Let's be honest about the NPPL
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe in essence the NPPL is a very good idea. My only misgivings are the fact that its being 'marketed' as a cheaper way to fly. At the end of the day, the ground exams are the same, the required flight standard is the same (baring a few instruments), the 'post NPPL rental costs are the same for those of us not owning our own aircraft, and for someone not already a µlight or glider pilot, the number of hours needed will be roughly (+/-) equivalent to the JAR FCL PPL, so I can't see any 'real' savings. (After 40 or so hours, I wouldn't have considered my self safe to fly friends and family around the skies). Upgrading to JAR FCL PPL will incure additional costs as well.
Ok, reduced medical requirements (not so much costs, mine cost GBP 50 last renewal) and for those already with the PFA and their own A/C, it is an excellent idea.
Now what would REALLY make a difference is if the CAA released a NPPL FI rating, allowing JAR FCL PPLs to gain this rating and instruct for free, without having to undergo CPL exams and class 1 medical. I for one would gladly give up some of my time to instruct for no fee....
I have no problem with the reduced hours aspect, if someone can fly after 30 hours then thats fine. I don't believe may 'new'pilots can though. Also I have no problem with reduced medical standards, the JAA Class 2 is far too stringent in my opinion.
Rgds
EA
Ok, reduced medical requirements (not so much costs, mine cost GBP 50 last renewal) and for those already with the PFA and their own A/C, it is an excellent idea.
Now what would REALLY make a difference is if the CAA released a NPPL FI rating, allowing JAR FCL PPLs to gain this rating and instruct for free, without having to undergo CPL exams and class 1 medical. I for one would gladly give up some of my time to instruct for no fee....
I have no problem with the reduced hours aspect, if someone can fly after 30 hours then thats fine. I don't believe may 'new'pilots can though. Also I have no problem with reduced medical standards, the JAA Class 2 is far too stringent in my opinion.
Rgds
EA
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal - you can get an FI rating with a JAA-PPL I think and instruct for free. The issue here is you'd be robbing professional instructors of an already meagre living. What CFI in his right mind will employ someone if people are willing to do it for free?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sale
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will still need to pass at least the CPL exams to instruct free or otherwise.
Anyway, the NPPL provides extra options, with at least a half decent upgrade path for further ratings that's at least an improvement.
The US offer a similar rating, "sport license" or something like that. It's not taken up much there apparently, but maybe because It's cheap to fly there anyway and the FAA license is a bit more relaxed.
The JAA should just add a class 3 medical (based on some nationally recognised statement of health e.g. HGV license) and then just have relevant restrictions placed on the use of the PPL.
Anyway, the NPPL provides extra options, with at least a half decent upgrade path for further ratings that's at least an improvement.
The US offer a similar rating, "sport license" or something like that. It's not taken up much there apparently, but maybe because It's cheap to fly there anyway and the FAA license is a bit more relaxed.
The JAA should just add a class 3 medical (based on some nationally recognised statement of health e.g. HGV license) and then just have relevant restrictions placed on the use of the PPL.
Last edited by Field In Sight; 10th Sep 2002 at 11:50.
A couple of years ago a chum of mine decided to get his PPL(A). He had at the time about 5000 hrs, most in microlights (he's an instructor examiner) and the remaining 500 or so in gliders.
CAA in it's wisdom allowed him 10 hrs off the PPL course. So there he was, just so he could fly a Luscombe (noticeably slower than some microlights), doing stall awareness, cross-countries, etc. for 35 hrs with an instructor vastly less experienced than he was.
What was lacking was cross-crediting, the system should just have allowed him to do a type conversion and a group A GFT (okay, skills test). Okay, maybe a couple of hours radio nav as well.
What NPPL does, beyond all else, is bring in that ability - for sensible crediting arrangements for experienced microlight, glider or SLMG pilots to change to group A (for for that matter, the other way around, or sideways) if there's something there they want to fly.
So, NPPL, is the way this was solved - fine, it's one solution.
