Nppl
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced medical standards are a good thing, lets face it you'll probably do more damage keeling over at the wheel of a car on the M1 than in a light aircraft over mrs miggins field. The JAA class 2 is far to stringent for the private pilot (not a Wannabe)...
BUT I can only see limited use for a licence which cannot be used anywhere else. Maybe this is a plot by WWW and his 'keep flying in Britain' friends to do exactly that (joke)!
Happy Saint Georges day...
EA
BUT I can only see limited use for a licence which cannot be used anywhere else. Maybe this is a plot by WWW and his 'keep flying in Britain' friends to do exactly that (joke)!
Happy Saint Georges day...
EA
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I haven't seen mentioned by those who fear the end of the world if minimum hours drop below 45 is that there are already thousands of pilots (including me) flying around the UK on microlight licences. These only require 25 hours and have the same sort of self-certifying medical arrangements as are proposed for the NPPL.
While there are of course microlight accidents, these are not at all out of proportion to the rest of the GA world. Radio navigation and instrument training are not part of the microlight syllabus because the aircraft are not equipped with the relevant instruments. This seems not to have led to widespread disasters, plagues of locusts or the end of civilisation as we know it.
If the NPPL is a charter for filling the skies with second-rate pilots who should be confined to their invalid carriages on the ground, then presumably microlighting (and gliding?) should be banned forthwith, since the hours minima are less again.
I think that the current JAR requirements impose a burden of cost and bureaucracy which is disproportionate to the needs of the recreational pilot and go beyond what is required to ensure safety. The current system helps to keep people out of flying, which some, even within the GA world, seem to regard as an excellent thing. If you agree with that view, the NPPL is a threat. If you hope that there is still a future for recreational flying in the UK then I think it's to be welcomed.
Alasdair
While there are of course microlight accidents, these are not at all out of proportion to the rest of the GA world. Radio navigation and instrument training are not part of the microlight syllabus because the aircraft are not equipped with the relevant instruments. This seems not to have led to widespread disasters, plagues of locusts or the end of civilisation as we know it.
If the NPPL is a charter for filling the skies with second-rate pilots who should be confined to their invalid carriages on the ground, then presumably microlighting (and gliding?) should be banned forthwith, since the hours minima are less again.
I think that the current JAR requirements impose a burden of cost and bureaucracy which is disproportionate to the needs of the recreational pilot and go beyond what is required to ensure safety. The current system helps to keep people out of flying, which some, even within the GA world, seem to regard as an excellent thing. If you agree with that view, the NPPL is a threat. If you hope that there is still a future for recreational flying in the UK then I think it's to be welcomed.
Alasdair
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Newborough, Staffs, UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem here is that people are confusing politics with common sense. The pre JAR system was good, but we won’t get it back. JAR was a mistake, but we just didn’t do enough to stop it. Therefore we need a process that puts management of UK private flying back in our own hands. Enter stage left, political expedient, “NPPL”.
With regard to reduced hours. . .
For those advocating mandatory radio nav training, do you know that there are lots of little planes flying around with no equipment. How on Earth do they manage? Also, I assume Microlight pilots get no IMC training at all. How on Earth do they manage? Must be luck I suppose.
With regard to reduced hours. . .
For those advocating mandatory radio nav training, do you know that there are lots of little planes flying around with no equipment. How on Earth do they manage? Also, I assume Microlight pilots get no IMC training at all. How on Earth do they manage? Must be luck I suppose.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have already asked my instructors to take me through the entire 'normal' PPL training so that I get the Radio Nav experience etc, just on reduced medical (and costs) grounds I choose the NPPL as the license.
May I thank the many helpful and objective critics to this thread, I have found your comments educational and helpful.
May I thank the many helpful and objective critics to this thread, I have found your comments educational and helpful.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal,
I agree - reduced medical standards are a good thing. Why do we need a separate license for these reduced standards, though? Why not just apply them to the existing Class 2?
aarthur,
Personally, I have no problem with reduced hour requirements. I have faith in instructors not to send students for their skills test, and examiners not to issue a license, until the student is sufficiently skilled as to be able to keep out of trouble. Personally, I couldn't care if the minimum was reduced to 20 hours. I can't see anyone getting a license in much less than, say, 40 hours - and I'd expect that to be the exception, rather than the rule - whatever the minimum is.
dah dah,
Am I right in thinking that what you're saying is that JAR won't allow us to reduce the medical standards of the PPL to those being suggested for the NPPL, or to remove elements considered non-essential, such as VOR tracking? If I've understood you correctly, then this explains why there is a need for a separate license, and answers my question - thank you.
