NPPL(M) to NPPL(SSEA) conversion

[IanPZ]

Hiya all.

Just musing this evening, reading various threads about EASA, and a thought came to mind. I am currently doing my NPPL(M) and very much enjoying it. Microlights suit me, and certainly I have no "need" to fly, beyond the enjoyment factor, so the whole IMC thing, whilst very interesting in a theoretical sense, makes no difference to me.

However, one thing that has always been at the back of my mind was that one day, if the fancy took me, I would take the conversion to SSEA. It isn't something I feel strongly enough about to consider going straight for NPPL(SSEA) or PPL, but always a thought.

And then, reading a magazine and an article about conversion, I suddenly thought....

"What happens when EASA comes in and NPPL(SSEA) disappears (or does it?) Does that mean there will no longer be any path from microlights to larger planes, without starting from ground zero again?

Any ideas, anyone? I looked through a lot of the documentation and all I could find was statements about "no conversion path" or "excluded as it is in Annex 2"

Bet you all know, though! Thanks. IPZ

[BEagle]

You should be able to add an SSEA Class Rating to a NPPL (Microlight) until Apr 2015 under the provisions of the NPPL 'Licence Allowances' document (a new version will be released next week). See the NPPL website.

However, under the madness of €urocracy, you won't be able to fly an 'EASA aeroplane' (e.g. PA28 / C152) on an NPPL (SSEA) after that date - only a non-EASA 'Annex II' aeroplane (e.g. home built or a Tiger Moth / Chipmunk / Bulldog and others).

You should be able to convert a NPPL (SSEA) to a LAPL(A) under arrangements yet to be released; this will be valid for both EASA and non-EASA aeroplanes. But you will still need your NPPL (Microlights) in order to fly Microlights.

And yes, it is indeed utter madness - but that's EASA for you!

[IanPZ]

BEagle, That's brilliant thanks. I tried to make sense of it, but I thought it was saying no more NPPL(SSEA) would be issued after this April.

As far as I am concerned, I don't really care if it takes a long time, and more training to get from one stage to the next, and I do like the idea of LAPL. The thing that would frustrate me would be if I was perfectly able to fly something like a Eurostar microlight (which is what I am learning on), had a fair few hours under my belt, and all of that counted for nothing if I wanted to fly the same aircraft, but just with an extra fuel pump....now that would be frustrating!

Now I can happily carry on, and will keep an eye out for the new allowances document.

BTW, are homebuilt LAA aircraft going to be Annex II, EASA, or something else? I can well see myself wanting to do that some time in the future. I mean, build an airplane myself!!! That's like the ultimate airfix model. Can you still use polystyrene glue?

[Genghis the Engineer]

(1) Amateur built aeroplanes appear likely to remain Annex II for the foreseeable future.

(2) I don't think that polystyrene glue is approved on any current homebuilt projects, but you can use balsa on some of them.

G

[xrayalpha]

Hi,

So, back to OP's original question.

In four years time:

No new NPPL SSEAs

No published way to convert NPPL M to light aircraft licence - whether LAPL of JAR SEP

At least Stalin had a 5-year plan!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Stalin, however misguided, was a pretty good organiser and genuinely trying to make his "empire" a better place.

G

[BEagle]

Whereas it was reasonably simple for the NPPL P&SC to agree cross-crediting terms for NPPL (Microlight) to NPPL (SSEA), the direct conversion of a NPPL (Microlight) to LAPL(A) will, regrettably, be a different matter.

Many of the €urocrats don't actually understand microlighting, particularly flex-wing and seem totally unaware of the BMAA's professionalism in sorting out the microlight scene in the UK.

Whether the CAA will be persuaded to propose the current conversion method as the basis of a 'conversion report' for the €urocrats remains to be seen; perhaps you should ask the BMAA for their take on this?

[IanPZ]

G, what worries me is that all Stalin's dissenters got sent to Siberia. If they send all EASA's dissenters somewhere unpleasant, will there be anyone left?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ahhh, but, to EASA would a deeply unpleasant place be a collection of grasstrip airfields with little or no regulatory oversight, populated by uncertified aeroplanes flown by people with national recreational licences?

G

[IanPZ]

Sorry, but that sounds like a much better place to me than Siberia.....in fact, I think that may be where I am learning.

Maybe they could send us all somewhere that we could fly, and then just LEAVE US ALONE!!! (yeah, some hopes!)

[BillieBob]

Many of the €urocrats don't actually understand microlighting, particularly flex-wing

Let's face it, 99.5% of EASA doesn't understand any aspect of aviation, being merely self-seeking bureaucrats or (even worse) lawyers . You only have to read the CRD on Part-FCL to realise that there is no conception within EASA of the effect on the European aviation industry of their fundamentally flawed legislation. The crass naivety of many of the responses would be hilarious were it not so dangerous.

Unfortunately, 99.9% of the of the EC and the European Parliament is in the same position. It is important to realise that duplicity and dishonesty is the daily diet of these morons and any assurances that 'the IMCr will be safe' or 'there will be a bilateral agreement on licensing' are worth the square root of f*%& all. MEPs will vote as their political groupings dictate, ignoring any representations from their constituents; to do otherwise would threaten their chances of a better seat on the gravy train. Sure, there will be a (vanishingly small) principled minority who will vote with their conscience, but not enough to make a real difference.

We are all being royally screwed, just like the fishermen and the farmers before us, and the pity is that, like them, we have no effective support in Westminster and, therefore, there is nothing whatever we can do about it. Talk of a 'nuclear option' is stirring enough but, in reality, is just talk. The UK has relatively little influence in Europe, despite what the politicians would have us believe and , in time, we may realise that we have been conned; but probably too late to do anything about it.

The vast majority of the UK flight training industry (and, in particular, the current 'registered facilities'), has no conception of the tidal wave of bureacracy (and cost) that is bearing down on it. There are currently close to 400 'registered facilities' in the UK - I'd be surprised if there are more than half that number by this time in 2015.