PPL or NPPL>!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cumbernauld
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys I must add my view to this topic. I have just completed my NPPL and so far have not found the so called restrictions a problem! I love flying and have bought into a share of an aircraft and when I complete my differences training I can fly the plane on my own. The main reason for going the NPPL route was mainly the medical along with the number of hours to maintain the validity of the PPL, less for NPPL. I have no intention of flying in cloud probably wont go to Europe although I am under the impression that a recreational license similar to ours is in the pipeline and hopefully be reciprical. Basically I am a fair weather flyer, as it would appear a big percentage of UK GA flyers are, and the NPPL allows me to do what I want in flying. I dont have a problem with the them and us mentality of some of the PPL fraternity and as I have said the NPPL allows me to do what I want thats the bottom line.
John.
John.
In my opinion the main reasons for low take-up of the NPPL are:
1 - Commercial aspirations - obviously of no use there
2 - Misunderstanding of the NPPL - plenty of evidence of that
I have an NPPL, I've also had a PPL(A) - old-fashioned CAA type - my reason for taking up the NPPL was not medical it was the fact that it allowed me to do all I wanted to do with the least possible hassle. I've not changed my mind, yet.
1 - Commercial aspirations - obviously of no use there
2 - Misunderstanding of the NPPL - plenty of evidence of that
I have an NPPL, I've also had a PPL(A) - old-fashioned CAA type - my reason for taking up the NPPL was not medical it was the fact that it allowed me to do all I wanted to do with the least possible hassle. I've not changed my mind, yet.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Permit aircraft offering much cheaper flying than certified aircraft, but you can fly both on a PPL, and get much better privileges.
The NPPL is restricted to daytime VFR in the UK. There is the possibility of a similar European RPPL, which will remove the restriction on UK only and replace it with Europe only.
So there are no “big advantages” to flying a PFA type on a full PPL over an NPPL.
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is the possibility of a similar European RPPL, which will remove the restriction on UK only and replace it with Europe only.
I am still looking for a straight summary of the savings on the ongoing costs of keeping the NPPL versus the ongoing costs of keeping a PPL. Assuming a similar aircraft and thus the need for similar currency.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi John!
One thing about the 6 hours a year for the NPPL, is that it is no less over 2 years than a 'normal' PPL. Since you need to do 12.
So there is really no saving if you are only going to fly the absolute minimum hours, and let's face it, if you are only flying the bare minimum, you are hardly going to be a complete genius in the air anyway!
The more you fly, generally the better and safer you become.
One thing about the 6 hours a year for the NPPL, is that it is no less over 2 years than a 'normal' PPL. Since you need to do 12.
So there is really no saving if you are only going to fly the absolute minimum hours, and let's face it, if you are only flying the bare minimum, you are hardly going to be a complete genius in the air anyway!
The more you fly, generally the better and safer you become.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cumbernauld
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that to fly only the minimum is not very good but if circumstances change and you cant afford to fly it makes it a little easier! That said I intend to fly alot more and so far in the past 20 months I have flown 80 plus hours. I plan to hit the 100 within 24 months if this infernal weather will let me!!!
John.
John.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree totally with what IO540 says. The only people I would recomend to get an NPPL are those that can't pass the JAA medical.
If one wants to remove the UK only limitation from an NPPL then start flying Microlights - some cruise at 140Kt these days and that is a nice speed to take someone across to France!
Everyone who thinks that the NPPL hours are automatically accepted for the JAA-PPL are correct - for the time being. There are moves to have NPPL instructors. When this happens, there will not be the automatic transfer of hours unless the instructor used was a JAA qualified instructor and the JAA sylabus was followed and the training establishment was registered for JAA trainig.
The training hours for the NPPL are less than the PPL - they simply got the PPL sylabus and reduced many of the lessons from 1 hour to 45 minutes. One still has to learn the same exercise so guess how long it is going to take you? - Yes you guessed it - 1hr 15min+
When the JARs arrived, the established UK schools claimed that JAR flying was far more expensive than CAA flying. Thus they hiked up their prices. Of course European and US flying prices remained the same post JAR and the UK schools needed a way of backtracking on price while at the same time saving face.
The result they came up with was the NPPL - they got to advertise lower prices while still charging the inflated prices.
Regards,
DFC
If one wants to remove the UK only limitation from an NPPL then start flying Microlights - some cruise at 140Kt these days and that is a nice speed to take someone across to France!
Everyone who thinks that the NPPL hours are automatically accepted for the JAA-PPL are correct - for the time being. There are moves to have NPPL instructors. When this happens, there will not be the automatic transfer of hours unless the instructor used was a JAA qualified instructor and the JAA sylabus was followed and the training establishment was registered for JAA trainig.