BEagle
Tocsin's reply suggests that I, and others, have been belittling your work in this issue. I can't speak for others, but that certainly wasn't my intention, and I apologise if my post could have been misinterpreted this way. As you can probably tell from my reply to dah dah, I have a question which I don't know the answer to, and I am looking for the answer to that question. It seems from dah dah's post that there is a perfectly good answer to my question. I'd welcome any more details, from dah dah, BEagle, or anyone else, and I applaud BEagle and everyone else for any attempts to get more people flying.
FFF
-----------
I agree - reduced medical standards are a good thing. Why do we need a separate license for these reduced standards, though? Why not just apply them to the existing Class 2?
aarthur,
Personally, I have no problem with reduced hour requirements. I have faith in instructors not to send students for their skills test, and examiners not to issue a license, until the student is sufficiently skilled as to be able to keep out of trouble. Personally, I couldn't care if the minimum was reduced to 20 hours. I can't see anyone getting a license in much less than, say, 40 hours - and I'd expect that to be the exception, rather than the rule - whatever the minimum is.
dah dah,
Am I right in thinking that what you're saying is that JAR won't allow us to reduce the medical standards of the PPL to those being suggested for the NPPL, or to remove elements considered non-essential, such as VOR tracking? If I've understood you correctly, then this explains why there is a need for a separate license, and answers my question - thank you.
BEagle
Tocsin's reply suggests that I, and others, have been belittling your work in this issue. I can't speak for others, but that certainly wasn't my intention, and I apologise if my post could have been misinterpreted this way. As you can probably tell from my reply to dah dah, I have a question which I don't know the answer to, and I am looking for the answer to that question. It seems from dah dah's post that there is a perfectly good answer to my question. I'd welcome any more details, from dah dah, BEagle, or anyone else, and I applaud BEagle and everyone else for any attempts to get more people flying.
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes me dubious about the "motives" behind this is the fact that this is a "VFR" rating yet people are taking this course becasue they can get in with reduced medical standards??? Now surley good eyesight is more relevant VFR flight than IFR flight?? If the standard has been set for so many years, why on earth must it change now? The requirements for a Class 2 are not that stringent.
I honestly think that this is a way of increasing revenue, not a means to encourage people into the skies. I am 40hrs into a PPL, I will hopefully done and ready on 45hrs. At 30hrs I wasn't close to being confident enough to live up to the responsibilities of a full liscence. I could pootle about the skys pretty safely, but only in a limited capacity. I will also say I'm a fast learner, I have bags of natural talent as far as flying is concerned.
If the NPPL is tested to the standards I expect it to be then 99% of pilots are going to take 45-50hrs to get the NPPL still! Aftrer all who does 3hrs VOR training??? All of the instrument nav can be taught in about 20mins!
I honestly think that this is a way of increasing revenue, not a means to encourage people into the skies. I am 40hrs into a PPL, I will hopefully done and ready on 45hrs. At 30hrs I wasn't close to being confident enough to live up to the responsibilities of a full liscence. I could pootle about the skys pretty safely, but only in a limited capacity. I will also say I'm a fast learner, I have bags of natural talent as far as flying is concerned.
If the NPPL is tested to the standards I expect it to be then 99% of pilots are going to take 45-50hrs to get the NPPL still! Aftrer all who does 3hrs VOR training??? All of the instrument nav can be taught in about 20mins!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tocsin, I hope you don't consider my comments as grinding - without discussion and opinion the nppl would never have happened.
aarthur, I don't have the accident figs. re. micros, but they are a different type considerably. Speed, Stall, Vis. Landing distance etc. are just some variables. Following your argument, do you consider that both licenses should have the same training? If not, and taking you agree with the nppl levels, the argument can't stand.
dah dah
You also say pre Jar was good. That allowed for IMC and Radio Nav training, so was it good or too excessive? There are many non Radio Nav equipt a/c around, agreed, but my argument is that if 3-4 hours is too much time and money to spend on training to avoid the likeliest killer of G/A pilots (under whatever title or hour pass rate you use) I am concerned.
