Official NPPL web site now live
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: North Wilts
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it wansn't for the NPPL I would, for medical reasons, have to go across the pond and get an FAA PPL that would have given me identical priveleges to the NPPL. I would have done just that, and given my money to an instrutor there rather than an instructor here.
Other people might well be able to get a JAR Class 2 but regard the undertaking of a formal medical as something of a barrier.
I doubt that anyone who undertakes the NPPL will seriously believe, after a few hours, that they can come out perfect after 32 hours, but that is not the point. The point is to get people started, with temptations such as easier medicals, fewer training hours etc. They will soon realise that its going to take longer than they thought, and probably be more expensive, but it will have achieved another person starting out who, hopefully, will become hooked and carry on.
On another note, duty will never come down on AVGAS, so there is no point even thinking about it. Duty never comes down on anything, particularly a fuel that is going to be obsolete in a few years. There have been several discussions recently about how to fund LARS - and many have suggested a duty on AVGAS. This is a dangerous precedent. If the treasury gets accustomed to the idea that GA is happy to have GA related costs directly related to AVGAS (or any subsequent fuel) we can expect significant and frequent rises in the future.
Other people might well be able to get a JAR Class 2 but regard the undertaking of a formal medical as something of a barrier.
I doubt that anyone who undertakes the NPPL will seriously believe, after a few hours, that they can come out perfect after 32 hours, but that is not the point. The point is to get people started, with temptations such as easier medicals, fewer training hours etc. They will soon realise that its going to take longer than they thought, and probably be more expensive, but it will have achieved another person starting out who, hopefully, will become hooked and carry on.
On another note, duty will never come down on AVGAS, so there is no point even thinking about it. Duty never comes down on anything, particularly a fuel that is going to be obsolete in a few years. There have been several discussions recently about how to fund LARS - and many have suggested a duty on AVGAS. This is a dangerous precedent. If the treasury gets accustomed to the idea that GA is happy to have GA related costs directly related to AVGAS (or any subsequent fuel) we can expect significant and frequent rises in the future.
Bringer of Wx
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keendog
I'm very pleased that the NPPL system allows you to get a licence where you would have been unable to do so under the old system. However, that is not, as far as I was aware, the stated objective of the NPPL.
As I understand it (and I may be wrong) it is to both reduce costs and ensure a better supply of future pilots (especially commercial pilots who will have to go on and pass a Class One medical).
A nice by-product of the new system, but unfortunately not an indication that it will be ultimately able to do what it says on the tin (perhaps someone can answer my questions and prove me wrong)...good luck to you personally, though!
WxJx
I'm very pleased that the NPPL system allows you to get a licence where you would have been unable to do so under the old system. However, that is not, as far as I was aware, the stated objective of the NPPL.
As I understand it (and I may be wrong) it is to both reduce costs and ensure a better supply of future pilots (especially commercial pilots who will have to go on and pass a Class One medical).
A nice by-product of the new system, but unfortunately not an indication that it will be ultimately able to do what it says on the tin (perhaps someone can answer my questions and prove me wrong)...good luck to you personally, though!
WxJx
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: too near London
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle et al: I think the point people are making is that no matter how great a victory the NPPL is for common sense with respect to the way it is administered, i.e. " by industry" I am afraid there is no way , practically,this can induce hordes more folk to learn to fly - because it isn't cheaper, unless we split hairs and talk about medical costs and renewal costs which are not exactly things that a lot of people have been overly concerned about. Yes, of course there are folk for whom the reduced medical requirements will be a godsend, and it's certainly high time the medical requirements for private licences came in line with micros, gliders etc. BUT when it comes down to it, the same aircraft, instructor, and aerodrome requirements are there! I cannot believe you seriously suppose the flying part of the syllabus is going to be completed in fewer hours? We all know what changes would bring about genuinely reduced costs. Will it reduce the number of folk crossing the Pond? I think not. We are talking about 'significant' changes afterall...
Is this all part of a slowly slowly catchee monkey game that is being played with the powers that be to effect real change in the near future? If it is, let us all in the secret and we can all be enthusiastic about it. The NPPL is a great step forward for all the reasons discussed already, but at the moment cheaper, it ain't..
