Nppl
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nppl
Can anyone update me of where the NPPL issue is at...I asked the CAA who sent me a 'we dont reply to individual enquiries of this type please see our web site for the most up to date information' but there is little on the web site 
and I want to pursue this line of license initially due to the reduced medial conditions and because at least to begin with I just want to learn to fly....
and I want to pursue this line of license initially due to the reduced medial conditions and because at least to begin with I just want to learn to fly....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you and I are in the same boat. There have been a number of threads about the NPPL over the past few months, try searching through the archives and you will find the past discussions.
However to put you in the picture, the NPPL will mean you are able to fly in daylight VFR with up to 3 passengers in UK airspace. The medical, as you say, is the same as the DVLA professional driver and should be easier to pass. There are some that disagree with this point but I will move on!. You have to complete a minimum of 35 hours training and then the Nav and GFT tests. There are still the same exams (Law, Nav, Met etc)as the JAA PPL. BEagle, who very often contributes to this forum is on the steering committee and is a source of what stage it is at etc. I believe that it is due to be introduced on the 1st of May? but I am not sure. I think it is expected to be a sport licence and not a starting block to an avaition career and therefore there will be no IMC, night etc rating, but I think you can do differences training for tailwheel, variable pitch prop etc.
I have now got 50 hours but no solo so I can't wait until the new licence is introduced!
Good luck
However to put you in the picture, the NPPL will mean you are able to fly in daylight VFR with up to 3 passengers in UK airspace. The medical, as you say, is the same as the DVLA professional driver and should be easier to pass. There are some that disagree with this point but I will move on!. You have to complete a minimum of 35 hours training and then the Nav and GFT tests. There are still the same exams (Law, Nav, Met etc)as the JAA PPL. BEagle, who very often contributes to this forum is on the steering committee and is a source of what stage it is at etc. I believe that it is due to be introduced on the 1st of May? but I am not sure. I think it is expected to be a sport licence and not a starting block to an avaition career and therefore there will be no IMC, night etc rating, but I think you can do differences training for tailwheel, variable pitch prop etc.
I have now got 50 hours but no solo so I can't wait until the new licence is introduced!
Good luck
Start date for NPPL - last I heard was July.
An amendment to the Air Navigation Order is required, so keeping an eye on the Hansard or Stationery Office websites may give a clue, or indeed AOPA/PFA.
I agree that the CAA site doesn't appear to have much new...
An amendment to the Air Navigation Order is required, so keeping an eye on the Hansard or Stationery Office websites may give a clue, or indeed AOPA/PFA.
I agree that the CAA site doesn't appear to have much new...
We expect the NPPL to be launched on 1 Jul 02. The delay has mainly been down to refining administrative proposals to a standard acceptable to the CAA; these are primarily technical issues as the basic concept of the licence has been agreed for some while now.
Basically, the licence may have one or more ratings for SEP, SLMG, Microlight. There are accreditation rights for other aviators which are far more generous than under JAR/FCL. The medical requirements will be simpler. A NPPL with SEP rating will restrict the holder to Day VFR flight in UK airspace in an ac with no more than 4 seats and an AUW of no more than 2 tonne. You will not be able to add Night, IMC or FI ratings to a NPPL with SEP Rating. Training for the NPPL with SEP rating will still be required to be conducted in aircraft and at sites which meet the same requirements as for JAR/FCL training. There will be an 'upgrade' process to the JAR/FCL PPL. Initially, only the JAR/FCL PPL exams will be available, it is possible that a simpler form of exam may be available later, depending on market demand. Revalidation/renewal procedures should be simpler than they currently are for the JAR/FCL PPL with SEP rating.
Hopefully it'll be worth the wait.....
Basically, the licence may have one or more ratings for SEP, SLMG, Microlight. There are accreditation rights for other aviators which are far more generous than under JAR/FCL. The medical requirements will be simpler. A NPPL with SEP rating will restrict the holder to Day VFR flight in UK airspace in an ac with no more than 4 seats and an AUW of no more than 2 tonne. You will not be able to add Night, IMC or FI ratings to a NPPL with SEP Rating. Training for the NPPL with SEP rating will still be required to be conducted in aircraft and at sites which meet the same requirements as for JAR/FCL training. There will be an 'upgrade' process to the JAR/FCL PPL. Initially, only the JAR/FCL PPL exams will be available, it is possible that a simpler form of exam may be available later, depending on market demand. Revalidation/renewal procedures should be simpler than they currently are for the JAR/FCL PPL with SEP rating.