Deanofs made a point that he wants to train in the elements I am discussing, and I know instructors who would insist on some basic IF training. All I am trying to promote is safety, not that we need 30 40 50 hrs.
Medically I couldn’t agree more with the pro comments.
Beagle – as with FFF – this isn’t meant to be a grinding post, the more people flying the better.
Regards
LF
aarthur, I don't have the accident figs. re. micros, but they are a different type considerably. Speed, Stall, Vis. Landing distance etc. are just some variables. Following your argument, do you consider that both licenses should have the same training? If not, and taking you agree with the nppl levels, the argument can't stand.
dah dah
For those advocating mandatory radio nav training, do you know that there are lots of little planes flying around with no equipment? How on Earth do they manage? Also, I assume Microlight pilots get no IMC training at all. How on Earth do they manage? Must be luck I suppose
Deanofs made a point that he wants to train in the elements I am discussing, and I know instructors who would insist on some basic IF training. All I am trying to promote is safety, not that we need 30 40 50 hrs.
Medically I couldn’t agree more with the pro comments.
Beagle – as with FFF – this isn’t meant to be a grinding post, the more people flying the better.
Regards
LF
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
Agree totally.
Why not have a 'national' medical allowing a holder to exercise the privileges of his / her JAA PPL but only in the UK airspace. Then the CAA can relax the standards to their hearts content....I think too much emphasis is placed on medical checks. Take a look at the FAA system, where a Class 1, ATP, medical is roughly equiv to the JAA class 2, certainly no more stringent. And the irony is that you get just as many pilots 'die at the wheel' whether they have an FAA or JAA medical certificate.
Secondly, if the NPPL is going to be a 'serious' licence, why not let Microlight / Glider hours count towards the NPPL at a rate of 50- 100%. At the moment you can get a 'discount' of upto 10 hrs or 10% (i think) towards the JAA PPL if you have Micro PIC hours. Why not make it 50% or more, lets face it it is not that much more difficult to fly a PA28 or a microlight, just slightly different techniques. So if you have 50 hrs PIC in a microlight then 25 hrs of this will count towards the NPPL. This would really cut the training costs down.
The NPPL is not for me though, I want a licence allowing me to fly in the US, France and Europe, as well as in IMC and at night. If however there was an ICAO recognized NPPL which allowed all these things, or even a Private IR rather than IMC rating, then I would be VERY interested.
Cheers
EA
Agree totally.
Why not have a 'national' medical allowing a holder to exercise the privileges of his / her JAA PPL but only in the UK airspace. Then the CAA can relax the standards to their hearts content....I think too much emphasis is placed on medical checks. Take a look at the FAA system, where a Class 1, ATP, medical is roughly equiv to the JAA class 2, certainly no more stringent. And the irony is that you get just as many pilots 'die at the wheel' whether they have an FAA or JAA medical certificate.
Secondly, if the NPPL is going to be a 'serious' licence, why not let Microlight / Glider hours count towards the NPPL at a rate of 50- 100%. At the moment you can get a 'discount' of upto 10 hrs or 10% (i think) towards the JAA PPL if you have Micro PIC hours. Why not make it 50% or more, lets face it it is not that much more difficult to fly a PA28 or a microlight, just slightly different techniques. So if you have 50 hrs PIC in a microlight then 25 hrs of this will count towards the NPPL. This would really cut the training costs down.
The NPPL is not for me though, I want a licence allowing me to fly in the US, France and Europe, as well as in IMC and at night. If however there was an ICAO recognized NPPL which allowed all these things, or even a Private IR rather than IMC rating, then I would be VERY interested.
Cheers
EA
Two contributors have said that they are waiting for the NPPL because they cannot achieve a JAA PPL on medical grounds - hearing or eyesight.
I have been to a number of AME's in recent years and, for the last two years, have passed with no hearing test and the eyesight test has been no more than reading the 7th line( I think) on the chart with my normal glasses.
I discussed the NPPL with my AME and he thought that, in most respects, the test and the cost of a standard PPL test should be similar to that for the HGV test. Based on my personal experience, which may not be typical, you are more likely to get a realistic medical test and cost from an AME who only does Class 2 medicals. This implies that some interpretation of the medical requirements is left to individual examiners. The simplistic judgement that "you are either fit to fly or not" is not helpful.