PS why no heli NPPL - presumably cos there are no microhelis, the PFA don't want 'em, they don't make good gliders, and the powers in AOPA are all dyed in the wool plankies
Is this all part of a slowly slowly catchee monkey game that is being played with the powers that be to effect real change in the near future? If it is, let us all in the secret and we can all be enthusiastic about it. The NPPL is a great step forward for all the reasons discussed already, but at the moment cheaper, it ain't..
PS why no heli NPPL - presumably cos there are no microhelis, the PFA don't want 'em, they don't make good gliders, and the powers in AOPA are all dyed in the wool plankies
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: North Wilts
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WxJx
I did not understand it ever to have been the objective of the NPPL to provide a pool of future commercial pilots. If anthing that effect (if it materialises) is the spin off of what was an attempt to disentangle VFR GA from the tentacles of JAA.
I agree that it is not going to be so significantly cheaper that the cost consequence of having an NPPL would ever alone determine someone's decision to fly, or not to learn to fly. I suspect many people (me included) will wish to have the training required for a JAR PPL, notwithstanding that we will not hold the actual licence.
GA's biggest complaint is not enough people, not enough of a voice. If this relatively simple scheme (with an unavoidably long gestation period) results in an increase of a few percentage points in those wishing to start, it will have done its job. Not to mention the advantages for older (from a medical point of view) permit flyers who have many hundreds of hours but simply wish to fly in an simpler and cheaper regulatory environment.
I did not understand it ever to have been the objective of the NPPL to provide a pool of future commercial pilots. If anthing that effect (if it materialises) is the spin off of what was an attempt to disentangle VFR GA from the tentacles of JAA.
I agree that it is not going to be so significantly cheaper that the cost consequence of having an NPPL would ever alone determine someone's decision to fly, or not to learn to fly. I suspect many people (me included) will wish to have the training required for a JAR PPL, notwithstanding that we will not hold the actual licence.
GA's biggest complaint is not enough people, not enough of a voice. If this relatively simple scheme (with an unavoidably long gestation period) results in an increase of a few percentage points in those wishing to start, it will have done its job. Not to mention the advantages for older (from a medical point of view) permit flyers who have many hundreds of hours but simply wish to fly in an simpler and cheaper regulatory environment.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Twyford, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is in danger of becoming a healthy debate.....let's keep it like that.
Can we examine who WILL benefit from the NPPL instead of who will NOT.
Medical renewal costs are not to be sniffed at. The NPPL needs simply a certificate signed by your own GP that you are fit to the DVLA standard for professional drivers....eg: Buses, HGV etc.
More of that later. The Doc is entitled to charge for the issue of that...typically 20 quid. If a person cannot pass even this, but CAN be signed off as fit to the DVLA standard to drive a private car, they can be issued an NPPL, limited to Solo flying only, or with a safety pilot if carrying passengers.
If a Pilot wishes to add IMC, Multi engine ratings etc etc. or carry more than 3 passengers, then they will still need a PPL.
In addition, several thousand PPL's who have been bounced, medically, by the JAR Class 2 Medical, will now be able to get back into flying and continue on the DVLA Standard, albeit with certain restrictions. The Doctor is guided here with Medical notes on certain conditions, and has to sign that he/she has read them. The length of validity of the certificate CAN be up to five years unless the doctor wishes to place shorter.
The thinking behind all this, is that the CAA recognises that the person who can really gauge a person's medical history, is not the person who does a bi annual or annual, or even six monthly medical, but the GP who sees the person regularly. Can Pilots be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to an AME.?? Well I think the answer to that one is clear.!!
Now, we are all getting older, and the time will come when you young tykes will be glad of this category of licence, which has existed in the USA for some time now.
Time to declare my own interest here.....as the holder of a PPL/Multi/Night/IMC for some 32 years, and an aircraft owner for around 25 of those, I lost my medical last year. Here I am with a JAR FCL Class 2, and owning a complex single, suddenly having the feet whipped away from beneath me. Not a good feeling, I can tell you. Now I can continue, in terms acceptable to me, and if I DO want to go over to Deauville for lunch, I can Fax the French CAA equivalent with a request for a dispensation ......something they have been doing routinely for years with Permit aircraft.
There has been a bit of the attitude in this thread which has existed for a long long time in the Amateur Radio world which says "Because WE had to take a Morse Test, and a Technical examination, you must too" Therefore, WE had to have a PPL then you must too.!! I am also a PFA Member....that fine grass roots aviation organisation which fights for us all regardless of whether we are members or not. They fought, along with AOPA, BMAA, and others to have this NPPL brought in. It is the first time, to my certain knowledge, that such a radical rethink of Regulations which heretofore have signified power, have been instituted. I think the organisations involved should be heartily congratulated for keeping me and thousands of others in the air, and making flying cheaper for all, and not criticised.
