Anybody got NPPL?

[mad_bear]

I'm sorry that this is a sort of variation of a question I asked last week, but I didn't get much of a response, probably because I didn't word it very well.

I am interested in knowing how many people have actually gone for the NPPL, rather than follow the the longer and more expensive JAR-FCL PPL route. What reasons were there for doing this?

[charliegolf]

I have.

Reason was that I started with microlights, and NPPL is the only ab initio route these days, I believe. With that licence rating (or endorsement), I went on to SSEA (SEP in old money) in about 14 hours, and the crossover was very easy.

I also knew that the move to JAR would be equally straightforward if I choose to do it in the future, subject to medicals, and some more tuition and testing.

CG

[DRJAD]

I gained an NPPL, but then almost immediately gained a JAR-PPL.

[tangovictor]

Im training for my nppl m, I may continue after to the sep, version, another 5 hours or so, + exams again !
my reason for not going along the ppl route, apart from the Medical, is, I very much doubt I would ever want instrument or night flying, and I would, probably purchase a rotax engined airplane, 450kg mtow for a microlight or
heavier if I go on to sep, ( or whatever its called now )
Therefore I see no reason to spend a fortune going the ppl route

[Rod1]

The PFA (and others) are working with EASA on an EPPL which will be based on our NPPL but will have Europe wide acceptance. The time frame for this is two years ish and if it comes in as expected I will switch to it from my CAA PPL as the cost of ownership will be much less.

Rod1

[J.A.F.O.]

Originally Posted by mad_bear

the longer and more expensive JAR-FCL PPL route

I don't think you'll find that the NPPL is much shorter or less expensive to get than the JAR PPL.

I do, however, have one, it's just that bit easier on the pocket - the bi-annual with an instructor is paid for by the money I don't spend on a medical and it's like my old proper PPL - it's for life or until you get found out.

[tangovictor]

Originally Posted by J.A.F.O.

I don't think you'll find that the NPPL is much shorter or less expensive to get than the JAR PPL.
I do, however, have one, it's just that bit easier on the pocket - the bi-annual with an instructor is paid for by the money I don't spend on a medical and it's like my old proper PPL - it's for life or until you get found out.

the nppl m is considerably cheaper than ppl, and once passed the hire of a fixed wing u/l or associated running costs should you purchase a machine, say a Eurostar etc, is less than half , check it out,

[pheeel]

i have a NZ PPL and converted to a NPPL (SLMG) as i have less than 100 hours so would have to do all the exams again (you don't for the NPPL-just human perf, air law and RT stuff). Plus i got all my conversion training and skills test at no charge except the hire of the aircraft! thanks to all those who helped!

...now just to wait for that darn paper-work to get back so i can go flying!

[IO540]

I have to get my usual bit in here

Even if many pilots don't realise this at the time, one of the great attractions of flying is to be able to fly abroad, and to do so in far less time than it would take to drive. Flying abroad is a great pleasure and is usually far easier than flying in the UK; for a start you get away from the machine-gun-speed ATC speak. You can fly all the way across France and not see another plane.

Can't do that on the NPPL.

Most PPL-level flying in the UK is done on routes which one could drive in a comparable time. And what percentage of PPL holders give up before the first renewal?

[mad_bear]

Originally Posted by tangovictor

the nppl m is considerably cheaper than ppl, and once passed the hire of a fixed wing u/l or associated running costs should you purchase a machine, say a Eurostar etc, is less than half , check it out,

I can see why the NPPL would appeal to microlight pilots. For fixed-wing flying, however, it seems to me that there are only cost savings to be made if

(a) you qualify in close to the minimum 32 hours, or
(b) you fly fewer than 12 hours per year post-qualification

Otherwise I would think that the costs are quite similar, aren't they? I appreciate that the NPPL does not require regular medical examinations, but compared to air-time I would think that an JAR Class-2 medical is not that expensive.

It also confuses me enormously that, according to the NPPL web site, NPPL holders can upgrade to JAR-FCL PPL with a credit of 30 hours. Suppose it takes (say) 40 hours to get to NPPL qualifying standard, what happens to the 10 `surplus' hours? The letter of the law seems to suggest that a person who has flown 40 hours and has an NPPL will have to fly _more_ to qualify for the JAR-FCL PPL than a person who has no licence! Is this just one of those the-law-is-an-ass situations?

I am nowhere near being able to qualify for either licence, but I'd like to make sure that I don't make a decision to commits me to one or the other without fully understanding the implications.

[tangovictor]

Originally Posted by IO540

I have to get my usual bit in here

Even if many pilots don't realise this at the time, one of the great attractions of flying is to be able to fly abroad, and to do so in far less time than it would take to drive. Flying abroad is a great pleasure and is usually far easier than flying in the UK; for a start you get away from the machine-gun-speed ATC speak. You can fly all the way across France and not see another plane.

Can't do that on the NPPL.

