PPL(A) Substandard Pilots......
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Slim Slag said :
"Why should somebody with a medical condition which is deemed too unsafe for them to fly a warrior over my head with a PPL piece of paper in their pocket, be safe to fly the same plane over my head with a similar piece of paper in their pocket, except it has an extra letter on it???"
Depends whether they are *really* unsafe - or just don't reach the standards for a class 2 medical. What the NPPL admits to is that for fun flying a class 2 is OTT. US pilots don't need it, glider piolts don't, nor microlighters. And I can drive my big heavy motorcar at speed past pedestrians and cyclists and need *no* medical so to do. If I suffer a heart attack whule so doing, the pedestrians and cyclists (not to mention other road users) would be put at very high risk. If I flake out in the Chippy, the chances of any 3rd party (other than my passenger, who knew and accepted the risk) being involved in the subsequent accident are very slim indeed.
SSD
"Why should somebody with a medical condition which is deemed too unsafe for them to fly a warrior over my head with a PPL piece of paper in their pocket, be safe to fly the same plane over my head with a similar piece of paper in their pocket, except it has an extra letter on it???"
Depends whether they are *really* unsafe - or just don't reach the standards for a class 2 medical. What the NPPL admits to is that for fun flying a class 2 is OTT. US pilots don't need it, glider piolts don't, nor microlighters. And I can drive my big heavy motorcar at speed past pedestrians and cyclists and need *no* medical so to do. If I suffer a heart attack whule so doing, the pedestrians and cyclists (not to mention other road users) would be put at very high risk. If I flake out in the Chippy, the chances of any 3rd party (other than my passenger, who knew and accepted the risk) being involved in the subsequent accident are very slim indeed.
SSD
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
From: www.chinook-justice.org
During my ppl training, I was sent solo after only 11 hours. Some friends of mine soloed with less hours than that. My point is the NPPL pilot, with (at least) 35 hours, is surely competent by any standards.
I solo'd after 11 and a bit hours, but no way was I fit or safe to be let lose on the world after 35 hours. Was I a slow learner? Dunno, ask the guy who taught me. I got my licence after 55 hours, which included about 40 hours dual. I didn't feel that a single one of them was wasted, and I don't recall learning anything (in the air at least) that was irrelevant to the kind of flying I do now.
If competent pilots are to be turned out in 32 hours (which presumeably includes some solo time) then the methods of teaching will have to change with a lot more emphasis on ground school than is the case at almost every school currently. However, as long as schools continue to treat instructors as slave labour it will never happen.
Another thought - NPPL students will have less training - what effect will this have have on insurance premiums for schools hiring aircraft to NPPL holders?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 333
Likes: 3
From: By the big Teapot
SSD- You're completely correct there. I can't help thinking that one or two people here are missing the point re the 32 hour NPPL, and that is that the 32 hours, (if that is indeed what it is to be), is a MINIMUM requirement.
Spiney
Spiney
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
SSD,
As I read Slim Slags post I didn't detect that he was being critical of the nppl's lower medical stance, but instead agreed with it and the US approach to the medical. Maybe I read wrong.
This medical seems to be the biggest bugbear. I don't agree with all the nppl particularly, but the medical issue is a strong one. It appears to be a Europe issue throughout all levels of aviation - US commercial pilots fly overhead every day with lower medical standards to us, so why aren’t they considered unsafe?
LF
As I read Slim Slags post I didn't detect that he was being critical of the nppl's lower medical stance, but instead agreed with it and the US approach to the medical. Maybe I read wrong.
This medical seems to be the biggest bugbear. I don't agree with all the nppl particularly, but the medical issue is a strong one. It appears to be a Europe issue throughout all levels of aviation - US commercial pilots fly overhead every day with lower medical standards to us, so why aren’t they considered unsafe?
LF