I applaud them and the CAA for their forward thinking.
Can we examine who WILL benefit from the NPPL instead of who will NOT.
Medical renewal costs are not to be sniffed at. The NPPL needs simply a certificate signed by your own GP that you are fit to the DVLA standard for professional drivers....eg: Buses, HGV etc.
More of that later. The Doc is entitled to charge for the issue of that...typically 20 quid. If a person cannot pass even this, but CAN be signed off as fit to the DVLA standard to drive a private car, they can be issued an NPPL, limited to Solo flying only, or with a safety pilot if carrying passengers.
If a Pilot wishes to add IMC, Multi engine ratings etc etc. or carry more than 3 passengers, then they will still need a PPL.
In addition, several thousand PPL's who have been bounced, medically, by the JAR Class 2 Medical, will now be able to get back into flying and continue on the DVLA Standard, albeit with certain restrictions. The Doctor is guided here with Medical notes on certain conditions, and has to sign that he/she has read them. The length of validity of the certificate CAN be up to five years unless the doctor wishes to place shorter.
The thinking behind all this, is that the CAA recognises that the person who can really gauge a person's medical history, is not the person who does a bi annual or annual, or even six monthly medical, but the GP who sees the person regularly. Can Pilots be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to an AME.?? Well I think the answer to that one is clear.!!
Now, we are all getting older, and the time will come when you young tykes will be glad of this category of licence, which has existed in the USA for some time now.
Time to declare my own interest here.....as the holder of a PPL/Multi/Night/IMC for some 32 years, and an aircraft owner for around 25 of those, I lost my medical last year. Here I am with a JAR FCL Class 2, and owning a complex single, suddenly having the feet whipped away from beneath me. Not a good feeling, I can tell you. Now I can continue, in terms acceptable to me, and if I DO want to go over to Deauville for lunch, I can Fax the French CAA equivalent with a request for a dispensation ......something they have been doing routinely for years with Permit aircraft.
There has been a bit of the attitude in this thread which has existed for a long long time in the Amateur Radio world which says "Because WE had to take a Morse Test, and a Technical examination, you must too" Therefore, WE had to have a PPL then you must too.!! I am also a PFA Member....that fine grass roots aviation organisation which fights for us all regardless of whether we are members or not. They fought, along with AOPA, BMAA, and others to have this NPPL brought in. It is the first time, to my certain knowledge, that such a radical rethink of Regulations which heretofore have signified power, have been instituted. I think the organisations involved should be heartily congratulated for keeping me and thousands of others in the air, and making flying cheaper for all, and not criticised.
I applaud them and the CAA for their forward thinking.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, Kirstey, I am glad to see that you have been issued with an Irony Rating along with your PPL. This is a good thing. I am rarely a keyboard warrior as being disagreeable to or about people I have never met is far less entertaining than the real thing, and in any event I make it a rule not to have arguments with people unless paid extremely large sums plus VAT for doing so (my profile with explain why this is). [Alright, I confess that I also make exceptions for the sommelier in L'Oranger, but it serves him right].
As for reasoned debate, I assume that by this you mean something like "Even the forms are the bloody same!!"
My observation was directed more at your assertive manner of expressing your opinions, which seems to me uncharacteristic of this strangely civilised backwater of pprune, and your indomitable confidence in asserting your opinions given your relative inexperience as a pilot, than at the opinions themselves.
I don't particularly wish to debate the NPPL, not because I have no views on the subject , but because my views generally accord with those expressed very clearly here, and many times before, by Beagle and others in the pro-NPPL camp. Like you I doubt that many people will achieve an NPPL in 32 hours, just as few people obtain a PPL in 45 hours, but this does not seem to me to invalidate the concept of a limited recreational flying qualification, assuming (perhaps a big assumption) that training standards are maintained and that people qualifiying under either system do so with a proper understanding of their own limitations and the need to work constantly and regularly thereafter at all aspects of flying proficiency.
As for reasoned debate, I assume that by this you mean something like "Even the forms are the bloody same!!"