Most PPL-level flying in the UK is done on routes which one could drive in a comparable time. And what percentage of PPL holders give up before the first renewal?

sorry to disagree, however you can fly to Europe with nppl m, & most fixed wing microlights, can compare speed wise with grp a, types, for less than half the running costs.
nppl sep, true as of yet its UK air space only, a nonsense I agree
same airplane, say Eurostar EV97, under 450 no probs to Europe
if its over 450, grp a , no you can't fly it to Europe !
hopefully the CAA will see sense soon, and alter this ??? some say its going to take another 2 yrs, why ?

[J.A.F.O.]

Originally Posted by tangovictor

the nppl m is considerably cheaper than ppl, and once passed the hire of a fixed wing u/l or associated running costs should you purchase a machine, say a Eurostar etc, is less than half , check it out,

You know what, I just might.

[rogcal]

Just wait until you become old and frail (not that I am) and then you will find out the benefits of the NPPL.

No medical as such just your doctor's sig on the medical declaration at whatever charge he cares to make (a bottle of scotch in my case) and the ability to continue to fly even when you have health problems which would keep you grounded with any other licence.

For example, at the beginning of this year I had an angina scare and had all the tests (angiogram etc) done over a 4 week period which resulted in my getting the all clear. During that period, I could still legally fly (without passengers) and after being given the all clear I was back to flying as normal and no restrictions.

Even if I'd been diagnosed with angina, I'd still be flying with the passenger restriction but at least I'd be flying!

That's what I like about the NPPL.

[mad_bear]

I can see that the medical requirements are less stringent, and obviously that's going to suit some people.

But my real concern is with cost. I can't fly microlights, etc., because I'm too tall and too heavy, at least for anything that flys in my area. So if you want (or must) fly fixed-wing aircraft, are the cost savings with NPPL (if any) sufficient to outweight the limitations?

[IO540]

are the cost savings with NPPL (if any) sufficient to outweight the limitations

That must be entirely subjective.

I would say that cost savings are going to be minimal if one is to achieve a comparable degree of currency and competence.

The biggest incentive (in terms of # of pilots who have done the NPPL) appears to be the medical. According to press reports, about 2/3 are previous PPL holders who fail their CAA Class 2 medical. In that respect the NPPL is a good thing, because IMHO the aviation medical requirements are way over the top.

The way to achieve long term cost savings in this game is to fly something which is cheap to operate, which means fuel economy, pilot maintenance, ability to install non-certified parts, ability to use a friendly trusted and competent freelance engineer to do (or help you do) maintenance.

The cost of the initial training and the license maintenance is not significant in the great scheme of things, unless one is flying very few hours.

[BEagle]

Taxying in at the delightful Wellesbourne Mountford the other day, we were instructed to 'park next to the microlight'. We searched in vain for the expected device, assuming that it was the usual type of microlight which looks like the product of an illicit affaire between a tent and a strimmer...

The FISO then said "Between the bollards on your right" - and we saw a very gucci little low wing aeroplane into which 2 people were strapping themselves in! One of the latest technology types, I think it was a Eurostar?

Those of us who fly 30 year old Spamcans fitted with combine harvester engines of the 1950s would do well to look at the new breeds of microlight, such as these. Although you do need to look carefully at the available load....

Why not contact the BMAA for advice? Several of their members are of less than racing snake dimensions, so they might be able to suggest a suitable aircraft for you?

[bar shaker]

Sky Rangers have just had their seat loading increased, although I forget the exact figure. It's something over 100kg though.

They are a very capable microlight and can be picked up for around £20k with a Rotax 912. Running costs around £15ph wet and performance comparable to/slightly better than a C152.

I saw a Samba at the weekend. Its just a bit too heavy to make the UK microlight register at the moment and the one I saw was on the Irish microlight register. What a stunning looking aircraft.

http://www.wingtrack.com/samba.html

[S205-18F]

Hi I have an NPPL and so far it has not stopped me doing what I want to do which is fly. I have a slightly more COMPLEX aircraft with 4 seats, wobbly prop. and 180 hp and managed my differences training for it. I have no desire to fly at night but Europe was a different matter! IO540, your comment about not being able to fly in Europe on an NPPL is not completely correct! You can, with the permission of the competant authority of the country, fly in their airspace. I have just secured that from the French CAA and I believe there is a blanket acceptance of the NPPL(M) throughout Europe!I have been in contact with a very nice French lady who has helped me through the proccess.
The medical to me is the killer due to me having white coat syndrome! B.P. goes sky high on approach to doctors ok any other time!

[VectorLine]

Originally Posted by rogcal

I had an angina scare and had all the tests (angiogram etc) done over a 4 week period which resulted in my getting the all clear. During that period, I could still legally fly (without passengers) and after being given the all clear I was back to flying as normal and no restrictions.
Even if I'd been diagnosed with angina, I'd still be flying with the passenger restriction but at least I'd be flying!
That's what I like about the NPPL.

That's very irresponsible. I wouldn't even fly with a cold or stomach upset, never mind angina!

It's people who fly while unwell who are likely to come down on top of my house or fly through the climb out and whack another a/c .

[J.A.F.O.]

S205-18F

Just to clear something up - are you saying that you've got permission to fly to France on an NPPL (SSEA)?