Official NPPL web site now live
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official NPPL web site now live
The official web site with all the details of the NPPL now seems to be live at:
http://www.nppl.uk.com
http://www.nppl.uk.com
Sorry, but after some 14 meetings of the NPPL Steering Committee where we worked towards a common goal of making flying more affordable, I find your puerile and uninformed comments an utter insult.
The NPPL came about because that's what industry said they wanted - and that's what we've given you. It is not a 'product of the same organisation' as the JAR-FCL PPL, it is certainly not 'identical', neither are the forms the 'bloody same'.
Did you offer any contructive comment when the CAA circulated both letters of consultation?
The NPPL came about because that's what industry said they wanted - and that's what we've given you. It is not a 'product of the same organisation' as the JAR-FCL PPL, it is certainly not 'identical', neither are the forms the 'bloody same'.
Did you offer any contructive comment when the CAA circulated both letters of consultation?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on Beagle don't get on your high horse, I'm not looking for a fight here!
I have just completed my JAR-PPL. The syllabus is identical down the exercise numbers!!! The skills test form (forget the number) the QXC form are the same as the ones if just dropped off at aviation house! although they may have new codes on them of course!!
The only difference I can see is the completion of a "Nav test" before the QXC (which is 50 miles less, apart from that no "bloody" different) which incidently I think is an excellent idea, although the fact that the Navigation Skills Test and the GST don't count to the 32 hours means you probably do nearer 37hours (I'm sure not a deliberate misguidance) to get your minimum time NPPL.
If there are other differences please explain them to me Beagle, I am always willing to stand corrected. As I interpret it there are no cost savings to be made from this to make "flying more affordable" becasue you are doing the same things as a JAR PPL - I completed mine in 45hrs, now I could have passed in 32hrs, but only with a bit of luck and bit of blagging! After 45hours I was completly ready for my test, passed it with comfort and no blagging - I learnt a lot of stuff in my last 13hours that "nailed" my flying and made me safer. Doesn't this worry you that someone is now in a position where they could "blag" their way through a skills test and prematurly qualify as a pilot? I think the odds of this are more likely with this NPPL.
Anyway I digress a bit. My remarks were not puerile and uninformed. All I needed to make an informed judgment was to compare and contrast the NPPL documents with the FCL docs for the JAR-PPL. Over and above that I did my PPL becasue I was encouraged to by family, friends and their collegues who populate the corridors of Belgrano. I may be a flying novice, but I'm in no way uniformed.
At a first glance Beagle I'd say you guys achieved in 14 meetings what could've been worked out in about 3. As for making flying more affordable to more people. If that's your objective then I suspect your aims will not be achieved. If someone has enough disposable income to afford 32 hours instruction they probably have enough to afford (or enough creditworthyness!) 45.
[extra comment]
no I didn't add my comments - when the documents were circulated I was still into fags and beers rather than flying. My school however objected.
I have just completed my JAR-PPL. The syllabus is identical down the exercise numbers!!! The skills test form (forget the number) the QXC form are the same as the ones if just dropped off at aviation house! although they may have new codes on them of course!!
The only difference I can see is the completion of a "Nav test" before the QXC (which is 50 miles less, apart from that no "bloody" different) which incidently I think is an excellent idea, although the fact that the Navigation Skills Test and the GST don't count to the 32 hours means you probably do nearer 37hours (I'm sure not a deliberate misguidance) to get your minimum time NPPL.
If there are other differences please explain them to me Beagle, I am always willing to stand corrected. As I interpret it there are no cost savings to be made from this to make "flying more affordable" becasue you are doing the same things as a JAR PPL - I completed mine in 45hrs, now I could have passed in 32hrs, but only with a bit of luck and bit of blagging! After 45hours I was completly ready for my test, passed it with comfort and no blagging - I learnt a lot of stuff in my last 13hours that "nailed" my flying and made me safer. Doesn't this worry you that someone is now in a position where they could "blag" their way through a skills test and prematurly qualify as a pilot? I think the odds of this are more likely with this NPPL.