My observation was directed more at your assertive manner of expressing your opinions, which seems to me uncharacteristic of this strangely civilised backwater of pprune, and your indomitable confidence in asserting your opinions given your relative inexperience as a pilot, than at the opinions themselves.
I don't particularly wish to debate the NPPL, not because I have no views on the subject , but because my views generally accord with those expressed very clearly here, and many times before, by Beagle and others in the pro-NPPL camp. Like you I doubt that many people will achieve an NPPL in 32 hours, just as few people obtain a PPL in 45 hours, but this does not seem to me to invalidate the concept of a limited recreational flying qualification, assuming (perhaps a big assumption) that training standards are maintained and that people qualifiying under either system do so with a proper understanding of their own limitations and the need to work constantly and regularly thereafter at all aspects of flying proficiency.
Last edited by FNG; 14th Jul 2002 at 13:17.
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear, hear Taildragger & FNG!
There are actually quite a lot of pilots out here who will see a very significant financial saving with the introduction of the NPPL: microlight and glider pilots who wish to add a SEP rating to their existing licences.
A microlight licence holder can only be credited with a maximum of 10 hours towards a JAR PPL at present, leaving at least 35 hours more training to pay for. The NPPL brings that down to an absolute minimum of three hours plus tests. Even after adding a reasonable margin on to that there is a very substantial saving to be had in training hours, especially for those who fly the more Group A-like microlights where the conversion to the likes of C150s will be less of a change.
There are actually quite a lot of pilots out here who will see a very significant financial saving with the introduction of the NPPL: microlight and glider pilots who wish to add a SEP rating to their existing licences.
A microlight licence holder can only be credited with a maximum of 10 hours towards a JAR PPL at present, leaving at least 35 hours more training to pay for. The NPPL brings that down to an absolute minimum of three hours plus tests. Even after adding a reasonable margin on to that there is a very substantial saving to be had in training hours, especially for those who fly the more Group A-like microlights where the conversion to the likes of C150s will be less of a change.
When first proposed by AOPA, the NPPL had, in the view of many, certain flaws. So AOPA invited us all to discuss the matter and to negotiate. Not an easy process. But Martin came up with inspired blackmail at our first meeting when he said that we weren't going to break for our sandwich lunch until we agreed! So after some to-ing and fro-ing, we came up with certain proposals. Much of which had to be referred back to member organisations.
Now, if we all worked 100% of our time for NPPLSC, no problem. We'd perhaps have had an agreed framework reasonably quickly. But time was needed for further voluntary work, consultation, etc - and to reflect upon the guidance from our good friends from the CAA who also came to the meetings.
There were also mandatory legal processes to go through until the CAA were able to take the matter forward following consultation - and they were as quick with this as the law permits. And fair - due to the level of concern at the first letter of consultation, a further one was needed - even though the CAA was as keen as we were to get the NPPL airborne.
So who will benefit? Not the person who thinks that there's now an easy path to becoming an hours-building FI. But principally:
1. Those who are unable to hold a JAR Class 2 medical.
2. Those who can't afford a JAR-FCL PPL course - but could afford to start with gliding or microlighting (both of which are substantially cheaper and lead to a good sense of airmanship and caution for the weather!).
3. RFs who don't wish to pay for expensive VOR or ADF receivers (and their annual checking) in their aircraft.
4. Those who aren't sure about a career in aviation, but want to dip their toes in the pool first. They obtain a NPPL(SEP) which also means that they've got 100 hours credit towards CPL groundschool in the future, having passed the same exams as are required for a JAR-FCL PPL. Thay potter about the UK on nice sunny days for a while, then decide that they want to go to the next stage - so they 'upgrade' to JAR-FCL PPL. Then they add an IMC rating....then a night qualification. Then they decide to go for a modular CPL....then an IR...then a MEP Class Rating...then MCC.......
And, as a UK/FE(PPL), I can assure you that the 'bloody forms' are most certainly NOT the same as the JAR-FCL ones. Similar in layout, but not in content.
Thank you to those of you who made such generous comments - we are very heartened to know that many are keen to embrace the NPPL with enthusiasm.
We will continue to debate the sites, aeroplanes and qualifications required for NPPL training - but that is unlikely to be a speedy process as there are several complex issues at stake.
Now, if we all worked 100% of our time for NPPLSC, no problem. We'd perhaps have had an agreed framework reasonably quickly. But time was needed for further voluntary work, consultation, etc - and to reflect upon the guidance from our good friends from the CAA who also came to the meetings.