If there are any AME's on Pprune who can help it might be interesting to hear from them.
I have been to a number of AME's in recent years and, for the last two years, have passed with no hearing test and the eyesight test has been no more than reading the 7th line( I think) on the chart with my normal glasses.
I discussed the NPPL with my AME and he thought that, in most respects, the test and the cost of a standard PPL test should be similar to that for the HGV test. Based on my personal experience, which may not be typical, you are more likely to get a realistic medical test and cost from an AME who only does Class 2 medicals. This implies that some interpretation of the medical requirements is left to individual examiners. The simplistic judgement that "you are either fit to fly or not" is not helpful.
If there are any AME's on Pprune who can help it might be interesting to hear from them.
FFF & LF,
I was definitely _not_ including your good selves in the "grinding" - your comments and questions were courteous and (I hope) got a reply in like manner! Apologies if my briefness and multiple addressees clouded this.
There were others, in this thread and elsewhere, who were less well-mannered, particularly towards BEagle and his efforts, and I just wanted to add a "big hug" to my message, for him :-)
Personally, I would like to see a private pilot licence, with the minimum of regulation, acceptable to the pilot population and administered by a GA group. (As a lapsed glider pilot - too much work, not enough free time - I remember the BGA and recommend their light but effective regulation).
Regards,
Tocsin
I was definitely _not_ including your good selves in the "grinding" - your comments and questions were courteous and (I hope) got a reply in like manner! Apologies if my briefness and multiple addressees clouded this.
There were others, in this thread and elsewhere, who were less well-mannered, particularly towards BEagle and his efforts, and I just wanted to add a "big hug" to my message, for him :-)
Personally, I would like to see a private pilot licence, with the minimum of regulation, acceptable to the pilot population and administered by a GA group. (As a lapsed glider pilot - too much work, not enough free time - I remember the BGA and recommend their light but effective regulation).
Regards,
Tocsin
Thanks for the nice words, chaps/chapesses/chapthings.
3 hours on the road today plus another couple on the Central Line in order to attend another NPPL Steering Committee meeting - please rest assured that the CAA medical view is now 100% in place, the admin proposals are at a stage which everyone on the committtee plus the CAA are happy to take forward, accreditation schemes are agreed - in fact everything is looking fine for a 1 Jul 02 launch!
At least I got to hear the magic of Merlins today as the Lanc flew over - thought that it might have been the Zurich Insurance pig-vic team at first!
3 hours on the road today plus another couple on the Central Line in order to attend another NPPL Steering Committee meeting - please rest assured that the CAA medical view is now 100% in place, the admin proposals are at a stage which everyone on the committtee plus the CAA are happy to take forward, accreditation schemes are agreed - in fact everything is looking fine for a 1 Jul 02 launch!
At least I got to hear the magic of Merlins today as the Lanc flew over - thought that it might have been the Zurich Insurance pig-vic team at first!
Last edited by BEagle; 24th Apr 2002 at 21:29.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: leeds
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you who presume, or imagine, that NPPL will cut your costs, just heed BEagle's clue:
'Personally I doubt whether many people will manage to reach NPPL Skill Test standard in 35 hours - but if they do, then they can take the tests.'
Despite his arithmetic, BEagle knows 35 hours is a joke and that the old racket will be alive and well with NPPL.
They won't allow you to take the test, or if you do, pass after the minimum hours. The point is that the school/ CFI/ FI/aircraft owner have a financial interest in maximising the hours you need.
They may not want you to fail and they definitely don't want you to give-up but the longer you take the more money they make.
Maybe the main purpose of NPPL is to allow a lower and misleading 'PPL price' to be advertised or quoted, on the basis of minimum hours, although most people will be forced to buy many more hours. Therefore, you might as well do the JAA PPL, with the likelihood that you will end up with a credible and more useful qualification for much the same money.
As the CAA have, apparently, had to get it all agreed by BEagle, is NPPL going to be a privatised, rather than an official, PPL?
Who will issue the NPPL?
Also, I was very sorry to hear that deanofs disability has degenerated into hysteria about women, ethnic minorities, age of consent etc. -none of which were mentioned by me.
