Let's be honest about the NPPL
PFA coaches are now proper CRIs and will have to revalidate their CRI ratings in accordance with JAR-FCL. A CRI is not entitled to conduct ab-initio (i.e. pre-PPL) training, so their main activities will be 'differences training' and 'conversion' training. The latter will be very useful, for example, in assisting a new owner of a specific homebuilt aircraft type with which a PFA expert on type would be very familiar.
But to be remunerated, the PFA CRI must hold a commercial licence; hence there is currently no question of 'expanding the PFA coaching scheme to cover NPPL instruction'. Nor do I envisage significant changes to current FI requirements being proposed by the NPPLSC whilst there is a plentiful number of JAR-FCL FIs already in the industry. As there is at present.
On another tack, how would people view the idea of a single 100 question NPPL exam for which there would be no credit towards JAR-FCL training, compared with current requirements?
One significant benfit of the current JAR-FCL PPL exams is their credit of 100 hours towards CPL ground training. But are they over-the-top for the NPPL? Or would their replacement be viewed as unacceptable dumbing-down of what are hardly particularly difficult exams, if current pass rates are to be believed...
But to be remunerated, the PFA CRI must hold a commercial licence; hence there is currently no question of 'expanding the PFA coaching scheme to cover NPPL instruction'. Nor do I envisage significant changes to current FI requirements being proposed by the NPPLSC whilst there is a plentiful number of JAR-FCL FIs already in the industry. As there is at present.
On another tack, how would people view the idea of a single 100 question NPPL exam for which there would be no credit towards JAR-FCL training, compared with current requirements?
One significant benfit of the current JAR-FCL PPL exams is their credit of 100 hours towards CPL ground training. But are they over-the-top for the NPPL? Or would their replacement be viewed as unacceptable dumbing-down of what are hardly particularly difficult exams, if current pass rates are to be believed...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LowNSlow-I'm not knocking Popham and most of my power flying has been out of there in the past but I'd wouldn't relish the thought of relying on the very limited fire fighting capabilities of there or many other airfields for that matter. Incidentally I was asked to drive the fire truck at an airfield I fly from the other week back to the hangar and it ran out of fuel halfway back so a fat lot of use that would have been in an emergency.
Census boy I was actually having a pop at what dedstikyfingerz was saying regarding putting training at (shock horror) unlicenced airfields. I was using Popham as a good example of the facilities available at an unlicenced airfield. The facilities may be relatively basic but they are better than those at some licensed fields I've been to.
BEagle I think the 100 question exam would give the knockers of the NPPL more grist for their mill. Keeping the existing exams ensures that standards are seen to be maintained. As you said, they are not that hard if you've done the work.
Regarding the CPL for instructors issue, I don't see why this is a requirement of PPL or NPPL instructors apart from the fact it was easier to impose a BCPL, as was, on the FI's rather than change the ANO to allow instructing for hire & reward by a PPL holder with an FI rating.
To pick up on another point, there are indeed plenty of JAR-FCL FIs around at the moment. How many will there be in five years time as the airline industry picks up? Will there be the same flow of people instructing and moving on? Probably I suppose, but it doesn't make it better for the bods who want to be instructors and not airline pilots as it maintains the status quo of crap pay, long hours and insecurity.
BEagle I think the 100 question exam would give the knockers of the NPPL more grist for their mill. Keeping the existing exams ensures that standards are seen to be maintained. As you said, they are not that hard if you've done the work.
Regarding the CPL for instructors issue, I don't see why this is a requirement of PPL or NPPL instructors apart from the fact it was easier to impose a BCPL, as was, on the FI's rather than change the ANO to allow instructing for hire & reward by a PPL holder with an FI rating.
To pick up on another point, there are indeed plenty of JAR-FCL FIs around at the moment. How many will there be in five years time as the airline industry picks up? Will there be the same flow of people instructing and moving on? Probably I suppose, but it doesn't make it better for the bods who want to be instructors and not airline pilots as it maintains the status quo of crap pay, long hours and insecurity.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I think the current exam requirements have a few problems.
1. If you have a reasonable short-term memory, you can get a good pass mark by reading the appropriate chapters of a Trevor Thom book the night before. You don't need to really understand the subject to pass.