Hopefully it'll be worth the wait.....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: leeds
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please note that Beagle used a misleading description- SIMPLER- twice and, therefore, confirms that NPPL actually means both easier exam and slacker medical, as well as less training.
The NPPL is all you'd expect from the fly-boys but it is not in anyone's interests other than those of the sub-standard pilot (and greedy schools).
The NPPL will allow geriatrics to fly (hopefully on their own and well away from populated areas) but this motorbike licence of the air is not for the credible pilot.
P.S. the potential up-grade to a full licence would be a useful selling point for the schools but commonsense suggests that, in view of the additional costs and the minimal savings on a NPPL course, students should start with JAA PPL.
The NPPL is all you'd expect from the fly-boys but it is not in anyone's interests other than those of the sub-standard pilot (and greedy schools).
The NPPL will allow geriatrics to fly (hopefully on their own and well away from populated areas) but this motorbike licence of the air is not for the credible pilot.
P.S. the potential up-grade to a full licence would be a useful selling point for the schools but commonsense suggests that, in view of the additional costs and the minimal savings on a NPPL course, students should start with JAA PPL.
Last edited by notice; 19th Apr 2002 at 21:59.
Why does 'simpler' imply any lowering in standards, 'notice'? Or is that the jealous observation of someone who has had to pay over the odds for a JAR/FCL PPL?
Read the post carefully, dear civil serpent, and you'll note that it's the industry and the CAA who are keen on the NPPL. We're merely trying to ensure that a minimum safe level of skill and medical standard are accepted.
Personally I neither need nor would train pilots towards a NPPL. BUT others do - so we're just making sure that their needs are catered for without detriment to safety.
Read the post carefully, dear civil serpent, and you'll note that it's the industry and the CAA who are keen on the NPPL. We're merely trying to ensure that a minimum safe level of skill and medical standard are accepted.
Personally I neither need nor would train pilots towards a NPPL. BUT others do - so we're just making sure that their needs are catered for without detriment to safety.
Irv - I would hazard a guess that it's probably because he/she can fly OK but doesn't have a JAR Class 2 medical? Whereas he/she will be able to hold a NPPL medical.
Incidentally, the reason why I personally won't be training pilots for the NPPL is that my RF is embedded in Class D airspace and we are required to train pilots to JAR/FCL PPL standard. However, if someone can't get a JAR Class 2 medical then we will train them to JAR/FCL standard, but they will only be able to hold a NPPL.
Incidentally, the reason why I personally won't be training pilots for the NPPL is that my RF is embedded in Class D airspace and we are required to train pilots to JAR/FCL PPL standard. However, if someone can't get a JAR Class 2 medical then we will train them to JAR/FCL standard, but they will only be able to hold a NPPL.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANY thanks BeAgle, and for the Civil Serpent, I wish to gain the NPPL I am totally fit and healthy and at 43 Im not a geriatric, I do however wear a hearing aid, and can hear almost as well as you probably, however I probably would not pass the medical on hearing grounds, according to my Instructors I hear and fly as well as any other student.
The NPPL will allow me to fly, the class II medical is overly stringent in this one regard in my opinion, and as I want to fly because I LOVE flying and dont want an aviation career and have no burning ambition to fly to Europe the NPPL will suit me well
NPPL students may be able to train in less hours, but they still take the same exams, they still have to be competent and take the same ground exams...and above all must be as safe as anyone else. How many instructors would say...Oh its only an NPPL let him go solo now ?? or how many eaminers would pass an NPPL because they were unsafe??
The NPPL will allow me to fly, the class II medical is overly stringent in this one regard in my opinion, and as I want to fly because I LOVE flying and dont want an aviation career and have no burning ambition to fly to Europe the NPPL will suit me well
NPPL students may be able to train in less hours, but they still take the same exams, they still have to be competent and take the same ground exams...and above all must be as safe as anyone else. How many instructors would say...Oh its only an NPPL let him go solo now ?? or how many eaminers would pass an NPPL because they were unsafe??
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My My, the NPPL does tend to generate an awful lot of ill feeling and bile. The reason that I have no solo hours is because I do not have a class 2 medical. The reason that I don't have a class 2 medical is because my uncorrected vision is VERY SLIGHTLY over the limit. I wear glasses as do a vast number of JAR PPL holders, who I would not expect to fly without their glasses. What then is the difference? If my corrected vision is better than normal (which it is), why am I more of a hazard than the average glasses wearing pilot? This anomaly does not exist in the States, where I imagine the FAA would be expected to prove to a pilot that they are dangerous in the air. I am learning to fly for the love of it, and will earn my NPPL because of the love of flying (and BEagle's hard work!) and not because I want a career in aviation.