'Personally I doubt whether many people will manage to reach NPPL Skill Test standard in 35 hours - but if they do, then they can take the tests.'
Despite his arithmetic, BEagle knows 35 hours is a joke and that the old racket will be alive and well with NPPL.
They won't allow you to take the test, or if you do, pass after the minimum hours. The point is that the school/ CFI/ FI/aircraft owner have a financial interest in maximising the hours you need.
They may not want you to fail and they definitely don't want you to give-up but the longer you take the more money they make.
Maybe the main purpose of NPPL is to allow a lower and misleading 'PPL price' to be advertised or quoted, on the basis of minimum hours, although most people will be forced to buy many more hours. Therefore, you might as well do the JAA PPL, with the likelihood that you will end up with a credible and more useful qualification for much the same money.
As the CAA have, apparently, had to get it all agreed by BEagle, is NPPL going to be a privatised, rather than an official, PPL?
Who will issue the NPPL?
Also, I was very sorry to hear that deanofs disability has degenerated into hysteria about women, ethnic minorities, age of consent etc. -none of which were mentioned by me.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is much talk about hours and standards, but at the end of the day the criteria for a PPL Skill Test is: is the candidate "SAFE"
It appears to take about 55 hours to train an average candidate to a Safe level in the UK and interestingly, about 75 hours in North America (excluding the overseas UK schools)
Regardless of what course you do, it will surely take the same time to train a pilot to this "Safe" standard? The standard really cannot be lowered.
A JAA PPL student is eligible to take the Skill Test after 35 hours (not 45), i.e when all the "training" has been completed (25 hours dual + 10 hours solo) but nobody achieves it.
The NPPL Medical offers many the chance to fly who cannot meet JAA standards. Surely it would be much simpler to have a UK limited medical with an existing PPL and limit the holder to UK airspace.
Meanwhile, the argument will rage mainly because there are those with a vested financial interest who don't want to lose out; and those with a financial interest in making a fast buck at the expence of others. The poor student is of no consequence, but as sure as eggs are eggs, Mr Average will not crack it in less than 55 hours. So who is fooling who? there will be no saving.
It appears to take about 55 hours to train an average candidate to a Safe level in the UK and interestingly, about 75 hours in North America (excluding the overseas UK schools)
Regardless of what course you do, it will surely take the same time to train a pilot to this "Safe" standard? The standard really cannot be lowered.
A JAA PPL student is eligible to take the Skill Test after 35 hours (not 45), i.e when all the "training" has been completed (25 hours dual + 10 hours solo) but nobody achieves it.
The NPPL Medical offers many the chance to fly who cannot meet JAA standards. Surely it would be much simpler to have a UK limited medical with an existing PPL and limit the holder to UK airspace.
Meanwhile, the argument will rage mainly because there are those with a vested financial interest who don't want to lose out; and those with a financial interest in making a fast buck at the expence of others. The poor student is of no consequence, but as sure as eggs are eggs, Mr Average will not crack it in less than 55 hours. So who is fooling who? there will be no saving.
Last edited by Noggin; 25th Apr 2002 at 07:44.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They won't allow you to take the test, or if you do, pass after the minimum hours. The point is that the school/ CFI/ FI/aircraft owner have a financial interest in maximising the hours you need.
They may not want you to fail and they definitely don't want you to give-up but the longer you take the more money they make.
They may not want you to fail and they definitely don't want you to give-up but the longer you take the more money they make.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notice, I disagree.
This is simply not the way that professional instructors operate.
One instructor who I know well is very proud of the fact that her average time for getting students through a PPL is several hours lower than the schools average. Other instructors have a "model student" who progresses faster than average, and is ready to take their skills test very shortly after reaching minimum hours.
Instructors may tell prospective students about these things as part of their sales pitch... but they are also genuinely proud of every student who pass the skills test without requiring excessive hours, and will aim to get every student a PPL in the minimum number of hours possible for that student. I know this because, despite the fact that I have my PPL, and I'm therefore not a prospective student, instructors continue to proudly tell me "Jim's doing his skills test next weekend - he only needed 47 hours."
And a personal experience which happened to me recently: the club I hire from has a "28-days currency on type" rule for hiring. I had gone out of currency on the Super Cub, due to a combination of weather, flying a Warrior insetad due to the better nav-aids, and the plane having technical problems. When I was next able to fly the Cub, it had been 29 days since my last flight on type. According to club rules, I needed an instructor check-out.