2. A significant amount of the content is irrelevant to 90% of the recreational flying that most PPLs do. This is mostly in the technical, met and human perf. areas.
3. The exams don't take place under exam conditions - unless the school makes the effort, that is. I have met one PPL holder who admitted to "having a bit of help from his instructor" during an exam.
I think that a well devised 100 question exam could address issues (1) and (2). Simplify the content of the exams to what is relevant and necessary, and then test that candidates really understand it. I'm not sure how you address issue (3) without adding a layer of bureaucracy, however.
On another tack, how would people view the idea of a single 100 question NPPL exam for which there would be no credit towards JAR-FCL training, compared with current requirements?
1. If you have a reasonable short-term memory, you can get a good pass mark by reading the appropriate chapters of a Trevor Thom book the night before. You don't need to really understand the subject to pass.
2. A significant amount of the content is irrelevant to 90% of the recreational flying that most PPLs do. This is mostly in the technical, met and human perf. areas.
3. The exams don't take place under exam conditions - unless the school makes the effort, that is. I have met one PPL holder who admitted to "having a bit of help from his instructor" during an exam.
I think that a well devised 100 question exam could address issues (1) and (2). Simplify the content of the exams to what is relevant and necessary, and then test that candidates really understand it. I'm not sure how you address issue (3) without adding a layer of bureaucracy, however.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: leeds
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed that NPPL = Naff Private Pilots Licence, although it's obviously a good loophole for the 'medical problem' cases and totally typical of the flying club corner-cutting chaps.
They have conned the CAA but anyone serious should still go for the JAA-PPL and it might, in practice, be cheaper, certainly in the long run.
They have conned the CAA but anyone serious should still go for the JAA-PPL and it might, in practice, be cheaper, certainly in the long run.
notice what a well presented and thought out response. I'm sure the people who have worked long and hard to bring some sense into PPL licensing requirements will appreciate you insight and wisdom.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notice,
Slightly more "up front" than I would have described the licence myself but along the same lines.
Why is it when everything else in this world is requiring a higher prowess and aptitude to achieve than it used to.........did an easy version of flying become available all of a sudden.
It is NOT PPL snobbery that I am showing, I just feel that if such a licence HAD to evolve surely it would have made more sense for the NPPL to be a 40 hr minimum licence and the PPL a 50 hr one.
What will be next, a RPPL? A licence that one can achieve in 23 hrs but means you cannot fly outside of a certain regional altimeter setting region?
How about the CPPL. You can have a licence in 7 hrs but must not cross the county border.....?????
It might sound cynical, but where will it all end?
Slightly more "up front" than I would have described the licence myself but along the same lines.
Why is it when everything else in this world is requiring a higher prowess and aptitude to achieve than it used to.........did an easy version of flying become available all of a sudden.
It is NOT PPL snobbery that I am showing, I just feel that if such a licence HAD to evolve surely it would have made more sense for the NPPL to be a 40 hr minimum licence and the PPL a 50 hr one.
What will be next, a RPPL? A licence that one can achieve in 23 hrs but means you cannot fly outside of a certain regional altimeter setting region?
How about the CPPL. You can have a licence in 7 hrs but must not cross the county border.....?????
It might sound cynical, but where will it all end?
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its interesting that we are getting positive press from both
the US & France in terms of our introduction of the NPPL...
Maybe we're doing something right for once,
-- Andrew
the US & France in terms of our introduction of the NPPL...
Maybe we're doing something right for once,
-- Andrew
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it when everything else in this world is requiring a higher prowess and aptitude to achieve than it used to.........did an easy version of flying become available all of a sudden.
All the critics so far are suggesting that the minimum number of hours = poorer licence. Can anyone point me in the direction of the evidence that will back this up? (and I mean 32 as opposed to 45 rather than the slightly more obvious 1000 hours = slightly more experienced than 100!!!)
Actually monocock your "RPPL" already exists. If you pass a microlight GFT and exams, but don't do your X-countries, you can be issued with a restricted PPL limiting you to 8nm from your take-off point.
It's served quite a few people well, including me when I was a very hard-up engineering graduate determined to fly but only barely able to afford that much. After a few hours solo you can carry pax, and when (as I did a year later, and a few hours under my belt) you've got a little more money, you can do the X-countries and get the restriction removed.
