs ..."

But this is surely exclusive (to the PFA). Any existing CPL/FIs (unrestricted) cannot it seems be CRIs.

Sweeping statements here! So according to homeguard all FI's under 40 are worthless. Really? I don't think so somehow.

The current FI course costs around £5k ish. If we have to extend and change this, will the price be reduced? Of course not, the cost will rise ever upwards and then there will be even fewer people coming into instruction. A £2000 FI course will never happen.

As to the comments about the OU, we now have a situation where due to the number of people doing degrees, many have become worthless and having achieved a batchelors has become second rate. The OU is a great organisation (My mother is a lecturer for them) but most people do OU degrees as something to do once they have retired, they are using it for personal development, not really as something to put back into society or to teach with.

An FI is able to be a CRI, why not, you can do everything they do as a 'full' FI and a lot more.

A GP who has known an individual for many years is likely to be the best judge of a persons health, maybe, but if you are healthy then how often do you see your GP? I haven't seen mine for 4 years could he give a good account of my health?
Another problem is that with the wonderful health system we have at the moment, how long do many GP's stay in one post? In my local surgery they seem to have on locum after another and a very high throughput of GP's, would they be best to judge someones health properly in relation to aviation, especially as they are usually rushed off their feet?

You can easily do the groundschool for £1500, you'd be amazed how much you might learn! Nothing wrong with people having to do them in my eyes. If you are that keen it shouldn't be a problem. Once someone has passed the FI rating, then they should be paid even if they do still have a PPL, but to be honest the difficult part of the CPL is the ground school, so once you've passed the ground school why not just do the flight test?

Hi All

Nice to see a few more ideas being thrown into the melting pot and not just the blanket of NO’s we saw earlier.

The mentor idea is OK but the AOPA one is basically just a talking shop and any enthusiastic PPL probably does this already. It’s not a lot different to writing on here, and thus it is a very limited way of passing on your experience. You only have to look at some of the questions asked on the PPL forum. With all those varying opinions given, think how hard it is to disseminate the good from the bad advise if you are a student or fresh PPL. Now ask who they should be going to for advice on say “what’s the best way to land a taildragger in a crosswind”? IMHO, it should be someone they’ve learned to trust, someone they have flown with and learnt from already … yep! their instructor! The PFA coaching scheme is a good one but it’s almost like preaching to the converted. Yes it is a way to pass on your knowledge and I’m not knocking it, but I for one would like to have some influence earlier on in a pilots training.

Lady in Red kind of summarises what I think may be a problem with many of the integrated CPL type instructors, although I know they are not all like she describes. Experienced PPL’s must be just as “qualified” to teach as these fresh CPL/FI once an FIR course is completed? I’m not so sure about her call for educational qualifications to prove you are articulate. After all, many many non-qualified millionaires and successful business people have proved this.

Whirlybird is obviously on my wavelength … Thank God someone is!

Homeguard is at the front-end as an employer of instructors, so surely his opinion on what he’d like to see must hold some water … even if he does think I’m a woman :hmm: lol

True you don’t actually need a CPL to instruct but just getting the ground exams is prohibitively difficult now. You used to be able to study until you were confident and go take them. Now you have to do an approved course with minimum study times. Even with distance learning this means at least two fortnight college sessions and that’s not even talking about the cost. For a family man like myself with work commitments, this makes it virtually impossible. I can see you are now thinking that I can’t be that dedicated if I can’t commit to doing “just” that … but the point is, just at the moment I simply can’t … and if I could, why should I? I’m still not convinced I need to study to that depth in subjects I will very likely never need for basic instruction. I have held a licence for 15 years, flew gliders before that, built my own aeroplane and worked on many others. I would guess that I might just have a more in depth knowledge in some areas than someone who has simply completed a course of study. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way fit to instruct at the moment anyway as currency, finance ect are all stacked against me. I’d need to get back up to speed, and save up enough to do the FI course but I’d have to save for ever to add a CPL as well! However, that’s not the point … The point is, that I’d like to think that what I know isn’t dismissed as irrelevant as it seems to be by some? I’d also like to think that people like me have a chance to once again to do what they always used to, that is instruct on a PPL … even it is just to NPPL level.

To paraphrase some on here … I still haven’t seen a decent argument why not.

There’s been plenty of blah blah! About adding levels, changing the system again ect ect … but I bet if the system had to be changed to favour your opinion you’d be jumping up and down for it!

We have created (for better or worse) a National Licence with different standards. The Americans are doing similar with their “Sportsman” PPL and there are at least a couple of European countries studying our NPPL with a view to replication. At the moment it is only the “group A” class of this licence that requires (p)roffessional instructors. It would be very easy to rectify this in favour of PPL instructors just for NPPL. If this was coupled with voluntary instruction like BGA/BMAA and the use of unlicensed airfields, the take up of NPPL at group A might improve. We might then create a natural progression up from microlights and gliders to NPPL group A and then up to JAR PPL thereafter. This may even increase the number coming to you for tuition albeit as an upgrade? We might even start to see the end of bomber circuits as the microlight good airmanship takes hold ... errr sorry, I couldn't help not slipping that bit in :E

That last bit is all speculation but anything is possible … isn’t it?
:ugh:

SS