NPPL or PPL?

[newfoundglory]

Hello everyone,

I want to learn to fly!

But i'm not sure if the NPPL is right for me, or if I should go the full PPL.

My understanding is that the only difference in obtaining one is the medical and the extra hours and the nav practical?

I'm pretty sure i'd like to dip my fingers into twin engine and IMC as a minimum at some point during my life.

If the hours you fly post-NPPL can count towards a PPL, then the NPPL can be considered a good choice? or have i missed something? or is this risky due to the NPPL changes next year?

[Humaround]

The hours taken to gain an NPPL from scratch are likely to be little different from gaining a PPL, but the restrictions on a NPPL are considerable. If you are likely to go on to IMC/IR and multi, I'd say go for the PPL from the start, though you don't actually have to make that decision until you are some way into the training.

[J.A.F.O.]

I'd contest the fact that the limitations are "considerable" however, if you plan to go multi-, IR, night etc then you might as well go straight to PPL.

[welliewanger]

My memory of the figures is hazy, but this is how I recall it...

The NPPL minimum training time is 5 hours less than the PPL, very few people complete the NPPL in less than the time it takes for a PPL. Therefore there is no financial advantage to going for the NPPL.

However, there are advantages (particularly in your situation) to the PPL. You will have a more realistic idea of the budget and any training (as long as it's good training) is useful. If you plan on doing anything more than the NPPL (night, IMC, twin etc.) that suggests that you're willing to pay more to become a better airman. Why skimp on the initial training.

I can see one advantage to the NPPL. The medical requirements. The NPPL allows people who could not obtain a Class 2 medical to fly.

[jxk]

welliewanger makes a good point at the end of his post. If you do intend to go further with your aspirations in aviation, make sure you can pass a class 1 medical.

I have also heard on the grapevine that if a 'European' type NPPL is approved then the medicals will have to be done by an AME. At the moment AMEs are not allowed to conduct the HGV type medicals called for by the NPPL. No doubt the cost will then be on a par with the class 2 medicals of today.

[Jodelman]

I have also heard on the grapevine that if a 'European' type NPPL is approved then the medicals will have to be done by an AME.

Not true as far as the UK is concerned if the present proposals are accepted.

At the moment AMEs are not allowed to conduct the HGV type medicals called for by the NPPL.

An HGV medical is NOT currently needed for the NPPL. Only a declaration from your GP that there is nothing in your medical records that would prevent you from passing such a medical.

[Conventional Gear]

I'm pretty sure i'd like to dip my fingers into twin engine and IMC as a minimum at some point during my life.

That pretty much answers your own question - PPL good luck with it all

It's likely that at some point my flying will gravitate to affordable LAA types where an NPPL would be fine.

However as a relatively new PPL, Night Qualification was great fun and I'm looking towards the IMCr, it's all about getting good quality training and improving my own standards right now. A raw PPL/NPPL doesn't actually inspire one with a great deal of confidence to fly off into the sunset to be honest, so it is wise to look beyond the basic licence. As you already are doing that, you might as well do the PPL. I have a Class 2 medical, most people can get one, if you have a problem that would prevent it, chances are you already know about it. The only real advantage I can see of an NPPL is as has been said, you can't for some reason get a Class 2 medical.

[RTN11]

The NPPL minimum is 32 hours, 10 of which are solo. You'll have to be very dedicated to do it in this time.

The full PPL is a minimum of 45 hours, again 10 solo, which is much more realistic.

The structure of the course is very different, NPPL you learn to fly, then take a GST, then you learn to navigate and do your QXC and take a separate navigation test. In the PPL there's just the QXC and a big test at the end.

The syllabus is practically the same, particularly for the first 20 hours or so, the NPPL simply allows less time for each lesson to be taught.

The NPPL is mainly aimed at people who don't meet international medical requirements but still want to fly as a hobby. If you want to take your flying further you really need the full PPL.

[newfoundglory]

I can't tell you how excited I am! 10 years ago, that was when I was 16, I had a lesson at the Airways Flying Club (Wycombe Air Park), flying the Piper Warrior.

I remember it so so well, because the instructor let me do the takeoff and even let me have the controls for landing! I remember how amazing it was, because the approach takes you right over the busy M40 before touch down.

But I have to say, the thought of having to fly solo fills me with fear

At the moment i'm waiting to see if my needle phobia is going to win out over getting a class 2 medical

[J.A.F.O.]