I believe a few people who fly powered parachute microlights have flown for years on this, since the things struggle to get out of sight of the take-off point anyway and there's little point since all they want to do is get airborne from the field behind their house and take an hours spin at 25kn around the local village. Not my style of flying personally, but why the hell not?
G
It's served quite a few people well, including me when I was a very hard-up engineering graduate determined to fly but only barely able to afford that much. After a few hours solo you can carry pax, and when (as I did a year later, and a few hours under my belt) you've got a little more money, you can do the X-countries and get the restriction removed.
I believe a few people who fly powered parachute microlights have flown for years on this, since the things struggle to get out of sight of the take-off point anyway and there's little point since all they want to do is get airborne from the field behind their house and take an hours spin at 25kn around the local village. Not my style of flying personally, but why the hell not?
G
You may be interested to know that there were many proposals made for the privileges and associated levels of training required for the sub-JAR/FCL PPL. We looked at a concept of a 'GH only' licence with pilots then being restricted to a certain radius from base. But this was seen as both unenforceable and non-conducive to noise pollution - since activities would be concentrated pretty well in the same areas.
Then we had a lengthy debate about the desireability or otherwise of night/IMC. In the end, it was agreed that there needed to be a clear demarcation; the NPPL would be 'simple, day VFR' and the next stage would be to upgrade to JAR/FCL PPL. This was agreed by those industry bodies representing their members and also the CAA.
So now we have a licence which will take a minimum of around 35 hours (32 plus 2 tests of about 1.5 hours) to complete. Looking back at my logbook for 1968, I see that I did precisely that then; yes, I had (as will many NPPL students) a little gliding time, but only an A and B certificate. We didn't do the Navigation Test, but we did an 'unseen' long cross-country with 2 intermediate landings - the first time I'd ever landed away from base! The NPPL covers the same general handling skills, the same basic navigation skills but tests rather better than I was tested on my PPL course - and all in about the same total of hours.
Some very experienced instructors and pilots have helped with the develoment of the NPPL; it is not a 'naff' PPL, it is merely returning the affordability of private day VFR flying to the levels of a few years ago whilst maintaining core safety levels.
Whilst name-calling and ill-informed comment will be generated by some and doubt will be cast by certain expensive flying schools who charge a fortune for the JAR/FCL PPL, the real feedback will only come when the demand for the new licence is assessed after a year or so.
Then we had a lengthy debate about the desireability or otherwise of night/IMC. In the end, it was agreed that there needed to be a clear demarcation; the NPPL would be 'simple, day VFR' and the next stage would be to upgrade to JAR/FCL PPL. This was agreed by those industry bodies representing their members and also the CAA.
So now we have a licence which will take a minimum of around 35 hours (32 plus 2 tests of about 1.5 hours) to complete. Looking back at my logbook for 1968, I see that I did precisely that then; yes, I had (as will many NPPL students) a little gliding time, but only an A and B certificate. We didn't do the Navigation Test, but we did an 'unseen' long cross-country with 2 intermediate landings - the first time I'd ever landed away from base! The NPPL covers the same general handling skills, the same basic navigation skills but tests rather better than I was tested on my PPL course - and all in about the same total of hours.
Some very experienced instructors and pilots have helped with the develoment of the NPPL; it is not a 'naff' PPL, it is merely returning the affordability of private day VFR flying to the levels of a few years ago whilst maintaining core safety levels.
Whilst name-calling and ill-informed comment will be generated by some and doubt will be cast by certain expensive flying schools who charge a fortune for the JAR/FCL PPL, the real feedback will only come when the demand for the new licence is assessed after a year or so.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notice & Monocock,
What is your problem?
You are both, obviously, anti NPPL. So, don't get one.
Thousands of people, myself included, already have them. We are the microlight pilots who now automatically hold an NPPL with microlight rating.
We fly thousands and thousands of hours every year. We fly abroad. We fly hundreds of different types. We hardly ever make the news.
Many students struggle (financially) to complete a full JAR course only to find the costs of renting a tired old Cessna too prohibitive to allow more than a few hours flying a year.
Are these pilots safer than a pilot who, flying a permit aircraft on an NPPL, can afford to fly two or three time the hours a year?
I don't think so.