The training hours for the NPPL are less than the PPL - they simply got the PPL sylabus and reduced many of the lessons from 1 hour to 45 minutes. One still has to learn the same exercise so guess how long it is going to take you? - Yes you guessed it - 1hr 15min+
When the JARs arrived, the established UK schools claimed that JAR flying was far more expensive than CAA flying. Thus they hiked up their prices. Of course European and US flying prices remained the same post JAR and the UK schools needed a way of backtracking on price while at the same time saving face.
The result they came up with was the NPPL - they got to advertise lower prices while still charging the inflated prices.
Regards,
DFC
Why can't people see that it's just horses for courses. Come on, anyone who is able to get a licence - of whichever type - is capable of weighing up the pros and cons and deciding what's best for them.
If you don't actually want any privileges beyond the NPPL then why not choose that?
If you want something more, then don't.
It ain't difficult.
If you don't actually want any privileges beyond the NPPL then why not choose that?
If you want something more, then don't.
It ain't difficult.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAFO
The problem is that you are wrong.
Most people entering flight training haven't got a clue as to the details of privileges etc. I certainly didn't, and I am not completely stupid. There is zero commercial incentive on the part of a training establishment to make what one might call a full disclosure.
The GA training industry also contains far more than its fair share of less than straight people.
If every punter who walks through the door was sat down and asked when sort of flying (if indeed they know at that stage) they want to do, and had the full costs presented at that stage, and was informed as so the available aircraft options, a lot of them would walk straight out.
In reality, a lot of people get a PPL and then they start learning. Not so much (as the saying goes) using their license to learn to fly, but learning how to get their hands on a plane which isn't falling to bits, etc. I started looking for a share to buy very early after starting flight training, because it was really really obvious that would be the only way to continue flying at that particular airport. But instructors did their best to discourage me.
So I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing this.
The problem is that you are wrong.
Most people entering flight training haven't got a clue as to the details of privileges etc. I certainly didn't, and I am not completely stupid. There is zero commercial incentive on the part of a training establishment to make what one might call a full disclosure.
The GA training industry also contains far more than its fair share of less than straight people.
If every punter who walks through the door was sat down and asked when sort of flying (if indeed they know at that stage) they want to do, and had the full costs presented at that stage, and was informed as so the available aircraft options, a lot of them would walk straight out.
In reality, a lot of people get a PPL and then they start learning. Not so much (as the saying goes) using their license to learn to fly, but learning how to get their hands on a plane which isn't falling to bits, etc. I started looking for a share to buy very early after starting flight training, because it was really really obvious that would be the only way to continue flying at that particular airport. But instructors did their best to discourage me.
So I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing this.
Last edited by IO540; 4th Dec 2005 at 08:29.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cumbernauld
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to disagree as to the type and cost of training! The NPPL course is the same as the JAR PPL up to the point of instrument flying where in the NPPL it is instrument appreciation and consists of 1 hour also we get to do a shorter XC qualifier 120nm as opposed to 150nm and we also get to do the GFT in 2 parts, which I thought would be easier till it was pointed out that it meant I had to repeat all the ground work planning walk round etc.I supose this made the chance of errors and hence failure a little bit greater. As was pointed out it is horses for courses and so far I am still happy with my choice.
As a foot note IO540 I was fully aware of the differences in privileges before I went to speak to the flying school!
As a foot note IO540 I was fully aware of the differences in privileges before I went to speak to the flying school!
Last edited by S205-18F; 4th Dec 2005 at 10:32.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main difference between the NPPL syllabus and the current “full” PPL one is the radio nav has been taken out. Those of us with CAA PPL (A) licences did not do this anyway.
IO540 is quite right when he says things take years. The PFA aspiration for the NPPL was to have a grass roots recreational licence. Training would take place on permit aircraft (in place now) using the existing PFA coaching scheme, on a non-commercial basis, from unlicensed, but “approved” strips. The theory exams would be changed to reflect the “recreational” nature of the licence. In essence, you would have non-professional enthusiasts, teaching other enthusiasts; in much the same way as the inspector system works for building a permit aircraft, or the BGA train pilots now. Work is still continuing on several aspects of the above, but progress is slow. The “full” PPL would stay for those of us who want to go the professional route or fly aircraft >2000kg.
EASA is actively investigating an RPPL, which is currently based on our NPPL. This will obviously have an impact on the original PFA view and I am not up to date on this aspect. The original idea, if fully implemented, would have slashed the cost of a recreational licence and vastly increased the number of pilots.