In the meantime, the microlight syllabus is 25 hrs and usually takes 40, the SEP syllabus is 45 hrs and usually takes 70, odds are the 32 hr NPPL(SEP) syllabus will usually take about 50. Still a saving.
No it's not for everbody, and very few people will ever get any license in minimum hours. Personally I need a JAR license to fly foreign registered aircraft for example. But for the less fit, less well off, less patient, or those who simply want a modular route to flying different things, it makes good sense.
What I fail to understand, is why the heck all this couldn't be done under JAR! !!!
G
CAA in it's wisdom allowed him 10 hrs off the PPL course. So there he was, just so he could fly a Luscombe (noticeably slower than some microlights), doing stall awareness, cross-countries, etc. for 35 hrs with an instructor vastly less experienced than he was.
What was lacking was cross-crediting, the system should just have allowed him to do a type conversion and a group A GFT (okay, skills test). Okay, maybe a couple of hours radio nav as well.
What NPPL does, beyond all else, is bring in that ability - for sensible crediting arrangements for experienced microlight, glider or SLMG pilots to change to group A (for for that matter, the other way around, or sideways) if there's something there they want to fly.
So, NPPL, is the way this was solved - fine, it's one solution.
In the meantime, the microlight syllabus is 25 hrs and usually takes 40, the SEP syllabus is 45 hrs and usually takes 70, odds are the 32 hr NPPL(SEP) syllabus will usually take about 50. Still a saving.
No it's not for everbody, and very few people will ever get any license in minimum hours. Personally I need a JAR license to fly foreign registered aircraft for example. But for the less fit, less well off, less patient, or those who simply want a modular route to flying different things, it makes good sense.
What I fail to understand, is why the heck all this couldn't be done under JAR! !!!
G
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kirstey do I smell a vested interest here? If one aim of the NPPL is to lower the cost of flying training is it not sensible to have volunteer PPL FI's doing training in god forbid, a/c on a normal Cof A or even PFA permit? I know a number of PPL's who would be happy to instruct foc, and a number of CPL FI's who intrsuct for the hell of it once the day job is over.
Personally I really do not see the point of the NPPL other than for those who cannot get a medical otherwise. I know a number of very good pilots who have been medicalled out by the CAA in the face of opinions from non CAA Dr's that there is no reason why they should not fly. The real answer, rather than invent a new national licence would just be to make the CAA medical rules more sensible. The lower training requirement is a red herring, as the instructors and examiners wil be working to the same standards as they do now and so if your will pass the NPPL your would have passed the PPL and if not your wouldn't. Might open the way for headline adverts on price though to get people through the door.
Personally I really do not see the point of the NPPL other than for those who cannot get a medical otherwise. I know a number of very good pilots who have been medicalled out by the CAA in the face of opinions from non CAA Dr's that there is no reason why they should not fly. The real answer, rather than invent a new national licence would just be to make the CAA medical rules more sensible. The lower training requirement is a red herring, as the instructors and examiners wil be working to the same standards as they do now and so if your will pass the NPPL your would have passed the PPL and if not your wouldn't. Might open the way for headline adverts on price though to get people through the door.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a problem finding schools to offer the NPPL? Here in the North East I've had no problem finding people who want to teach me to fly on the NPPL - the major issue has been choosing which school! The one I've chosen welcomed me with open arms as their first NPPL student and we both agree that it will be a voyage of discovery!!!! The only thing to make it a perfect licence would be for the powers that be to give me some credit for the 25 hours I gained pre JAR working towards the PPL.
TT - what do those 25 hours consist of? If they're SEP instruction they should count.
The issue of NPPL(SEP) holders being permittted to hold some form of FI rating is a thorny one. Some are in favour, others vehemently against. My personal view is that any FI(NPPL(SEP)) should have at least the same level of training and theoretical knowledge as did the old BCPL/FI and the same rights of remuneration. Perhaps there could be a 'Basic FI' course which would encompass all such training; however, any 'Basic FI' should have rather more qualifying experience than the modular CPL holder. That would be in order to atttract only those who really have an interest in flight instruction rather than those merely looking for a way of 'hours building'. But anyone taught by a non JAR-FCL FI may have difficulty upgrading to their own JAR-FCL PPL under current rules.