Anyway I digress a bit. My remarks were not puerile and uninformed. All I needed to make an informed judgment was to compare and contrast the NPPL documents with the FCL docs for the JAR-PPL. Over and above that I did my PPL becasue I was encouraged to by family, friends and their collegues who populate the corridors of Belgrano. I may be a flying novice, but I'm in no way uniformed.
At a first glance Beagle I'd say you guys achieved in 14 meetings what could've been worked out in about 3. As for making flying more affordable to more people. If that's your objective then I suspect your aims will not be achieved. If someone has enough disposable income to afford 32 hours instruction they probably have enough to afford (or enough creditworthyness!) 45.
[extra comment]
no I didn't add my comments - when the documents were circulated I was still into fags and beers rather than flying. My school however objected.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Twyford, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kirstey.....
The medical standards are quite different indeed. Also the licence has increased Minimum Vis standards, and is restricted to UK airspace only. In addition, complex singles require additional training, AND you can only fly aircraft with seating for a Pilot and Maximum three passengers. When you compared like for like you obviously missed them.
The medical standards are quite different indeed. Also the licence has increased Minimum Vis standards, and is restricted to UK airspace only. In addition, complex singles require additional training, AND you can only fly aircraft with seating for a Pilot and Maximum three passengers. When you compared like for like you obviously missed them.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Taildragger,
I understand that the constraints of the liscence are different (although I didn't realise the vis limits had changed). Surely you need additional training to fly a "complex" on a JAR-PPL as well?
The point I was making is the Syllabus itself is the same. Going over the same stuff will the same length of time whatever you call the liscence and whatever the minimum time is. If the key objective is to make flying more affordable at an "entry level" I think that is misleading - the training aspect is the same as the JAR-PPL and will take as long.
As I said before - I'm happy to be re-educated here! I'm not looking for a mindless ruck (constructive debate is fine!). I'm starting to go over the ground that has been covered many times on this forum, so I'll shut it now!
I understand that the constraints of the liscence are different (although I didn't realise the vis limits had changed). Surely you need additional training to fly a "complex" on a JAR-PPL as well?
The point I was making is the Syllabus itself is the same. Going over the same stuff will the same length of time whatever you call the liscence and whatever the minimum time is. If the key objective is to make flying more affordable at an "entry level" I think that is misleading - the training aspect is the same as the JAR-PPL and will take as long.
As I said before - I'm happy to be re-educated here! I'm not looking for a mindless ruck (constructive debate is fine!). I'm starting to go over the ground that has been covered many times on this forum, so I'll shut it now!
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations to Beagle and others who worked on the NPPL. I was unconvinced by the NPPL concept when it was first announced, but have been persuaded by the well informed contributions of Beagle and others to this forum that it is a good thing, although I shall be maintaining my PPL rather than trading it in for an NPPL.
Congratulations also to Kirstey for being a perfectly formed, perfectly safe, extremely knowleageable and in all ways complete pilot after 45 hours. Alas I am a slow learner and find myself a very incomplete pilot after 250, but no doubt I can learn much from Kirstey's ever helpful, polite and experience-based comments here, on the Angle of Attack thread and elsewhere.
Congratulations also to Kirstey for being a perfectly formed, perfectly safe, extremely knowleageable and in all ways complete pilot after 45 hours. Alas I am a slow learner and find myself a very incomplete pilot after 250, but no doubt I can learn much from Kirstey's ever helpful, polite and experience-based comments here, on the Angle of Attack thread and elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would just like to reiterate my thanks to BEagle and his colleagues for the unpaid hard work and time that he and many others like him have put into making this sensible and well thought out licence a reality.
It must be a bit annoying to people who have just spent a great deal on medical examinations, fees to the CAA etc to discover that they could have saved money by applying for the NPPL.
It appears to be accepted by most on this forum that the JAA licence when it was introduced was a mistake which did GA no good whatsoever. The NPPL has set this right.
Well done BEagle, and thank you for making a flying licence possible for me and many like me.
It must be a bit annoying to people who have just spent a great deal on medical examinations, fees to the CAA etc to discover that they could have saved money by applying for the NPPL.