I do take issue with the “most pilots do not know if they want to fly commercially or not”. Obviously there are exceptions, but I think most people who start flying for fun, stay flying for fun. Such people are probably too far down their chosen career path to want to start over. I started off building control line models at 11 years old, but I never aspired to professional aviation and will ditch my current “full” PPL for an NPPL if the UK only restriction is lifted.
Rod1
IO540 is quite right when he says things take years. The PFA aspiration for the NPPL was to have a grass roots recreational licence. Training would take place on permit aircraft (in place now) using the existing PFA coaching scheme, on a non-commercial basis, from unlicensed, but “approved” strips. The theory exams would be changed to reflect the “recreational” nature of the licence. In essence, you would have non-professional enthusiasts, teaching other enthusiasts; in much the same way as the inspector system works for building a permit aircraft, or the BGA train pilots now. Work is still continuing on several aspects of the above, but progress is slow. The “full” PPL would stay for those of us who want to go the professional route or fly aircraft >2000kg.
EASA is actively investigating an RPPL, which is currently based on our NPPL. This will obviously have an impact on the original PFA view and I am not up to date on this aspect. The original idea, if fully implemented, would have slashed the cost of a recreational licence and vastly increased the number of pilots.
I do take issue with the “most pilots do not know if they want to fly commercially or not”. Obviously there are exceptions, but I think most people who start flying for fun, stay flying for fun. Such people are probably too far down their chosen career path to want to start over. I started off building control line models at 11 years old, but I never aspired to professional aviation and will ditch my current “full” PPL for an NPPL if the UK only restriction is lifted.
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall that the NPPL take up was mainly due to medicals - either that someone could no longer get a class 3 or couldn't get a class 2.
In my experience people are not saving much on the hours as they end up doing pretty much the same as everone doing the straight PPL anyway.
The one big advantage is that the NPPL training can be done from airfields that would normally not be approved for ab initio PPL training - e.g, BGA approved sites, reducing the costs for operating there by not having to have fire cover. Of course there is the opportunity to upgrade to a PPL out of the NPPL relatively simply as long as one can get the Class 2.
Why we cannot have the class 3 back beats me - the FAA has thousands and thousands of pilots with class 3's and they can fly IR, instruct and do many other types of flying with only a class 3 safely!
In my experience people are not saving much on the hours as they end up doing pretty much the same as everone doing the straight PPL anyway.
The one big advantage is that the NPPL training can be done from airfields that would normally not be approved for ab initio PPL training - e.g, BGA approved sites, reducing the costs for operating there by not having to have fire cover. Of course there is the opportunity to upgrade to a PPL out of the NPPL relatively simply as long as one can get the Class 2.
Why we cannot have the class 3 back beats me - the FAA has thousands and thousands of pilots with class 3's and they can fly IR, instruct and do many other types of flying with only a class 3 safely!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long since there was a CAA Class 3?
An FAA CFI or CFII cannot instruct with a FAA Class 3 medical if the flight requires him to be PIC.
This may seem odd because an instructor in a G-reg is automatically PIC even if the PUT would be legal on the flight if flying solo, but the FAA quite reasonably allows it, and with U.S. Class A starting at 18000ft it is quite feasible to do the FAA IR 250nm x/c flight under ATS direction without going into Class A. Whereas any such training in Europe (esp. in the UK) makes Class A practically unavoidable so the CFII needs a Class 1 or 2 medical.
An FAA CFI or CFII cannot instruct with a FAA Class 3 medical if the flight requires him to be PIC.
This may seem odd because an instructor in a G-reg is automatically PIC even if the PUT would be legal on the flight if flying solo, but the FAA quite reasonably allows it, and with U.S. Class A starting at 18000ft it is quite feasible to do the FAA IR 250nm x/c flight under ATS direction without going into Class A. Whereas any such training in Europe (esp. in the UK) makes Class A practically unavoidable so the CFII needs a Class 1 or 2 medical.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a Class 3 FAA and I instruct at a Part 141 school. In fact a FAA Inspector told me never to get a medical of a class higher than you needed. A FAA CFI doesn't even need a medical to instruct as long as the student has one and is qualified on the aircraft. Nonetheless one can instruct ab initio with a class 3. Trust me I know! Oh yes and one can be a Pilot Examiner too with a Class 3.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, as somebody posted, it is a 'horses for courses' thing.
I'm learning to fly at the moment, and I've elected for the JAR course.
I only intend to be recreational, 'too far down current career' to make ATPL an economic proposal.
