Nppl? Safe?

[waspsad]

Im a newbie to this forum and have spent hours going through all the useful information here. I am just looking to fly recreationally so looking at the NPPL, maybe upgrade to PPL in the future if i feel like challenging myself that bit more. Of course while flying we all like to keep safe, and i was just wondering by doing the NPPL am i putting myself at more risk than if i did the PPL because i havent had as many training hours? Are there any others who went for the NPPL on here for reasons other than medical?

many thanks

[Genghis the Engineer]

The NPPL is essentially the old UK Microlight PPL extended to light aeroplanes - and as such the test standards are the same, and pretty high: just a slightly thinner syllabus and lower medical standard.

So far as I know, the standards of microlight pilots pre-NPPL was pretty much as high as the PPL(A) as was, and the standards now are indistinguishable.

So, in my opinion, an NPPL(SEP) holder is on average neither more, nor less, safe than a JAR PPL(SEP) - they can just do a little less with their licence.

G

[IO540]

they can just do a little less with their licence.

Not being able to (easily) fly abroad?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Whilst the minimum legal hours for an NPPL are lower than for a PPL I believe it's generally reckoned that most people won't get the NPPL in the minimum hours any more easily than they'll get the PPL in minimum hours. So the only real benefit is an easier medical. So I would not expect to find a vast number of people choose the NPPL for other reasons?

[IO540]

Indeed; I recall reading some numbers a year or two ago, showing that 2/3 of the NPPL applicants were PPL holders who either failed or did not wish to continue their CAA Class 2 medical.

In that respect the NPPL was a disappointment to those who wished that it would revitalise the private pilot scene.

It is obviously beneficial for the medical side alone, but whether one should do it if one can pass the Class 2 medical is a good question.

A more cynical view is that the NPPL was pushed by the flight training industry who wanted a lower priced product on their training price list. This was achieved but for a given level of competence it won't cost any less. Very very few pilots do the PPL in the 45 hours minimum; those that do are either very young or have been benefitting from unlogged flying with mates etc.

[Big Pistons Forever]

We had the same outcome in canada with the introduction of the Recreational Pilots license. Virtually everybody that started the RPP ended up continuing on to a full PPL. I think the PPL skill level is the lowest realistic standard of pilot competance and to think it can somehow be achieved in less hours through some other training scheme is simply wishfull thinking. I think the terrible accident rate for French Brevet de Pilot holders is an example of the fact that there is a irreducable minimum level of flying training required to make a safe pilot out the average person.

[tangovictor]

I hold the nppl m, and fly a fast 3 axis composite microlight,
the only difference I can make out re training is, I was never taught nav aids
also the two nav exercises required are two leg, rather than three with the full ppl.
I would imagine most people have different reasons to go for either, my thoughts were, I don't wish to earn a living flying, I don't want to fly at night or by instruments, so it seemed a logical route to take, for me !
" oh you can fly all over europe in a microlight with the nppl m "
I believe the nppl sep version, permision needs to be sought.

[BroomstickPilot]

NPPL

I thoroughly agree with Gertrude and IO540.

So far as I am concerned, unless you really need the lower medical standard of the NPPL, it is otherwise a waste of money. You are much better advised to spend just a little extra and get the full PPL.

I also agree with Big Pistons regarding the French Brevet de Bas. If EASA should eventually decide to foist upon us a euro-ised version of this grossly inadequate 'qualification', then don't touch it with a barge pole.

Broomstick.

[BEagle]

One of the original ideas behind the NPPL (SSEA) was that an applicant could get his/her NPPL one year, then enjoy flying with or without passengers for a while, before coming back to do the 'top-up' training for the JAR-FCL PPL(A) later.

This doesn't seem to have happened. Of course the training schools make more money out of a JAR-FCL PPL(A) student, so aren't too keen on promoting the NPPL(SSEA).

Industry told us they wanted the NPPL and we've delivered it. The fact that industry hasn't done much to sell it is the problem. Also ORS4 no. 711 (now no. 756) was launched without any RIA, so NPLG is losing revenue to SEP pilots able to use these exemptions with their UK-issued pilot licences who would otherwise have needed a NPPL(SSEA).

At least the NPPL is a far better and more flexible licensing concept than the ridiculous LPL proposed under NPA17b. The CAA are going to have such fun sorting out how to deal with that, should it ever happen.....

[englishal]

Unfortunately JAR doesn't make very good allowances to "top up" anything.

Having reduced minimums is a false economy because one has to actually be able to fly and land an aeroplane, which to learn to do in under 45 hrs would be exceedingly difficult, or you'd have to have previous flying experience.

[BEagle]

Well, I drafted the top-up requirements, the CAA agreed that they met JAR-FCL requirements and they were later published in LASORS.

NPPL(SSEA) to JAR-FCL PPL(A) top-up requirements have stood the test of time unchanged for quite a few years now - but again, it is clear that very few flying schools are aware of the requirements. It seems that either it's all too difficult for them, or they can't be bothered to market any top-up training.

[Bla Bla Bla]

IO540,

I managed a ppl in 45hrs 5 mins at the time I was 27 and I did it over eight months with no other flying. I then passed my cpl just 10 mins over the minimum a few years later.

It can be done but as you say it is not for everyone, sorry for the thread creep.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What it does offer is the ability for microlight or motorglider pilots to switch to light aircraft without doing stacks of extra exams and hours. That surely is a major benefit.

G

[TrueFlyer]

What do you have to do to convert from a microlight to a sep licence re hrs and exams

[BEagle]

It depends upon what you mean by 'a sep licence'.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm pretty certain that our chap means NPPL(M) --> NPPL(SEP)?

Anyhow, the answer is at page 2 of this document.

G

[bingofuel]

I would suggest that whether you train to NPPL syllabus or PPL syllabus, the biggest factor in lessening the risk when flying is YOU.
Both licences mean you have achieved, and been examined to a minimum standard.

It is up to you to then build on that standard and fly in a safe and sensible manner. As pilots we never stop learning.
Just because you hold a particular licecnce does not mean that you will be any safer, it is more to do with your 'airmanship' qualities.

Whatever you choose enjoy it.

[J.A.F.O.]

I would turn the question that many above have asked on its head; if you have no wish to fly more than 3 pax, IMC or overseas then why would you go for the PPL?

The money you save on the medical pays for your biannual.

The NPPL is a lifetime licence.

You can easily add-on SLMG and/or microlight ratings.

You don't have to write a cheque to the CAA every few years.

If you're a day VFR pilot who is happy to fly in the UK only (or fly micolights abroad or ask for permission which seems to be fairly routinely granted) then why would you want to spend more money keeping your licence valid?

It may be small change to many but if you're in a group or flying a cheapish permit aircraft it can actually make a difference.

I'm all for the NPPL and I think it's a shame that the take-up hasn't been far wider than has so far been the case.

[pulse1]

It may be small change to many but if you're in a group or flying a cheapish permit aircraft it can actually make a difference.

Absolutely true and I wonder how many pilots, who would have given up by now, are still flying thanks to the NPPL. For me, a PPL medical costs about 2 hours flying not to mention the stress about passing it.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Also ORS4 no. 711 (now no. 756) was launched without any RIA, so NPLG is losing revenue to SEP pilots able to use these exemptions with their UK-issued pilot licences who would otherwise have needed a NPPL(SSEA).

That's an interesting take on it - I had wondered what the RIA had to say about the potential for lots of PPL AMEs going out of business, but if there was no RIA that answers my question!