There were also mandatory legal processes to go through until the CAA were able to take the matter forward following consultation - and they were as quick with this as the law permits. And fair - due to the level of concern at the first letter of consultation, a further one was needed - even though the CAA was as keen as we were to get the NPPL airborne.
So who will benefit? Not the person who thinks that there's now an easy path to becoming an hours-building FI. But principally:
1. Those who are unable to hold a JAR Class 2 medical.
2. Those who can't afford a JAR-FCL PPL course - but could afford to start with gliding or microlighting (both of which are substantially cheaper and lead to a good sense of airmanship and caution for the weather!).
3. RFs who don't wish to pay for expensive VOR or ADF receivers (and their annual checking) in their aircraft.
4. Those who aren't sure about a career in aviation, but want to dip their toes in the pool first. They obtain a NPPL(SEP) which also means that they've got 100 hours credit towards CPL groundschool in the future, having passed the same exams as are required for a JAR-FCL PPL. Thay potter about the UK on nice sunny days for a while, then decide that they want to go to the next stage - so they 'upgrade' to JAR-FCL PPL. Then they add an IMC rating....then a night qualification. Then they decide to go for a modular CPL....then an IR...then a MEP Class Rating...then MCC.......
And, as a UK/FE(PPL), I can assure you that the 'bloody forms' are most certainly NOT the same as the JAR-FCL ones. Similar in layout, but not in content.
Thank you to those of you who made such generous comments - we are very heartened to know that many are keen to embrace the NPPL with enthusiasm.
We will continue to debate the sites, aeroplanes and qualifications required for NPPL training - but that is unlikely to be a speedy process as there are several complex issues at stake.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nonradio - I was about to ask exactly the same thing.
"Something" has been alluded to a number of times. I suspect that "something" may be part of a game of politics, in which case I can understand that PPRuNe probably isn't the place to discuss it, but I would be interested in where the NPPL might go
"Something" has been alluded to a number of times. I suspect that "something" may be part of a game of politics, in which case I can understand that PPRuNe probably isn't the place to discuss it, but I would be interested in where the NPPL might go
1. Commercial interests of certain NPPLSC organisations' members conflicting with individual interests of aspirant pilots.
2. Safety. There's no doubt that a first rate Europa is a jewel compared to a tatty old Spamcan maintained by Bodgitt and Scarper. Sadly, regulation must take the lowest common denominator and the likelihood of certain (well known, but no proof!) dodgy operators into account....so there are very strict regulations now in place as a result.
3. Flying sites. Perhaps some well-run organisations would operate from well-maintained sites - but certain 'dodgy geezers' would flee from mud hole to mud hole with nothing more than an accommodation address and mobile phone number as their 'business address'.....
4. Instructors. There is some cautious work being done on investigating a possible way ahead to introduce something similar to the 'old' PPL/FI or R/BCPL/FI - but only if everyone is in agreement. In fact it's recorded as an action item in the minutes that we've agreed to begin debate on this as soon as the NPPL is introduced. But please don't expect something overnight!
Incidentally, I've never met anyone who thinks that he/she is a 'perfect pilot'. If I ever do, I hope that it will be on the ground, not in the air!
Sorry, but we owe it to the great unwashed general public to demonstrate that currently sound safety standards will not be compromised by any aspect of the NPPL.
2. Safety. There's no doubt that a first rate Europa is a jewel compared to a tatty old Spamcan maintained by Bodgitt and Scarper. Sadly, regulation must take the lowest common denominator and the likelihood of certain (well known, but no proof!) dodgy operators into account....so there are very strict regulations now in place as a result.
3. Flying sites. Perhaps some well-run organisations would operate from well-maintained sites - but certain 'dodgy geezers' would flee from mud hole to mud hole with nothing more than an accommodation address and mobile phone number as their 'business address'.....
4. Instructors. There is some cautious work being done on investigating a possible way ahead to introduce something similar to the 'old' PPL/FI or R/BCPL/FI - but only if everyone is in agreement. In fact it's recorded as an action item in the minutes that we've agreed to begin debate on this as soon as the NPPL is introduced. But please don't expect something overnight!
Incidentally, I've never met anyone who thinks that he/she is a 'perfect pilot'. If I ever do, I hope that it will be on the ground, not in the air!