The NPPLSC is required by its own earlier decision to start discussing the concept of NPPL holders instructing for remuneration at the next committee meeting.
The issue of NPPL(SEP) holders being permittted to hold some form of FI rating is a thorny one. Some are in favour, others vehemently against. My personal view is that any FI(NPPL(SEP)) should have at least the same level of training and theoretical knowledge as did the old BCPL/FI and the same rights of remuneration. Perhaps there could be a 'Basic FI' course which would encompass all such training; however, any 'Basic FI' should have rather more qualifying experience than the modular CPL holder. That would be in order to atttract only those who really have an interest in flight instruction rather than those merely looking for a way of 'hours building'. But anyone taught by a non JAR-FCL FI may have difficulty upgrading to their own JAR-FCL PPL under current rules.
The NPPLSC is required by its own earlier decision to start discussing the concept of NPPL holders instructing for remuneration at the next committee meeting.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ludwig,
I don't have a vested interested. And (typically for me!) the post came out a bit more over zealous than was intended - apologies! however I do believe that people put a huge amout of effort and of course expense to qualify to make a living out of flying.
Instructors earn a meagre leaving in exchange for a fantastic view from the office. I have a job that pays very well and enables to hop into a plane pretty much whenever I fancy it. I would feel bad about taking income from them by instructing for free.
Having said that the instructors at my school all seem OK about the idea of people instructing for free - and I guess these guy's opinion is more relevant than my own on this matter!
I don't have a vested interested. And (typically for me!) the post came out a bit more over zealous than was intended - apologies! however I do believe that people put a huge amout of effort and of course expense to qualify to make a living out of flying.
Instructors earn a meagre leaving in exchange for a fantastic view from the office. I have a job that pays very well and enables to hop into a plane pretty much whenever I fancy it. I would feel bad about taking income from them by instructing for free.
Having said that the instructors at my school all seem OK about the idea of people instructing for free - and I guess these guy's opinion is more relevant than my own on this matter!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I guess the remuneration issue is one, which will have a lot of self interest tied up with it. If you take the NPPL as a licence for fun flying, then we are talking about a hobby. You can find fully qualified instructors teaching most hobbies for free. Take Canoeing, mountaineering etc, all have qualified people giving free tuition in there spare time, I know, I did it for years.
If you allow these people to teach on permit aircraft from unlicensed strips you will be teaching people to fly light aircraft, who only want to fly light aircraft. Most current schools seem to teach you to fly a light aircraft like a heavy, because they may want to do an ATPL like the instructor teaching them. In this way we can separate out the potential airline pilot, who should pay for his training, his eventual aim is after all to make a living at flying, from the amateur enthusiast who has no interest in JAR upgrades and ATPL’s.
If you allow these people to teach on permit aircraft from unlicensed strips you will be teaching people to fly light aircraft, who only want to fly light aircraft. Most current schools seem to teach you to fly a light aircraft like a heavy, because they may want to do an ATPL like the instructor teaching them. In this way we can separate out the potential airline pilot, who should pay for his training, his eventual aim is after all to make a living at flying, from the amateur enthusiast who has no interest in JAR upgrades and ATPL’s.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I.O.W
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to bring to some peoples attention that the NPPL is a recreational licence, and was brought in for the sake of people who only want to fly in the UK under VFR and during the day, also it allows for sensible cross crediting onto other ratings/licenses.
There are many comments about this licence not being a safe alternative to the JAR-FCL PPL, and that the hours required to gain this licence are sub-standard........