Don't assume the NPPL is only for geriatrics just like I don't assume that everyone with a JAR PPL is an elitist prat!!
Don't assume the NPPL is only for geriatrics just like I don't assume that everyone with a JAR PPL is an elitist prat!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that some of the problems re. for/against the nppl has to come from simple ignorance - that isn't saying which are right or wrong ( climbing on nearest fence ) - but I would ask, in my ignorance, what has been left out of the nppl training compared with the ppl, causing the reduced required hours? Is it the instrument training for example?
This is a serious question, because as a ppl holder, I was basically trained to fly VRF, during daylight. The same as the nppl. Ok, I can fly abroad with my ppl, but I didn't recieve any training for foriegn flying.
I can understand a school of thought that would think 'I did my 40-45 hrs, and to be honest, with hindsight, that was very basic.', so I do wonder how I would have been with 10 or so less hours in the book.
I look forward to your enlightenment.
Regards
LF
This is a serious question, because as a ppl holder, I was basically trained to fly VRF, during daylight. The same as the nppl. Ok, I can fly abroad with my ppl, but I didn't recieve any training for foriegn flying.
I can understand a school of thought that would think 'I did my 40-45 hrs, and to be honest, with hindsight, that was very basic.', so I do wonder how I would have been with 10 or so less hours in the book.
I look forward to your enlightenment.
Regards
LF
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: leeds
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The nub of the NPPL issue is the downgrading of current requirements for pilots and, by implication, devaluation of the present standards of ALL private pilots. Critics (and there are plenty who would ban any pleasure flying) are not interested in the average or best but only the worst examples. The better, if not most, private pilots have never been significantly different but the NPPL will facilitate the flying of more dangerous and problem cases, even if the system is free of corruption and other fixing (which it isn't now and it will be worse with NPPL). Under NPPL, a larger minority, who were able to meet the required standards but are not really right, will be pilots, 'just like the rest'.
It is difficult to comprehend how anything which is 'simpler' (your word BEagle) could not be easier. In the intellectual or technical context, this is exactly what has happened with and caused so much criticism of GCSE's, which are simpler and easier than ever.
For PPL training, we have arrived at 45hours, after 40 hours, CAA minimum. Whether that is really adequate is debatable (and there have always been very valid safety concerns about minimum and minimal hours) but there can be no dispute that more is better, both under training and to continue. I have heard many admit they only became anything like competent and safe with more hours, after they got their PPL !
They may have some (questionable) claims about course content and exam standards but it is irresponsible of BEagle & Co to advocate a significant reduction in minimum hours. It is even more bizarre that the CAA (are said to) support them.
On the medical front, there will always be debatable, sad or unfortunate cases, whatever the standards, but 'simpler' must, again, mean easier and that more marginal people will be pilots.
Everyone is sick of 'them', whether it's the CAA, JAA, Council (planning), Government (tax), Airports (landing fees) or CFI. One unfortunate consequence is that any relaxation or rule-breaking is regarded as some sort of victory. The NPPL is one we can do without and may live to regret.
It is difficult to comprehend how anything which is 'simpler' (your word BEagle) could not be easier. In the intellectual or technical context, this is exactly what has happened with and caused so much criticism of GCSE's, which are simpler and easier than ever.
For PPL training, we have arrived at 45hours, after 40 hours, CAA minimum. Whether that is really adequate is debatable (and there have always been very valid safety concerns about minimum and minimal hours) but there can be no dispute that more is better, both under training and to continue. I have heard many admit they only became anything like competent and safe with more hours, after they got their PPL !
They may have some (questionable) claims about course content and exam standards but it is irresponsible of BEagle & Co to advocate a significant reduction in minimum hours. It is even more bizarre that the CAA (are said to) support them.
On the medical front, there will always be debatable, sad or unfortunate cases, whatever the standards, but 'simpler' must, again, mean easier and that more marginal people will be pilots.
Everyone is sick of 'them', whether it's the CAA, JAA, Council (planning), Government (tax), Airports (landing fees) or CFI. One unfortunate consequence is that any relaxation or rule-breaking is regarded as some sort of victory. The NPPL is one we can do without and may live to regret.
