NATIONAL PPL PROGRESS
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is required (amongst other things) to have CPL level knowledge to have an FI rating under JAR regulations.
Therefore the only pilots (in general) wanting to instruct on an NPPL are those unable to gain a class 1 Medical
Can anyone else suggest a good reason other than medical limitations to have the NPPL FI?
Considering that many student pilot's require more than the 45 hour minimum to pass the skills test, why would anyone want a licence that doesn't allow them to go out of UK airspace?
I'm all confused.....
WP
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Wibbly P ]
Therefore the only pilots (in general) wanting to instruct on an NPPL are those unable to gain a class 1 Medical
Can anyone else suggest a good reason other than medical limitations to have the NPPL FI?
Considering that many student pilot's require more than the 45 hour minimum to pass the skills test, why would anyone want a licence that doesn't allow them to go out of UK airspace?
I'm all confused.....
WP
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Wibbly P ]
Gash,
In the gliding world, the bloke/gal who cuts the grass goes flying the tug after work. They don't have a commercial licence and are paid to cut the grass.
Maybe you could take a similar approach here. Be an Ops bloke and after work go instructing.
Better still get a well paid job and go instructing unpaid (at a not for profit club!) in your time off. That's what I did until I got my 700 hours and CPL. I can now (and do) claim my expenses like the rest of the FIs.
Have you thought about an FAA medical and instructing on N reg aircraft?
Vigi
ps. Whatever you end up doing, check out the legallity of it with the CAA. It would be a shame to lose your PPL over a few quids.
In the gliding world, the bloke/gal who cuts the grass goes flying the tug after work. They don't have a commercial licence and are paid to cut the grass.
Maybe you could take a similar approach here. Be an Ops bloke and after work go instructing.
Better still get a well paid job and go instructing unpaid (at a not for profit club!) in your time off. That's what I did until I got my 700 hours and CPL. I can now (and do) claim my expenses like the rest of the FIs.
Have you thought about an FAA medical and instructing on N reg aircraft?
Vigi
ps. Whatever you end up doing, check out the legallity of it with the CAA. It would be a shame to lose your PPL over a few quids.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cash Handlin
I think the CAA Class 2 medical is still available, it was last year when I took mine. If it is this is a commercial medical but I am not certain if you can then instruct or still would need a Class 1. I am sure I will be corrected or it may be worth a call to FCL Gatwick.
So in short to instruct unpaid I think it is correct to say you would need to pass the CAA CPL exams or the new JAR equivalents (the last CAA sitting I gather is in November), and gain a FI rating, and add a class 1 or possibilty CAA class 2 medical.
Add the CPL rating by completing the course and you can be paid.
Please could someone tell me why in the future potential instructions will wish to invest I guess £25,000 at least to gain an instructors rating, particulaly if this is not a stepping stone to a commercial appointment?
Please could someone also tell me why on earth a FI rating cannot comprise and all encompassing course at a realistic cost to enable flight training to be given on light singles. This is surely what the FI instructors rating for the NPPL should comprise. Why potential pilots should want to take a rating restricted to use in UK airspace is altogether another question!
I think the CAA Class 2 medical is still available, it was last year when I took mine. If it is this is a commercial medical but I am not certain if you can then instruct or still would need a Class 1. I am sure I will be corrected or it may be worth a call to FCL Gatwick.
So in short to instruct unpaid I think it is correct to say you would need to pass the CAA CPL exams or the new JAR equivalents (the last CAA sitting I gather is in November), and gain a FI rating, and add a class 1 or possibilty CAA class 2 medical.
Add the CPL rating by completing the course and you can be paid.
Please could someone tell me why in the future potential instructions will wish to invest I guess £25,000 at least to gain an instructors rating, particulaly if this is not a stepping stone to a commercial appointment?
Please could someone also tell me why on earth a FI rating cannot comprise and all encompassing course at a realistic cost to enable flight training to be given on light singles. This is surely what the FI instructors rating for the NPPL should comprise. Why potential pilots should want to take a rating restricted to use in UK airspace is altogether another question!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West London, UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Noggin
So basically we are talking about aspiring NPPLs being misled as to the real time / cost of training (as Noggin suggets), or NPPLs with reduced (presumably circa 75%only) training against "old" CAA/ JAR. The former doesn't surprise me, the latter would horrify me, and not, I think, do any thing for GA.