It appears to be accepted by most on this forum that the JAA licence when it was introduced was a mistake which did GA no good whatsoever. The NPPL has set this right.
Well done BEagle, and thank you for making a flying licence possible for me and many like me.
Bringer of Wx
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle/All
Perhaps Kirstey was a little combative in tone, but his/her point remains (I have talked this over at length with qualified FI's and other pilots)-
What is the NPPL for, exactly?
Apart from the lower medical costs, how the award of a licence within the lowered hours requirement is going to be acheived by a majority of applicants is a mystery to myself and others, especially given that the average time taken by both CAA and JAA students is much higher, (anecdotally 55-65 hours, with some of that admittedly due due to delays caused by the lovely weather we enjoy in these tropical islands).
This 'mission creep' is not going to magically disappear under the NPPL. To my mind, what will happen is that in addition to schools being able to advertise a JJA PPL package for aroung GBP 4500-5000, they will be also able to offer the NPPL for around GBP 3000 - 4000.
That may well prove to attract more people initially, but when they too find that this estimate of costs proves to be somewhat, er, elastic, (I spent WELL over GBP 7000 to get my JAR PPL all in all) it won't be long before we are back at square one again.
BEagle, I have no doubt that you and your colleagues have worked extremely hard and dilligently on this project, what I would question is the validity of the project itself.
If you want to attract more people into flying and GA, make it more affordable. IMHO, the energies of the PFA, AOPA etc. would be much better spent campaigning for:
Reduction or abolition of taxation on AVGAS
Reduced landing fees for students (this is a BIG component of any PPL course)
Restoration of some kind of goverment credit/VAT exemption to all, or at least genuine career students (I believe that NVQ still applies to certain Yachting courses, for example, so why not a pilots licence? Much more useful to society
)
WxJx
Perhaps Kirstey was a little combative in tone, but his/her point remains (I have talked this over at length with qualified FI's and other pilots)-
What is the NPPL for, exactly?
Apart from the lower medical costs, how the award of a licence within the lowered hours requirement is going to be acheived by a majority of applicants is a mystery to myself and others, especially given that the average time taken by both CAA and JAA students is much higher, (anecdotally 55-65 hours, with some of that admittedly due due to delays caused by the lovely weather we enjoy in these tropical islands).
This 'mission creep' is not going to magically disappear under the NPPL. To my mind, what will happen is that in addition to schools being able to advertise a JJA PPL package for aroung GBP 4500-5000, they will be also able to offer the NPPL for around GBP 3000 - 4000.
That may well prove to attract more people initially, but when they too find that this estimate of costs proves to be somewhat, er, elastic, (I spent WELL over GBP 7000 to get my JAR PPL all in all) it won't be long before we are back at square one again.
BEagle, I have no doubt that you and your colleagues have worked extremely hard and dilligently on this project, what I would question is the validity of the project itself.
If you want to attract more people into flying and GA, make it more affordable. IMHO, the energies of the PFA, AOPA etc. would be much better spent campaigning for:
Reduction or abolition of taxation on AVGAS
Reduced landing fees for students (this is a BIG component of any PPL course)
Restoration of some kind of goverment credit/VAT exemption to all, or at least genuine career students (I believe that NVQ still applies to certain Yachting courses, for example, so why not a pilots licence? Much more useful to society
)WxJx
Last edited by WeatherJinx; 12th Jul 2002 at 12:39.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the last time you saw someone from the JAR-FCL PPL Steering Committee posting on PPRuNe? Anyone have any idea who runs it, for that matter? Me neither...
The NPPL probably doesn't impact many UK PPLs - yet - but I cannot see how we can possibly be worse off with it around. I'd rather have BEagle et al. thinking about what's next than JAR and EASA....
The NPPL probably doesn't impact many UK PPLs - yet - but I cannot see how we can possibly be worse off with it around. I'd rather have BEagle et al. thinking about what's next than JAR and EASA....
Last edited by Evo7; 12th Jul 2002 at 12:42.
Bringer of Wx
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo
I'm not saying that we will be worse off without the NPPL - but is that the best reason you can think of for adopting it? There are, in my opinion, much more effective ways of getting more people into the air.