Well to this all I can say is that it is down to the Instructors and Examiners to set the safety standard, as it always has been. Just because the minimum required is 33hrs it doesn't mean at 33hrs you will get the licence, the same applies to the JAR-FCL PPL, just because you have 45hrs logged it doesn't make you a PPL. As a CFI, GR examiner and Operations Manager I don't care about hrs of training needed, I care about safety, you will only be booked in for a test when you are safe to share the same air space with others, and that poeple who fly with you will be in safe hands, so regardless of licence type being trained for, if it takes 50, 55, 60 or even 65hrs then thats the time needed.
When it comes to instructors putting the licence down, because they dont think they can train people safely in the hrs well, how many of you got your licence in the minimum hrs required?
Also I have first hand experiance of a few CPL's with instructor ratings being of sub-standard material, and questioned their right to hold the said licenses.
Going back to the issue of cross crediting and upgrades, you can now gain a NPPL with microlight rating, get hours under your belt, then train and add an SEP rating, again build hours then with more training gain the JAR-FCL PPL, know all of a sudden you are on the ladder to becoming a CPL or ATPL fantastic.
oh and for those of you that think Microlights are not real aircraft, I fly Helicopters, M/lights and group A. The skill level required to fly these aircraft are in the order they read, Helicopters taking the most skill, then Microlights and then Group A, so next time you look down your nose at a microlight pilot just take a moment to think about your skill level and if you could pull off a greaser with 10-15 knots cross wind in an aircraft weighing only 255ish kg unlaiden or 450kg max all up? if you think you can, come and try it, you could be in for a big surprise.
So to round it all up, I think the NPPL is the best thing that has happened to GA for a long time. But as always this is just IMHO
Sol
There are many comments about this licence not being a safe alternative to the JAR-FCL PPL, and that the hours required to gain this licence are sub-standard........
Well to this all I can say is that it is down to the Instructors and Examiners to set the safety standard, as it always has been. Just because the minimum required is 33hrs it doesn't mean at 33hrs you will get the licence, the same applies to the JAR-FCL PPL, just because you have 45hrs logged it doesn't make you a PPL. As a CFI, GR examiner and Operations Manager I don't care about hrs of training needed, I care about safety, you will only be booked in for a test when you are safe to share the same air space with others, and that poeple who fly with you will be in safe hands, so regardless of licence type being trained for, if it takes 50, 55, 60 or even 65hrs then thats the time needed.
When it comes to instructors putting the licence down, because they dont think they can train people safely in the hrs well, how many of you got your licence in the minimum hrs required?
Also I have first hand experiance of a few CPL's with instructor ratings being of sub-standard material, and questioned their right to hold the said licenses.
Going back to the issue of cross crediting and upgrades, you can now gain a NPPL with microlight rating, get hours under your belt, then train and add an SEP rating, again build hours then with more training gain the JAR-FCL PPL, know all of a sudden you are on the ladder to becoming a CPL or ATPL fantastic.
oh and for those of you that think Microlights are not real aircraft, I fly Helicopters, M/lights and group A. The skill level required to fly these aircraft are in the order they read, Helicopters taking the most skill, then Microlights and then Group A, so next time you look down your nose at a microlight pilot just take a moment to think about your skill level and if you could pull off a greaser with 10-15 knots cross wind in an aircraft weighing only 255ish kg unlaiden or 450kg max all up? if you think you can, come and try it, you could be in for a big surprise.
So to round it all up, I think the NPPL is the best thing that has happened to GA for a long time. But as always this is just IMHO
Sol
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do understand that FI's might get a bit pissed off with PPLs teaching the NPPL. However its all about making flying as cheap as possible, as a hobby, and this is one way it could be done seeing as the Government don't allow tax-free fuel.
CPL FI's would still have their place, teaching the JAA PPLers, Instruments and CPLs of this world, I'm sure the NPPL won't detract from the number of 'wannabe's'. Besides, no doubt NPPL FIs would still have to complete some sort of course, trained by 'real' FIs....
Cheers
EA
CPL FI's would still have their place, teaching the JAA PPLers, Instruments and CPLs of this world, I'm sure the NPPL won't detract from the number of 'wannabe's'. Besides, no doubt NPPL FIs would still have to complete some sort of course, trained by 'real' FIs....
