PPL or NPPL>!

[BEagle]

You may fly an aeroplane with a speed greater than 140 KIAS on a NPPL SSEA Class Rating if you receive 'differences training' with an instructor. A PFA CRI will be fine.

[Whirlybird]

If I ever stop helicopter flying and instructing, I'll go for the NPPL for my fixed wing flying. Why not? It'll save me a fortune on medicals, since I'd need a Class 2 every year. As for the great advantages of flying on the continent, this is only practical if you live in the south and/or have a very fast aircraft. From anywhere north of Birmingham, it's a long trip. I've flown to France, and to Ireland, and I might go again. But it's a once a year holiday/major expedition, and it would hardly be a big deal if I couldn't go. There's the Highlands and Islands, the Orkneys and Shetlands, Cornwall and the Scillies, and loads of other places in the UK. If I get fed up with that, I could do a tailwheel conversion, or learn to fly gliders or microlights or gyroplanes. Or take up aerobatics, if I could stop getting so sick if turned upsidedown. Or just bore holes in the sky on a local flight on a lovely day, without the need for a huge challenge...as I did last Monday.

So, you see, for some of us there would be a lifetime of aerial things to do with "only" an NPPL. But for others, that wouldn't be enough, it seems. We're all different. But how on earth can you argue about this, when it's down to personal preferences? However, don't let me stop you.

[IO540]

I'd say that the difference between an IAS (not TAS, I believe) of 140kt, and the speed of just about anything with pistons in it as seen by ATC radar and allowing for less than well known winds aloft, is not a problem

Or is it the max published cruise speed of the aircraft that's limited?