It is indeed a good thing that a member of the NPPL Steering Comittee is posting on PPRuNe. However, in doing so he/she should also expect to answer questions from an informed audience.
Jx
I'm not saying that we will be worse off without the NPPL - but is that the best reason you can think of for adopting it? There are, in my opinion, much more effective ways of getting more people into the air.
It is indeed a good thing that a member of the NPPL Steering Comittee is posting on PPRuNe. However, in doing so he/she should also expect to answer questions from an informed audience.
Jx
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now FNG,
I am no way a perfect pilot after 45 hours - But I am a 100% better than the one I was after 35 hours! My point being that at 30 odd hours I knew enough to pass the test and with a bit of "luck" could've got through it without genuinily being ready for it. Surely that is a danger with the NPPL?? do you disagree FNG if so in what ways? Or are you just looking for an excuse to be a keyboard warrior? I'm always up for a disagreement matey, but if you do disagree then don't just bitch, let's have some reasoned debate.
As for my comments on "Angle of Attack" thread. My points were all valid and correct. Again if you disagree lets here why you think so?? I am again willing to be reeducated.
over to you chap.....
I am no way a perfect pilot after 45 hours - But I am a 100% better than the one I was after 35 hours! My point being that at 30 odd hours I knew enough to pass the test and with a bit of "luck" could've got through it without genuinily being ready for it. Surely that is a danger with the NPPL?? do you disagree FNG if so in what ways? Or are you just looking for an excuse to be a keyboard warrior? I'm always up for a disagreement matey, but if you do disagree then don't just bitch, let's have some reasoned debate.
As for my comments on "Angle of Attack" thread. My points were all valid and correct. Again if you disagree lets here why you think so?? I am again willing to be reeducated.
over to you chap.....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WxJx
I'm not claiming that is a reason for adopting it - I think it will only really impact people who cannot get a Class-2, at least until evolves a bit (there is a lot still to be decided, it seems). Anyone who thought that the NPPL was going to change GA in this country is nuts - changing AVGAS duty is probably the only thing that can do that - but it seems that some people can only criticise the NPPL and those involved for not doing the impossible.
Even if it doesn't apply to most of us, we are far better off with the NPPL than without. If nothing else it gives us all options when some aparatchik - who has probably never been in anything smaller than a Gulfstream V - decides that all PPLs need an IR 'to be safe'....
Edit,
I agree - but "So how come it took so long to come about?? It's identical to the JAR-PPL - apart from the reduced and unattainable minimum hours. Even the forms are the bloody same!!" doesn't really count, does it....
I'm not claiming that is a reason for adopting it - I think it will only really impact people who cannot get a Class-2, at least until evolves a bit (there is a lot still to be decided, it seems). Anyone who thought that the NPPL was going to change GA in this country is nuts - changing AVGAS duty is probably the only thing that can do that - but it seems that some people can only criticise the NPPL and those involved for not doing the impossible.
Even if it doesn't apply to most of us, we are far better off with the NPPL than without. If nothing else it gives us all options when some aparatchik - who has probably never been in anything smaller than a Gulfstream V - decides that all PPLs need an IR 'to be safe'....
Edit,
It is indeed a good thing that a member of the NPPL Steering Comittee is posting on PPRuNe. However, in doing so he/she should also expect to answer questions from an informed audience.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alright EVO!! I know it was a daft statement - it was only meant to be a bit of fun. However 1)I am essentially correct you must admit 2)It put Beagle in a position where he felt he had to say his piece. Which is fair enough and which I responded to with my own not ill informed opinion.
I truly hope he isn't offended. I am strictly an aviation consumer, all I put into and intend to continue to put into aviation is hard earned cash. Unlike Beagle and co who put so much more into aviation than they have to make things better for all of us. Don't think I'm not grateful!
I truly hope he isn't offended. I am strictly an aviation consumer, all I put into and intend to continue to put into aviation is hard earned cash. Unlike Beagle and co who put so much more into aviation than they have to make things better for all of us. Don't think I'm not grateful!