No. The NPPL will be much as the 'old' UK PPL was. Except that the better accreditiation criteria for glider and microlight pilots will make learning to fly cheaper for many - and the medical standards will make learning to fly more accessible for others. There will be a mandatory IF training requirement; the amount in the 'old' PPL was, if anything, excessive as it gave pilots an unwarrranted level of confidence in their limited IF abilities; the 1 hour I received back in the late '60s was enought to convince me never to get caught in IMC until I'd been trained to cope with it properly. So - knock 3 hours of IF off the old PPL course, add the 2 NPPL Skill Tests to the NPPL course and the experience levels are pretty much the same as they were pre-JAR/FCL.
What's being left out? Radio navigation and that's all. 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.
The NPPL Skill Tests will be no 'easier' than the current JAR/FCL PPL Skill Test - the only thing they won't contain is position fixing by use of radio navigation aids and tracking to/from a beacon for 5 minutes. And they will be designed to be taken in 2 halves much as the 'old' PPL tests were.
What's being left out? Radio navigation and that's all. 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.
The NPPL Skill Tests will be no 'easier' than the current JAR/FCL PPL Skill Test - the only thing they won't contain is position fixing by use of radio navigation aids and tracking to/from a beacon for 5 minutes. And they will be designed to be taken in 2 halves much as the 'old' PPL tests were.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOTICE, thanks for your condesending and patronising remarks. Slavery of course has been banned and women have been given the vote. The age of consent lowered to 18 (from 21) and pubs open all day now. Alcoholism is not rife, Democratic participation has not increased and the Empire still functions. Hey even people from minority ethnic groups are allowed to have equality......Your arguements are about as good as the ones I heard as to why junior Doctors should work 150 hours a week...it was good enough for me type arguement.
I accept your right to hold a view, but please, objectivity backed up by FACTS not opinion is what is required here. The academic arguement in favour of the NPPL is also about the statistical probability of one of these NPPL pilots getting into difficulties and the likelihood of a problem occurring.
I can not believe that someone who is a PPL (YOU) can be so bigoted against the increase of GA to people who can perfectly safely hurl lumps of metal weighing 30 plus tonnes about the roads, but who will be trained by the same instructors and examined by the same examiners as YOU yet will be allegedly less safe, more incompetent and on the margins of almost everything else.
I have to say your elitist attitude is quite repugnant
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
First of all, the disclaimer: I know nothing about the NPPL except what I've read on this site (mostly on this thread, but a bit on some older threads), and my opinions must not only be taken as opinions, but also in the context of my limited knowledge of the subject.
Having said that, I have to admit that I don't understand the need for two "levels" of PPL.
As far as the different standards of medical are concerned, people such as deanofs and flying snapper are either fit enough to be private pilots, or they're not - it's as simple as that. If "the authorities" determine that someone who wears a hearing aid (to use deanof as an example) is capable of flying safely, then that person should be granted a Class 2 medical.
The same goes for the flying aspects of the license. Either I need to know how to track a VOR, or I don't. If "the authorities" determine that it's perfectly safe for someone to fly around without having been trained in tracking to a beacon for 5 minutes, then why should PPL students be required to do this training? (I expect that most people would teach themselves how to use whatever nav-aids they have in their aircraft anyway, the same as people are teaching themselves to use a GPS as a backup nav-aid without any formal training.)
It's not necessarilly making things "simpler" that I have a problem with, because the criteria for passing a skills test will always be updated from time to time - sometimes making things simpler, sometimes making them more complicated. But I genuinely don't understand the need for a two-tier system. Maybe BEagle or someone else can enlighten me?
FFF
----------
Having said that, I have to admit that I don't understand the need for two "levels" of PPL.
As far as the different standards of medical are concerned, people such as deanofs and flying snapper are either fit enough to be private pilots, or they're not - it's as simple as that. If "the authorities" determine that someone who wears a hearing aid (to use deanof as an example) is capable of flying safely, then that person should be granted a Class 2 medical.
The same goes for the flying aspects of the license. Either I need to know how to track a VOR, or I don't. If "the authorities" determine that it's perfectly safe for someone to fly around without having been trained in tracking to a beacon for 5 minutes, then why should PPL students be required to do this training? (I expect that most people would teach themselves how to use whatever nav-aids they have in their aircraft anyway, the same as people are teaching themselves to use a GPS as a backup nav-aid without any formal training.)
It's not necessarilly making things "simpler" that I have a problem with, because the criteria for passing a skills test will always be updated from time to time - sometimes making things simpler, sometimes making them more complicated. But I genuinely don't understand the need for a two-tier system. Maybe BEagle or someone else can enlighten me?