My reasons for JAR is that I may want to fly abroad. Would love eg, to be able to hire, say, in Mallorca, and do a return trip down the Spanish coast as far as Gibraltar (refuelling stops appreciated!).
But that's just what I feel I may one day want to do. For the people who just want to fly in UK - good luck to you. That's what you want to do - what's the problem?
I can also appreciate the medical aspect. Better to fly in the UK on the lower NPPL requirement than not fly at all.
Financially, not much difference to me. Only 5 hrs more for JAR - and that's only if you qualify in the minimum time - so, no real difference. And you get some radio-nav training (JAR-PPL) thrown in on the deal.
An RPPL, as mentioned, would probably do for Europe. But will it allow addition of IMC and night ratings? Does the NPPL?
Better for me I think to do JAR PPL, then IMC and Night, and then Europe might one day recognise the IMC/Night as being valid throughout Europe. Maybe pigs will fly, but surely the same Euro pigs will have to take off before the NPPL becomes a RPPL?
Now, Euro recognition of IMC/Night would impart REAL freedom to a JAR PPL to fly to/from/within Europe on a private licence IMHO.
Just my thoughts
I'm learning to fly at the moment, and I've elected for the JAR course.
I only intend to be recreational, 'too far down current career' to make ATPL an economic proposal.
My reasons for JAR is that I may want to fly abroad. Would love eg, to be able to hire, say, in Mallorca, and do a return trip down the Spanish coast as far as Gibraltar (refuelling stops appreciated!).
But that's just what I feel I may one day want to do. For the people who just want to fly in UK - good luck to you. That's what you want to do - what's the problem?
I can also appreciate the medical aspect. Better to fly in the UK on the lower NPPL requirement than not fly at all.
Financially, not much difference to me. Only 5 hrs more for JAR - and that's only if you qualify in the minimum time - so, no real difference. And you get some radio-nav training (JAR-PPL) thrown in on the deal.
An RPPL, as mentioned, would probably do for Europe. But will it allow addition of IMC and night ratings? Does the NPPL?
Better for me I think to do JAR PPL, then IMC and Night, and then Europe might one day recognise the IMC/Night as being valid throughout Europe. Maybe pigs will fly, but surely the same Euro pigs will have to take off before the NPPL becomes a RPPL?
Now, Euro recognition of IMC/Night would impart REAL freedom to a JAR PPL to fly to/from/within Europe on a private licence IMHO.
Just my thoughts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is close to zero chance of Europe recognising the UK IMC Rating.
There is some work on reducing the theory content of the JAA IR for PPL candidates (being done because nearly all private IR pilots are going the FAA route) but even that is dragging along very slowly.
However, if you have plenty of time on your hands, and can otherwise navigate fully IFR, you can get around Europe well enough under VFR rules.
There is some work on reducing the theory content of the JAA IR for PPL candidates (being done because nearly all private IR pilots are going the FAA route) but even that is dragging along very slowly.
However, if you have plenty of time on your hands, and can otherwise navigate fully IFR, you can get around Europe well enough under VFR rules.
pneumono
ultramicroscopic
silicovolcano
coniosis
ultramicroscopic
silicovolcano
coniosis
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got an NPPL a couple of years ago.
It was perfect for what I required.
Couldn't afford to do a PPL.
I'm an experienced glider pilot and instructor and my qualifications and hours counted towards reducing the number of hours required to obtaining the NPPL.
I had to fly ten hours to do it!
I happen to be a pilot with apptitude, awareness and ability and it was a breeze and all well within budget.
I now have a share in a smashing RF4 and couldn't be happier.
Cheap flying and aerobatics as well.
For some situations it's the perfect solution.
It was perfect for what I required.
Couldn't afford to do a PPL.
I'm an experienced glider pilot and instructor and my qualifications and hours counted towards reducing the number of hours required to obtaining the NPPL.
I had to fly ten hours to do it!
I happen to be a pilot with apptitude, awareness and ability and it was a breeze and all well within budget.
I now have a share in a smashing RF4 and couldn't be happier.
Cheap flying and aerobatics as well.
For some situations it's the perfect solution.
Sellby_date Expired
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: East Anglia
Age: 83
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question re this 'difference' PPL/NPPL is the 140 knots limit. I can understand the IMC/VFR difference, but I fail to see why a NPPL pilot should be considered 'unfit' to fly above 140 kts. Perhaps someone could give a rational explanation for this, apart from the blanket statement 'That's what the CAA say'
This may be ok for the C152 types, but a lot of home built machines are faster than this. The Cozy for example is quite capable of almost 200!
This may be ok for the C152 types, but a lot of home built machines are faster than this. The Cozy for example is quite capable of almost 200!