Sorry, but we owe it to the great unwashed general public to demonstrate that currently sound safety standards will not be compromised by any aspect of the NPPL.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Weald, UK
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just thought I'd sound out my GP about getting my medical renewed under the NPPL. The conversations/e-mails/faxes have gone something like this:-
WHC I'd like to renew my medical under the new NPPL can you do an examination?
DOC NPPL - Whats that?
WHC Its the new PPL that means my GP can sign me off as opposed to an AME. Its the same standard as HGV, how much will it cost please? I'll fax you the info sheets.
DOC We charge £100 pounds for HGV medicals.
Sounds of fax machine whirring
Later....
DOC We've phoned the British Medical Association and they say its £140 so thats what we will charge.
WHC But thats the rate for an AME and you said it was £100 for HGV!
The moral of this story seems to be that the medical profession are totaly unprepared for NPPL.
WHC I'd like to renew my medical under the new NPPL can you do an examination?
DOC NPPL - Whats that?
WHC Its the new PPL that means my GP can sign me off as opposed to an AME. Its the same standard as HGV, how much will it cost please? I'll fax you the info sheets.
DOC We charge £100 pounds for HGV medicals.
Sounds of fax machine whirring
Later....
DOC We've phoned the British Medical Association and they say its £140 so thats what we will charge.
WHC But thats the rate for an AME and you said it was £100 for HGV!
The moral of this story seems to be that the medical profession are totaly unprepared for NPPL.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The moral of this story seems to be that the medical profession are totaly unprepared for NPPL.
It's a bit unlucky for people that the NPPL has come just at a time when GPs are generally upping their private fees to bring them closer to a 'market rate'. They've been undercharging for years because they're frankly not a very worldly bunch. I write this as a GP who works as a locum -- in other words I generally don't get paid the fees charged for any medicals I do -- so I don't have much of an axe to grind in this.
QDM
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My JAR class 2 renewal was £50, and with it the doc gave me an FAA class 2 for free.....
I'm afraid I can see no advantage with the NPPL, other than for people who have been flying micro's / gliders possibly, and this is why:-
The NPPL will not save anyone much money, and as Beagle said in earlier posts, the skills test will be as thorough as the JAR PPL. This says to me that the 30something hours is unobtainable by most people.
NPPL medical renewal costs are likely to be similar to JAR medical renewal costs. If the CAA / Government wanted to, they could introduce a national medical certificate which would allow a holder to fly on their JAR PPL in UK airspace, without meeting the requirements of the JAR class 2 medical.
You are limited to UK arispace. Great if you live in southern England or want come cheap flying abroad (maybe this is the idea??)
Hourly rental / instruction rates look likely to be similar to JAR PPL costs....so no saving there. Post NPPL costs will remain the same as JAR PPL costs.
If you want to add more ratings, you need to up-grade to a JAR-FCL PPL. Now your costs are similar to doing the JAR PPL in the first place.
It may be correct to compare the new NPPL with the FAA 'recreational' certificate.....but bear in mind that nobody bothers with this certificate in the US.
Although I do sympathise with people who are unable to obtain a JAR Class2 medical certificate, I think that some people think that JAR is the beall and endall of flying. If I had an aircraft, and (or) if I could no longer get a JAR Class 2 medical, I would pop over to the US, get myself an FAA PPL or CPL, plus medical, stick my aircraft (or get) on the N register and fly on the privileges of my US certificate. The FAA Class 3 medical is valid for 3 years, is as easy or easier to pass than an HGV one in this country, and is renewable in the UK / Europe.
Although I think the idea of having a UK national PPL is a good one, I don't think the NPPL in its current for is really offering any advantages.....
Cheers
EA
I'm afraid I can see no advantage with the NPPL, other than for people who have been flying micro's / gliders possibly, and this is why:-
The NPPL will not save anyone much money, and as Beagle said in earlier posts, the skills test will be as thorough as the JAR PPL. This says to me that the 30something hours is unobtainable by most people.
NPPL medical renewal costs are likely to be similar to JAR medical renewal costs. If the CAA / Government wanted to, they could introduce a national medical certificate which would allow a holder to fly on their JAR PPL in UK airspace, without meeting the requirements of the JAR class 2 medical.
You are limited to UK arispace. Great if you live in southern England or want come cheap flying abroad (maybe this is the idea??)