FFF
----------
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
Your comments echo what I am feeling about the nppl. BEagle has explained the main differences being the VOR tracking/fixing and Instrument training. Now ignoring the actual min. hours issue I do feel missing these two elements off any private license is ill advised. When learning to fly, my instructors, examiner and fellow club members only had one totally common piece of advise, that being - flying into cloud without enough experience/training WILL kill you.
In this country, as today proves - 500ft cloud base throughout a large area of the NW ( but its sunny south of Birmingham so all the telly news tells us what a lovely day it is everywhere
) it is very easy to get yourself near an IMC situation, without showing poor airmanship. Knowing what I do now ( very little, I apreciate ) I would not want to pass a nppl without at least the 4 hours I got from the CAA system.
As for the VOR tracking, I just can't see the reason to remove this for the nppl, except for cost. And we are only talking about 2-3 hours? Knowing how to find where you are has got to be essential, and if another £300 provided this, well.
It just seems to me that many of the issues drummed into me about reserve methods to conduct a safe flight have been binned. Flying VFR, maybe in less that perfect conditions, no Radio Nav experience - Bang, the radio goes...... We have been instructed on all these situations because they will happen one day - the radio happened to me, it was a shock!
If I am misreading the situation please educate me, but I just can't see the point of missing things that I was told throughout my training where life savers.
Flying is expensive - learning to fly is expensive - we who have been able to learn and then able to continue to fly are lucky, and I am most certainly not saying ' I had to pay so you should ', but in my book, 45 hrs is very basic anyway. Flying is all about hrs - the more you have and your still alive, simply the better you SHOULD be.
Any comments welcomed.
Regards
LF
Your comments echo what I am feeling about the nppl. BEagle has explained the main differences being the VOR tracking/fixing and Instrument training. Now ignoring the actual min. hours issue I do feel missing these two elements off any private license is ill advised. When learning to fly, my instructors, examiner and fellow club members only had one totally common piece of advise, that being - flying into cloud without enough experience/training WILL kill you.
In this country, as today proves - 500ft cloud base throughout a large area of the NW ( but its sunny south of Birmingham so all the telly news tells us what a lovely day it is everywhere
) it is very easy to get yourself near an IMC situation, without showing poor airmanship. Knowing what I do now ( very little, I apreciate ) I would not want to pass a nppl without at least the 4 hours I got from the CAA system.As for the VOR tracking, I just can't see the reason to remove this for the nppl, except for cost. And we are only talking about 2-3 hours? Knowing how to find where you are has got to be essential, and if another £300 provided this, well.
It just seems to me that many of the issues drummed into me about reserve methods to conduct a safe flight have been binned. Flying VFR, maybe in less that perfect conditions, no Radio Nav experience - Bang, the radio goes...... We have been instructed on all these situations because they will happen one day - the radio happened to me, it was a shock!
If I am misreading the situation please educate me, but I just can't see the point of missing things that I was told throughout my training where life savers.
Flying is expensive - learning to fly is expensive - we who have been able to learn and then able to continue to fly are lucky, and I am most certainly not saying ' I had to pay so you should ', but in my book, 45 hrs is very basic anyway. Flying is all about hrs - the more you have and your still alive, simply the better you SHOULD be.
Any comments welcomed.
Regards
LF
FFF,
You're right - why have two levels of PPL. Let's ditch the gold-plated JAR-PPL and have a ... National PPL, similar to that we had 20 years ago! BEagle has already pointed out that the proposed NPPL is very similar to the old CAA PPL.
LF,
The first NPPL document proposed an IMC rating, more appropriate than a couple of hours fam. training, but that was knocked out (by "elitist ****s" who wanted to maintain a difference, I wonder?). The NPPL course and test is for VFR only, so radio navigation/tracking is not necessary - doesn't mean that trainees can't request, or instructors train for, it.
BEagle,
You must sometimes wonder why you participated in this attempt to slow down the decrease in the pilot population. Keep up the good work, nil illegitimi carborundum!
You're right - why have two levels of PPL. Let's ditch the gold-plated JAR-PPL and have a ... National PPL, similar to that we had 20 years ago! BEagle has already pointed out that the proposed NPPL is very similar to the old CAA PPL.
LF,
The first NPPL document proposed an IMC rating, more appropriate than a couple of hours fam. training, but that was knocked out (by "elitist ****s" who wanted to maintain a difference, I wonder?). The NPPL course and test is for VFR only, so radio navigation/tracking is not necessary - doesn't mean that trainees can't request, or instructors train for, it.
BEagle,
You must sometimes wonder why you participated in this attempt to slow down the decrease in the pilot population. Keep up the good work, nil illegitimi carborundum!