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BEagle
Going back to my earlier message the 25 hours I previously gained were SEP on the same type aircraft I'm learning on now! - I've been told from various sources that I can and can't count them towards the NPPL so some clarification would be really useful as it's a bit confusing at the moment. Obviously I know that this wouldn't mean I could get the licence in 32 hours but the fact that there would be a recognition of the previous hours would assist me no end!
Going back to my earlier message the 25 hours I previously gained were SEP on the same type aircraft I'm learning on now! - I've been told from various sources that I can and can't count them towards the NPPL so some clarification would be really useful as it's a bit confusing at the moment. Obviously I know that this wouldn't mean I could get the licence in 32 hours but the fact that there would be a recognition of the previous hours would assist me no end!
TT - if it was SEP time with an FI including training such as for a military flying scholarship or if it was UAS flying with a RAF QFI, there is no reason why it shouldn't count towards NPPL training.
Specifically what were these 25 hours?
Specifically what were these 25 hours?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: never never land
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPPL
After working in aviation for some time I have had safety and standards coming out of my ears for ages now, the NPPL seems to make a mockery of what I thought the CAA stood for "standards and competence". Now the NPPL is in place the CAA are asking about opperating from unlicenced airfields with non pub cat a/c. Recipie for disaster, no fire crew, no air ground and less stringent maintenance scheduals.
I agree that flying should be made more accessable and indeed things like diesel engines and microlights make for a far more sensible route of allowing people with less spare cash to get in the air.
Are these people on this planet? (ICAO) I get the vibe from various sources in the CAA that thier feeling is the same as yours but they gotta do what they gotta do!!
I agree that flying should be made more accessable and indeed things like diesel engines and microlights make for a far more sensible route of allowing people with less spare cash to get in the air.
Are these people on this planet? (ICAO) I get the vibe from various sources in the CAA that thier feeling is the same as yours but they gotta do what they gotta do!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again BEagle
The 25 SEP hours I logged were gained when I was learning to fly for the pre JAR PPL. Basically it was all the exercises up until I completed 4 hours solo and about to start on the Nav (which is when I became a student and the money ran out!) It wasn't UAS or a military scholarship, however it was at a very good Aero club with a qualified FI, logbook signed and annotated with previous exercises carried out!
Do you think this could count towards the NPPL?
The 25 SEP hours I logged were gained when I was learning to fly for the pre JAR PPL. Basically it was all the exercises up until I completed 4 hours solo and about to start on the Nav (which is when I became a student and the money ran out!) It wasn't UAS or a military scholarship, however it was at a very good Aero club with a qualified FI, logbook signed and annotated with previous exercises carried out!
Do you think this could count towards the NPPL?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now the NPPL is in place the CAA are asking about opperating from unlicenced airfields with non pub cat a/c. Recipie for disaster, no fire crew, no air ground and less stringent maintenance scheduals.
and microlights make for a far more sensible route of allowing people with less spare cash to get in the air.
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Twyford, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again.!! I thought this had been done to death in a previous thread. The principle behind the Medical being signed by your GP is simply that the CAA take the view (As do the administrative bodies) that it is not the person you see once every two years aor one year, and then maybe only once, that is in the best position to gauge your overall health. It is your GP who knows your medical history. Can't B.ull****.
As to the gibe about "Old men"....well I don't think I will rise to that one, but those who have lost their licence on medical grounds will welcome the opprtunity to be back in the air performing the passion that they love. No, No, not that one.!!
What are the medics looking for here.?? Something that will pose a highly increased risk of someone dropping dead at the controls....such as chronic heart disease, or a brain haemorrhage or similar. Not Diabetes, or something insidious.