I'm amazed at how much misunderstanding there is concerning the NPPL, it's not designed just for those who can't get a Class 2 and the training is not substantially different but I don't want to hijack this thread and agree that newfoundglory should go for the PPL and wish him (or her) all the best.

[RTN11]

I'm amazed at how much misunderstanding there is concerning the NPPL, it's not designed just for those who can't get a Class 2 and the training is not substantially different

Admittedly that's not all it is for, but that seems to be most of the market it attracts. The cost of keeping a class 2 going, particularly over the age of 40, does put a lot of people off bothering. Also, the fact that there are agreements in place to fly to France on a NPPL means that most pilots are kept happy with the occasional trip across the channel and have no desire to break any round the world records.

The reality is that 32 hours is pretty ambitious, whereas 45 is much more realistic.

[Alan_D]

At the moment i'm waiting to see if my needle phobia is going to win out over getting a class 2 medical

I don't recall any needles being used in the class 2 medical...

Nothing scary about it.

[Humaround]

Confirm that the Class 2 medical does not involve needles. It does involve a urine test, and increasingly as you age, an ECG (every year after 50). The ECG is painless but it can hurt pulling the self-adhesive electrodes off!

The Class 2 is more expensive than the GP sign-off, but shop around - I pay £90 including ECG.

If you're as young as the OP the Class 2 is infrequent anyway (5 years? can't remember)

[flyingpony]

I remember blood being drawn at my combined FAA class3/JAA class2, blood sugar test maybe?

[stevelup]

During my CAA Class 2, I had a haemoglobin test (I think), but it was just a finger prick.

I believe it depends on whether the AME has the equipment or not. Mine did, so finger prick onto a little plastic thing, then into the machine for an instant reading.

Otherwise, as I understand it, they have to actually draw some blood and send it off.

[thing]

I had the same dilemma Newfound, but recently decided to do the full fat milk one in the end. As already pointed out, you would be lucky to get NPPL in 32 hours anyway so it's not going to be a great money saver in that respect, plus you can add night and IMC to a JAR PPL which I want to do purely from a safety/preserving own and passengers skin aspect should the need arise. I fancy the idea of LAA flying but I want all the bells and whistles on my license as well. Some may say it's a waste of money to which I would reply it's my money.

The medical is nothing to worry about, I'm ancient, wear specs, have enough cholesterol to turn my body into cheese and have an 'I've drunk lots of beer' figure and I got through it. The blood test is just a thumb prick. The worst part was when he weighed me and gave me a book on weight reduction straight after...........a subtle hint methinks.........

[Whopity]

The NPPL minimum is 32 hours, 10 of which are solo. You'll have to be very dedicated to do it in this time.

Has anyone ever done it in this time? The syllabus is largely the same with only a few exceptions, the test standard is exactly the same, so how can anyone realistically do it in less time? I have only ever encountered one PPL student who managed to pass the test after the minimum of 35 hours training (Yes JAA PPL).

The BMAA anounced some statistics a couple of years ago stating the average hours to a PPL(M) was about twice the minimum and not far from the 55 hours often quoted as average for a PPL or NPPL, if you have no previous experience. It takes what it takes to reach the standard, regardless of licence type.

[Asrian]

I just finished my NPPL on a Diamond Katana with rotax engine. A lot cheaper than the AVGas Cessnas. And to learn to fly a lighter 2-seater was sufficient for me so far. I didn't finish in minimum time though, thats higly unrealistic.

[LeeP-PA28]

I believe it's certainly possible to pass it in the 32 hours.

Me - I'm doing the full JAA PPL and have completed all of the flying training by 31.7 hours (including my QCC!). So now I'm doing aero's and doing long solo nav exercises / land aways at my favourite airfields just to build the hours up.

I'm taking my test on friday all being well, and this will be at 43 hours. My test will be part of my 45 hours.

I started training in November, did 6 hours til January at my old club (Multiflight) and have since started at a much friendlier club in February.

This week alone, I did Met, Human factors, practise qualifier, qualifier and a lesson on spin recovery in a R2160. I aim to pass the aircraft tech exam on friday morning before my test on friday afternoon.

Anything is possible if you apply yourself. Continuity helps! 26 year old 'IT' guy who's wanted to fly since sitting in a chipmunk age 6 at an airshow