So basically we are talking about aspiring NPPLs being misled as to the real time / cost of training (as Noggin suggets), or NPPLs with reduced (presumably circa 75%only) training against "old" CAA/ JAR. The former doesn't surprise me, the latter would horrify me, and not, I think, do any thing for GA.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NPPL is nothing more than a concoction from AOPA to get back to the real issue, instructing on a PPL.
The requirement for instructors to demonstrate CPL level knowledge comes from ICAO, the UK ignored it for many years but eventually conformed when the BCPL was introduced. If we revert back, how will the hours gained ever be acountable towards an ICAO licence if the instructor is not qualified in accordance with ICAO requirements?
There is no reason why a JAA PPL could not be issued on the basis of a "restricted" medical for UK use only. It would be a damm sight easier than introducing a licence that is nothing more than a confidence trick.
Let us remember the NPPL was an invention of AOPA; dragging the PPL into JARs was also an AOPA invention. Their track record is not good, they represent themselves, and a few others,not GA as a whole.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Noggin ]
The requirement for instructors to demonstrate CPL level knowledge comes from ICAO, the UK ignored it for many years but eventually conformed when the BCPL was introduced. If we revert back, how will the hours gained ever be acountable towards an ICAO licence if the instructor is not qualified in accordance with ICAO requirements?
There is no reason why a JAA PPL could not be issued on the basis of a "restricted" medical for UK use only. It would be a damm sight easier than introducing a licence that is nothing more than a confidence trick.
Let us remember the NPPL was an invention of AOPA; dragging the PPL into JARs was also an AOPA invention. Their track record is not good, they represent themselves, and a few others,not GA as a whole.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Noggin ]
Thread Starter
Which is precisely why the CAA insisted on the NPPLSC which does represent all GA organisations: AOPA, PFA, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA and receives advice from GAPAN.
The CAA supports the NPPL; only proposals which have consensus agreement amongst the NPPLSC are forwarded to the CAA for approval and formal action; a representative from the CAA also attends NPPLSC meetings.
Whilst AOPA may have started the ball rolling and chair the NPPLSC, rest assured that the NPPLSC does represent all of GA.
Incidentally, it is a JAR/FCL Class 2 medical which is the minimum required for unremunerated instruction by a PPL holder, not a CAA Class II. That is no longer available for pilot licensing.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
The CAA supports the NPPL; only proposals which have consensus agreement amongst the NPPLSC are forwarded to the CAA for approval and formal action; a representative from the CAA also attends NPPLSC meetings.
Whilst AOPA may have started the ball rolling and chair the NPPLSC, rest assured that the NPPLSC does represent all of GA.
Incidentally, it is a JAR/FCL Class 2 medical which is the minimum required for unremunerated instruction by a PPL holder, not a CAA Class II. That is no longer available for pilot licensing.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hardly think an unelected group of cronies that most people in GA have never heard of can claim to represent the industry.
What it requires is a forward thinking organisation with a supporting membership to represent GA, not the usual bunch of self interested professional committe members.
What it requires is a forward thinking organisation with a supporting membership to represent GA, not the usual bunch of self interested professional committe members.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: err not tellin anymore
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VD (unfotunate abreviation 
)
Luckily I have got a job which pays enough to live, and I've got a hobby that pays enough to start flying again, So I'd be more than happy to pay my own expenses and don't need to be paid for my time. I'd be happy just getting in the air.
Thanks for the info guys, I'm going to have a good look into this.
GH
)Luckily I have got a job which pays enough to live, and I've got a hobby that pays enough to start flying again, So I'd be more than happy to pay my own expenses and don't need to be paid for my time. I'd be happy just getting in the air.
Thanks for the info guys, I'm going to have a good look into this.
GH
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Newborough, Staffs, UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any aspiring FI that does not want to subsequently progress to APTL will WASTE 6 months and about £8000 getting a JAA CPL.
I say waste, because I cannot see any benefit in completing the CPL (either for the instructor or his students).
If the NPPL provides a route by which I can instruct without incurring that cost, then I will do everything I can to encouage and promote it.
I say waste, because I cannot see any benefit in completing the CPL (either for the instructor or his students).
If the NPPL provides a route by which I can instruct without incurring that cost, then I will do everything I can to encouage and promote it.
