Recreational PPL possibility in NZ
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
Recreational PPL possibility in NZ
I have spent the last seven weeks on holiday in NZ and have enjoyed it immensely. A request for advice from the NZ CAA on the acceptablity of my UK National PPL resulted in rejection due to its not meeting ICAO Annex 1 requirements. I note in NZ GA magazines that there is considerable support for the introduction of a similar private, sporting and recreational licence along with a degree of frustration on how long it has taken for the CAA to progress the idea.
Any ideas as to why the NZ CAA seems to be taking years to make its mind up?
In the UK we have had the system for some 4 years and it has proved to be a huge success. For example the medical consists of an annual personal declaration of fitness endorsed by your family doctor. Cost for the signature to me is around 70NZD as opposed to around 450NZD for a Class 2 medical by a CAA appointed AME.
As I had a minor heart problem some 7 years ago I meet the medical standard needed in the UK for driving a car. I am permitted with this to fly solo or with another pilot qualified on type, day VFR, single engine piston with a cruise speed of up to 140 knots.
If I passed the lorry drivers medical standard (or passed a satisfactory stress ECG) then I could carry up to three passengers with the same limitations.
Having spoken to quite a few NZ pilots I gather that the introduction of such a licence would brng quite a number of folk who no longer meet an aviation Class 1, 2 or 3 medical standard to come back into aviation.
Any thought from forum members?
Cheers,
A frustrated Trapper 69
Any ideas as to why the NZ CAA seems to be taking years to make its mind up?
In the UK we have had the system for some 4 years and it has proved to be a huge success. For example the medical consists of an annual personal declaration of fitness endorsed by your family doctor. Cost for the signature to me is around 70NZD as opposed to around 450NZD for a Class 2 medical by a CAA appointed AME.
As I had a minor heart problem some 7 years ago I meet the medical standard needed in the UK for driving a car. I am permitted with this to fly solo or with another pilot qualified on type, day VFR, single engine piston with a cruise speed of up to 140 knots.
If I passed the lorry drivers medical standard (or passed a satisfactory stress ECG) then I could carry up to three passengers with the same limitations.
Having spoken to quite a few NZ pilots I gather that the introduction of such a licence would brng quite a number of folk who no longer meet an aviation Class 1, 2 or 3 medical standard to come back into aviation.
Any thought from forum members?
Cheers,
A frustrated Trapper 69
There is no need for the recreational PPL in New Zealand and it should not be introduced either despite what some people might say. There should not be more than one standard for the training. I am not arguing that one system is superior to an other. I am just stating that there should only be one licence for the PPL.
What is needed is another class of medical to allow people such as yourself to be able to fly with appropriate restrictions. CAA are effectively doing this now when it suits them. I know of cases where they have issued medicals with restrictions attached regarding who they can carry etc.
In fact the lower class of medical was agreed to to at a meeting held between industry and CAA several years ago. I cannot understand why they have persued the Recreational PPL.
What is needed is another class of medical to allow people such as yourself to be able to fly with appropriate restrictions. CAA are effectively doing this now when it suits them. I know of cases where they have issued medicals with restrictions attached regarding who they can carry etc.
In fact the lower class of medical was agreed to to at a meeting held between industry and CAA several years ago. I cannot understand why they have persued the Recreational PPL.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Back Paddock
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more 27/09.
And
The reason CAA have taken so long is that it IS a ****e idea (for reasons put forward by 27/09) but luckily the NZ microlight fraternity have had their puppet Rex Kenny in the CAA desparately trying to do their bidding for the past few years!
And
Any ideas as to why the NZ CAA seems to be taking years to make its mind up?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NZCH
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the NZ Restricted PPL the same as the UK NPPL?
To my understanding, both only allow you to fly no more than 25nm away from your departure aerodrome with passengers. (Like whats the point of that though!?)
To my understanding, both only allow you to fly no more than 25nm away from your departure aerodrome with passengers. (Like whats the point of that though!?)
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no need for the recreational PPL in New Zealand and it should not be introduced either despite what some people might say.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Back Paddock
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karrank-Goose Alert!
Unfortunately you're getting confused between a restricted PPL (current/exists) and a recreational pilot licence/certificate (cobblers poor idea).
The so called recreational licence would allow less medically able (and IMHO less able, less well trained and less well supervised pilots) to fly in the same airspace as Part 61 licence holders as long as an aircraft is below a certain weight.
Part 103 (microlighting rule) was originally written to cover essentially "hang-gliders with lawn mower engines," it is woefully inadequate to responsibly and safely oversee and regulate the "new breed" of microlights. Their performance is often in excess of traditional light training aircraft yet licencing and medical requirements are vastly different.
A PPL holder and a (if instated) Recreational pilot certificate holder will be flying similar aircraft in the SAME airspace with a passenger. Why does one of them need to know more than the other? Why does only one of them have to pass independent theory exams? Why does one of them have a more rigorous medical? Why does one of them have to be trained by a qualified flying instructor yet one can be 'trained by his mate' who's probably got less flying experience than the average PPL?!!! This nonsense already goes on in NZ as it is with microlights. CAA should be trying to bring microlighting up to at least the same standard as Part 61 not encourage it to continue to plod along it's current course with the instatement of this, just a trumped up regurgitation of the current microlight certificate, which is rubbish in it's own right!