I asked my instructor to arrange a check-out. When she heard I was only one day over the currency requirement, she refused to fly with me. She said it didn't make sense - she had less total time on the Cub than me, was less current than me, and knew my standard of flying well enough to be happy that I'd be safe, so she signed me out without needing a check-out. Does this sound like an instructor who's got her own financial interests at heart? No! It's an instructor with enough common sense not to make me waste my money on instruction which isn't required.
Sorry for the long rant, but I read a lot about flying instructors, especially hour-builders, who are only out to get as many hours and as much of our money as they can - and it annoys me because, certainly for all the instructors that I've ever flown with (hour-builders or otherwise) it couldn't be further from the truth.
Having said that, I do agree with notice when he says that "35 hours is a joke." Very few people will get an NPPL in 35 hours, IMHO. This is not because of the greed of schools or instructors, but because, for the majority of students, 35 hours is not long enough to learn to fly safely. Those naturally-gifted students who can fly safely after 35 hours may well get an NPPL after that time - but there will be very few of them.
FFF
-------------
the school/ CFI/ FI/aircraft owner have a financial interest in maximising the hours you need
One instructor who I know well is very proud of the fact that her average time for getting students through a PPL is several hours lower than the schools average. Other instructors have a "model student" who progresses faster than average, and is ready to take their skills test very shortly after reaching minimum hours.
Instructors may tell prospective students about these things as part of their sales pitch... but they are also genuinely proud of every student who pass the skills test without requiring excessive hours, and will aim to get every student a PPL in the minimum number of hours possible for that student. I know this because, despite the fact that I have my PPL, and I'm therefore not a prospective student, instructors continue to proudly tell me "Jim's doing his skills test next weekend - he only needed 47 hours."
And a personal experience which happened to me recently: the club I hire from has a "28-days currency on type" rule for hiring. I had gone out of currency on the Super Cub, due to a combination of weather, flying a Warrior insetad due to the better nav-aids, and the plane having technical problems. When I was next able to fly the Cub, it had been 29 days since my last flight on type. According to club rules, I needed an instructor check-out.
I asked my instructor to arrange a check-out. When she heard I was only one day over the currency requirement, she refused to fly with me. She said it didn't make sense - she had less total time on the Cub than me, was less current than me, and knew my standard of flying well enough to be happy that I'd be safe, so she signed me out without needing a check-out. Does this sound like an instructor who's got her own financial interests at heart? No! It's an instructor with enough common sense not to make me waste my money on instruction which isn't required.
Sorry for the long rant, but I read a lot about flying instructors, especially hour-builders, who are only out to get as many hours and as much of our money as they can - and it annoys me because, certainly for all the instructors that I've ever flown with (hour-builders or otherwise) it couldn't be further from the truth.
Having said that, I do agree with notice when he says that "35 hours is a joke." Very few people will get an NPPL in 35 hours, IMHO. This is not because of the greed of schools or instructors, but because, for the majority of students, 35 hours is not long enough to learn to fly safely. Those naturally-gifted students who can fly safely after 35 hours may well get an NPPL after that time - but there will be very few of them.
FFF
-------------
Anyone who is serious about _learning to fly_ (n.b. NOT getting a licence), will know that the quoted figures are minima.
As deanofs has said, he intends to request the "full" course, while choosing to apply for the NPPL, for medical reasons.
I, who have enough spare time to consider powered flying for fun, but not enough to return to gliding (until I retire!) would like to do the same, and would have liked to add an IMC rating.
No intention of going on to commercial/ATP, don't want to be sucked in to highest common factor JAA certification.
Advice to my daughter would _probably_ be to do the JAA to keep commercial options open at lowest cost, but I expect her to concentrate on A levels and degree first - so a NPPL may suit her for a few years, IF there is an easy path to JAA (or EASA?).
See how complicated it is? Not just geriatric, hospital cases, but quite a few people with good reasons for considering the NPPL.
Tocsin.
p.s. notice: "As the CAA have, apparently, had to get it all agreed by BEagle" - why aren't YOU giving your time to the CAA steering committee? Your well-reasoned arguments, as evidenced throughout this thread would, I am sure, be a breath of fresh air
As deanofs has said, he intends to request the "full" course, while choosing to apply for the NPPL, for medical reasons.