I said before, and I will repeat it... Some of thios debate smacks of retaining the Old Morse and Technical examination in the Radio Amateur exam. The argument seems to be.."If I did it, then you have to"
It is very very seldom that we see a piece of legislation that helps people in this fashion instead of hindering them. If you cannot give a good example of why the NPPL should NOT be introduced, then I suggest that you simply applaud it. You will all get older one day and may be very happy of it. My aircraft partner, a hightime airline pilot will retire in approx 5 months time, and he has said how difficult it is for him to keep getting through his medicals, and how much he was looking forward to staisfying less stringent requirements....so your time will come.
Come on folks.....as Betty Boothroyd said in the House of Commons when she retired "Be happy for me".
As to the gibe about "Old men"....well I don't think I will rise to that one, but those who have lost their licence on medical grounds will welcome the opprtunity to be back in the air performing the passion that they love. No, No, not that one.!!
What are the medics looking for here.?? Something that will pose a highly increased risk of someone dropping dead at the controls....such as chronic heart disease, or a brain haemorrhage or similar. Not Diabetes, or something insidious.
I said before, and I will repeat it... Some of thios debate smacks of retaining the Old Morse and Technical examination in the Radio Amateur exam. The argument seems to be.."If I did it, then you have to"
It is very very seldom that we see a piece of legislation that helps people in this fashion instead of hindering them. If you cannot give a good example of why the NPPL should NOT be introduced, then I suggest that you simply applaud it. You will all get older one day and may be very happy of it. My aircraft partner, a hightime airline pilot will retire in approx 5 months time, and he has said how difficult it is for him to keep getting through his medicals, and how much he was looking forward to staisfying less stringent requirements....so your time will come.
Come on folks.....as Betty Boothroyd said in the House of Commons when she retired "Be happy for me".
dedstikyfingerz, look at the fire fighting and medical capabilities of most small licensed airfields and then at an unlicendsed airfield like Popham. I don't think you will find much difference because common sense prevails. Anyway, when did a fire crew or air/ground radio ever assist a first solo.
In terms of SEP aircraft I think you will find that the difference in maintenance standards between a Public and Private Cat CofA is exactly zero.
Lets be logical, a lot of the rules regarding flying instruction are pretty overdone. It wasn't so long ago that people had "only" to pass an exam to determine whether or not they were a) competent pilots, b) competent instructors. Then some genius at the CAA decided that they had to be CPL's to earn money. The change was nothing to do with the competency of the instructors simply the ironing out of a legal wrinkle. If the NPPL can take us back down the road where a competent NPPL or PPL can pass their FI's rating why not do it? If they could get paid for doing it as well, then it's a bonus.
There have been many instances of poor instruction by bods who see their instructing phase as a step on their path to a RHS in a 737. Fair enough as long as you give fair service (2 of my instructors were doing this and still managed to teach me in a competent manner
). However, a PPL FI who is teaching people for the love of it (and some beer money) and teaching people who are never going to be upgrading is a perfectly acceptable situation IMHO. If the PFA could expand their coaching scheme under the auspices of the NPPL into something similar to that described above I think it would galvanise the GA industry.
In terms of SEP aircraft I think you will find that the difference in maintenance standards between a Public and Private Cat CofA is exactly zero.
Lets be logical, a lot of the rules regarding flying instruction are pretty overdone. It wasn't so long ago that people had "only" to pass an exam to determine whether or not they were a) competent pilots, b) competent instructors. Then some genius at the CAA decided that they had to be CPL's to earn money. The change was nothing to do with the competency of the instructors simply the ironing out of a legal wrinkle. If the NPPL can take us back down the road where a competent NPPL or PPL can pass their FI's rating why not do it? If they could get paid for doing it as well, then it's a bonus.
There have been many instances of poor instruction by bods who see their instructing phase as a step on their path to a RHS in a 737. Fair enough as long as you give fair service (2 of my instructors were doing this and still managed to teach me in a competent manner
). However, a PPL FI who is teaching people for the love of it (and some beer money) and teaching people who are never going to be upgrading is a perfectly acceptable situation IMHO. If the PFA could expand their coaching scheme under the auspices of the NPPL into something similar to that described above I think it would galvanise the GA industry.