Now I may be a cynic but unfortunately as we age or as events occur, one may become unfit to hold an aviation medical. That's just life! There should NOT be a differing set of criteria just because an aircraft is under a certain weight (and with Tecnams and Alpi's compared to 152's and PA-38's that weight difference is very small!) I do not agree that the risk is acceptable simply because there is only a maximum of 1 pax and the aircraft should not be flown over congested areas.
New Zealand has a recreational pilot licence-it's called a PPL!
P.S. Apologies for the length.
Unfortunately you're getting confused between a restricted PPL (current/exists) and a recreational pilot licence/certificate (cobblers poor idea).
The so called recreational licence would allow less medically able (and IMHO less able, less well trained and less well supervised pilots) to fly in the same airspace as Part 61 licence holders as long as an aircraft is below a certain weight.
Part 103 (microlighting rule) was originally written to cover essentially "hang-gliders with lawn mower engines," it is woefully inadequate to responsibly and safely oversee and regulate the "new breed" of microlights. Their performance is often in excess of traditional light training aircraft yet licencing and medical requirements are vastly different.
A PPL holder and a (if instated) Recreational pilot certificate holder will be flying similar aircraft in the SAME airspace with a passenger. Why does one of them need to know more than the other? Why does only one of them have to pass independent theory exams? Why does one of them have a more rigorous medical? Why does one of them have to be trained by a qualified flying instructor yet one can be 'trained by his mate' who's probably got less flying experience than the average PPL?!!! This nonsense already goes on in NZ as it is with microlights. CAA should be trying to bring microlighting up to at least the same standard as Part 61 not encourage it to continue to plod along it's current course with the instatement of this, just a trumped up regurgitation of the current microlight certificate, which is rubbish in it's own right!
Having spoken to quite a few NZ pilots I gather that the introduction of such a licence would brng quite a number of folk who no longer meet an aviation Class 1, 2 or 3 medical standard to come back into aviation.
New Zealand has a recreational pilot licence-it's called a PPL!
P.S. Apologies for the length.
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
Well my post brought a variety of responses as might have been expected.
In the UK our NPPL system covering single piston engine aeroplanes, microlights and self launching motor gliders has proved a success and has lowered the cost of licence acquisition considerably along with a huge reduction in medical certification costs. The previous chief medical officer at our CAA, Dr Simon Janvrin, was enormously helpful in weighing the probability of pilot incapacitation while in flight. His research has meant that there now exists a far more realistic alternative system for those who wish to fly for private, sporting and recreational purposes in the UK. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is intending to extend this across all the European Community nations.
In the USA the FAA has recently introduced the Sport Pilots Licence however, in my considered opinion and with four years experience of the UK system, it has little to commend it when compared with the NPPL in the UK.
Talking to a fair number of NZ pilots during my holiday showed that many of your conventional flying training organisations are having a hard time with fewer folk learning to fly due to cost factors.
A system similar to that in the UK could have a really beneficial effect.
Cheers from a sunny UK having just returned from our 10 week Antipodean vacation. You really do have a fabulous country from so many points of view.
Trapper 69
In the UK our NPPL system covering single piston engine aeroplanes, microlights and self launching motor gliders has proved a success and has lowered the cost of licence acquisition considerably along with a huge reduction in medical certification costs. The previous chief medical officer at our CAA, Dr Simon Janvrin, was enormously helpful in weighing the probability of pilot incapacitation while in flight. His research has meant that there now exists a far more realistic alternative system for those who wish to fly for private, sporting and recreational purposes in the UK. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is intending to extend this across all the European Community nations.
In the USA the FAA has recently introduced the Sport Pilots Licence however, in my considered opinion and with four years experience of the UK system, it has little to commend it when compared with the NPPL in the UK.
Talking to a fair number of NZ pilots during my holiday showed that many of your conventional flying training organisations are having a hard time with fewer folk learning to fly due to cost factors.
A system similar to that in the UK could have a really beneficial effect.
Cheers from a sunny UK having just returned from our 10 week Antipodean vacation. You really do have a fabulous country from so many points of view.
Trapper 69
Talking to a fair number of NZ pilots during my holiday showed that many of your conventional flying training organisations are having a hard time with fewer folk learning to fly due to cost factors.
Cost is not the issue. The cost of flight training in New Zealand has never been cheaper in terms of dollars earned per hours worked to the cost per hour of flying. Cost is used as an excuse. I don't remember the exact figures but I was told by someone who learned to fly in a Tiger Moth (circa 1950) that it cost him something like 80% of his weeks wage for an hours flying. Assume wage of only $300 per week (nearly $16,000 per year), 80% of that is $240, who is paying that $240/hour for a two seat trainer today?
There are other factors that cause some organisations to have a hard time. For example.
1. Some are very poor at customer service. They either don't attract more business or do a good job of driving busines away.
2. There more and more ways to spend the leisure dollar.