I, who have enough spare time to consider powered flying for fun, but not enough to return to gliding (until I retire!) would like to do the same, and would have liked to add an IMC rating.
No intention of going on to commercial/ATP, don't want to be sucked in to highest common factor JAA certification.
Advice to my daughter would _probably_ be to do the JAA to keep commercial options open at lowest cost, but I expect her to concentrate on A levels and degree first - so a NPPL may suit her for a few years, IF there is an easy path to JAA (or EASA?).
See how complicated it is? Not just geriatric, hospital cases, but quite a few people with good reasons for considering the NPPL.
Tocsin.
p.s. notice: "As the CAA have, apparently, had to get it all agreed by BEagle" - why aren't YOU giving your time to the CAA steering committee? Your well-reasoned arguments, as evidenced throughout this thread would, I am sure, be a breath of fresh air
The ignorant rants of 'notice' do not merit direct response.
The CAA wishes to devolve PPL work; the NPPL will be administered by the organisations identified in the NPPL administrative exposition, the CAA has encouraged the members of the NPPLSC to achieve the required solution.....need I go on?
All the NPPLSC seeks is that flying should be both more accessible and affordable; standards shall not deteriorate.
But no doubt some twisted civil serpent mind could never understand that some of us just want others to be able to enjoy the opportunity of learning to fly.......
The CAA wishes to devolve PPL work; the NPPL will be administered by the organisations identified in the NPPL administrative exposition, the CAA has encouraged the members of the NPPLSC to achieve the required solution.....need I go on?
All the NPPLSC seeks is that flying should be both more accessible and affordable; standards shall not deteriorate.
But no doubt some twisted civil serpent mind could never understand that some of us just want others to be able to enjoy the opportunity of learning to fly.......
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: leeds
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of being pompous, why won't BEagle defend the downgrade to NPPL?
It is claimed, by BEagle, that:
'The CAA wishes to devolve PPL work; the NPPL will be administered by the organisations identified in the NPPL administrative exposition'
What does devolve mean?
Who are these organisations?
Who will issue the NPPL?
It is claimed, by BEagle, that:
'The CAA wishes to devolve PPL work; the NPPL will be administered by the organisations identified in the NPPL administrative exposition'
What does devolve mean?
Who are these organisations?
Who will issue the NPPL?
BEagle,
You're right - he just doesn't get it - too thick?
*plonk*
You're right - he just doesn't get it - too thick?
*plonk*
The CAA PLD 'issues' all flight crew licenses. Administration will be the responsibility of the relevant organisations, one of whom will be BMAA for the NPPL with Microlight Rating (identical to the current PPL(M)). The NPPL with SEP and/or SLMG Ratings will be administered by another company which is currently being registered at Companies House. An individual NPPL applicant will have their paperwork checked by their RF/FTO, then forwarded to the NPPL administration body; that body will do the work (as currently does BMAA) required to send the applicant's cheque and certificate of recommendation to PLD. PLD will only carry out the mechanical licence production process.
The cost of the NPPL (which will be a 'lifetime' licence like the old UK PPL) will reflect the reduced admin costs resulting from this devolution of administrative effort.
NPPL applicants will be required to make the appropriate medical declaration to their GPs; the GP will then complete the NPPL fitness declaration for a substantially reduced fee compared even to the JAR Class II medical. The GP does not need to be an AME; the standards the applicant will be assessed against will be those equivalent to the DVLA standards required of professional drivers as those are considered by CAA Medical to be wholly sufficient.
To those who wish to know more, please take no 'notice' of groundless denigration and ignorance - the media release is not far off.
The cost of the NPPL (which will be a 'lifetime' licence like the old UK PPL) will reflect the reduced admin costs resulting from this devolution of administrative effort.
NPPL applicants will be required to make the appropriate medical declaration to their GPs; the GP will then complete the NPPL fitness declaration for a substantially reduced fee compared even to the JAR Class II medical. The GP does not need to be an AME; the standards the applicant will be assessed against will be those equivalent to the DVLA standards required of professional drivers as those are considered by CAA Medical to be wholly sufficient.
To those who wish to know more, please take no 'notice' of groundless denigration and ignorance - the media release is not far off.