Hourly rental / instruction rates look likely to be similar to JAR PPL costs....so no saving there. Post NPPL costs will remain the same as JAR PPL costs.
If you want to add more ratings, you need to up-grade to a JAR-FCL PPL. Now your costs are similar to doing the JAR PPL in the first place.
It may be correct to compare the new NPPL with the FAA 'recreational' certificate.....but bear in mind that nobody bothers with this certificate in the US.
Although I do sympathise with people who are unable to obtain a JAR Class2 medical certificate, I think that some people think that JAR is the beall and endall of flying. If I had an aircraft, and (or) if I could no longer get a JAR Class 2 medical, I would pop over to the US, get myself an FAA PPL or CPL, plus medical, stick my aircraft (or get) on the N register and fly on the privileges of my US certificate. The FAA Class 3 medical is valid for 3 years, is as easy or easier to pass than an HGV one in this country, and is renewable in the UK / Europe.
Although I think the idea of having a UK national PPL is a good one, I don't think the NPPL in its current for is really offering any advantages.....
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: too near London
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the argument for charging £100 plus for a 'proper' aircrew medical was all that extra costly training and equipment costs, how can £100 plus for a declaration signature from your GP stack up?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the argument for charging £100 plus for a 'proper' aircrew medical was all that extra costly training and equipment costs, how can £100 plus for a declaration signature from your GP stack up
If it's just a signature to say that the applicant is more or lessing telling the truth, I'd be surprised if even the most mercenary of my compatriots charged £100. If, however, it is a form like the HGV medical or -- much, much worse -- the fostering medical, hang on to your hats.
Haven't seen one myself, I'm afraid.
QDM
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, the NPPL medical is a self-declaration. In other words you fill in the form yourself, all your GP does is countersign it. I believe it has been stated that the GP is not required to examine you, although they obviously could if there was a valid reason. Doing so in order to charge a larger fee is not a valid reason. The effort / time on the part of the GP is therefore not to be compared with that of a PSV or HGV medical.
I don't think GPs should be trying to charge an hourly rate similar to others for the simple reason that they are already well paid just for having you on their books. It always strikes me as a bit much that they then want to charge for signing a form for one of their own customers. I bet very few pilots will spend more than five minutes WITH their GP when he countersigns the self-declaration. A charge of 10 pounds is therefore an hourly rate of 120 quid per hour on top of the standing payment for having you on their books.
Sorry to rant on about this QDM, nothing aimed at you personally, especially since you are a locum (for which I have the highest regard). Its just its a bit of a sore nerve with me.
I don't think GPs should be trying to charge an hourly rate similar to others for the simple reason that they are already well paid just for having you on their books. It always strikes me as a bit much that they then want to charge for signing a form for one of their own customers. I bet very few pilots will spend more than five minutes WITH their GP when he countersigns the self-declaration. A charge of 10 pounds is therefore an hourly rate of 120 quid per hour on top of the standing payment for having you on their books.
Sorry to rant on about this QDM, nothing aimed at you personally, especially since you are a locum (for which I have the highest regard). Its just its a bit of a sore nerve with me.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think GPs should be trying to charge an hourly rate similar to others for the simple reason that they are already well paid just for having you on their books. It always strikes me as a bit much that they then want to charge for signing a form for one of their own customers. I bet very few pilots will spend more than five minutes WITH their GP when he countersigns the self-declaration. A charge of 10 pounds is therefore an hourly rate of 120 quid per hour on top of the standing payment for having you on their books.
For their level of training and the degree of responsibility they carry, GPs get reimbursed poorly for providing a limited range of services for patients under what is known as the 'General Medical Services' contract, a contract which they hold with the NHS. That contract does not say that no matter what medical service a patient should require it will be performed at no charge by their GP.
NPPL or HGV medicals, or any other medical for that matter, are not covered under the GMS contract, hence there is a charge for them. It does not seem unreasonable that GPs should charge for their time at rates which are comparable to those of solicitors and other professionals. And as anyone who has been to see a solicitor will know, £120 / hour is cheap.
QDM
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For their level of training and the degree of responsibility they carry, GPs get reimbursed poorly for providing a limited range of services for patients under what is known as the 'General Medical Services' contract
Didn't you know, only Professional Pilots are allowed to Whinge about 'time and money invested and responsibility'
(Anyone this offends......take this post with a pinch of salt before any of you go into a keyboard frenzy
)Cheers
EA