It's horses for courses, we don't ALL want to be CPL's or fly at night or in cloud.
Paul
Unrestricted microlight license in 40 hours over twelve months.
330 hours in 28 months since then! :-)
PS NOW I have a route into some of the wonderful 'heavy' microlights like Piper Cubs and Tiger Moths :-))
What is your problem?
You are both, obviously, anti NPPL. So, don't get one.
Thousands of people, myself included, already have them. We are the microlight pilots who now automatically hold an NPPL with microlight rating.
We fly thousands and thousands of hours every year. We fly abroad. We fly hundreds of different types. We hardly ever make the news.
Many students struggle (financially) to complete a full JAR course only to find the costs of renting a tired old Cessna too prohibitive to allow more than a few hours flying a year.
Are these pilots safer than a pilot who, flying a permit aircraft on an NPPL, can afford to fly two or three time the hours a year?
I don't think so.
It's horses for courses, we don't ALL want to be CPL's or fly at night or in cloud.
Paul
Unrestricted microlight license in 40 hours over twelve months.
330 hours in 28 months since then! :-)
PS NOW I have a route into some of the wonderful 'heavy' microlights like Piper Cubs and Tiger Moths :-))
Join Date: May 2002
Location: N/W London, England
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I haven't gone for an NPPL yet myself, one attraction I can see and one which the 'anti lobby' ignore is that it is only the NPPL that will give me any sort of credit for my gliding hours!
Maybe if the JAR PPL still did (as the old one used to) there would be less support for the NPPL but whilst it doesn't, all things considered the NPPL doesnt seem a bad idea. Especially if as Beags suggests you can then convert it to a JAR one later on if IMC & Night ratings appeal!
Maybe if the JAR PPL still did (as the old one used to) there would be less support for the NPPL but whilst it doesn't, all things considered the NPPL doesnt seem a bad idea. Especially if as Beags suggests you can then convert it to a JAR one later on if IMC & Night ratings appeal!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still do not see how the licence is more affordable though? Its not going to be much cheaper UNLESS you have µlight or gliding hours.
Also don't forget that JAR will give credit of 10 hrs towards JAR FCL PPL (10% of PIC hrs in micro light up to max of 10), knocking down minimum requirement to 35 hrs.
As far as I'm concerned, there should be NO minimum hrs requirement. If a person can fly at 25 hrs, then fine give them a licence, if they can't fly till 60 hrs then don't give them a licence until then.
I'm not knocking the NPPL, I think it is a step in the right direction and would like to see the National licences expand to the point that JAR is out of the equation..
Rgds
EA
Also don't forget that JAR will give credit of 10 hrs towards JAR FCL PPL (10% of PIC hrs in micro light up to max of 10), knocking down minimum requirement to 35 hrs.
As far as I'm concerned, there should be NO minimum hrs requirement. If a person can fly at 25 hrs, then fine give them a licence, if they can't fly till 60 hrs then don't give them a licence until then.
I'm not knocking the NPPL, I think it is a step in the right direction and would like to see the National licences expand to the point that JAR is out of the equation..
Rgds
EA
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the most important point about the NPPL is that the British flying fraternity have found a route by which to overcome the incessant Brusselisation of our lives, and if not perfect in everyone's view, does give us the future ability to tweak and tailor it to suit British aviators.
More importantly, it may well be the one small step for Britainkind, and could lead to routes round other Brussels laws.
Before the more knowledgable cry out that JAR is not only Brussels, the way in which JAR was apparently formulated would have done Brussels proud.
Who knows, maybe one day Notice and Monocock will be proud holders of an NPPL in a future form.
I say well done Beagle & Co.
More importantly, it may well be the one small step for Britainkind, and could lead to routes round other Brussels laws.
Before the more knowledgable cry out that JAR is not only Brussels, the way in which JAR was apparently formulated would have done Brussels proud.
Who knows, maybe one day Notice and Monocock will be proud holders of an NPPL in a future form.
I say well done Beagle & Co.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSSTTTEEEAAAAAAAAAAADDDDYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hang on a sec' chaps.
I am by no means against the NPPL for the reasons some of you seem to imagine. I am not a flying snob and I am certainly not a CPL with night ratings who wants to fly in cloud.
I have held a PPL for 13 years (I'm 30), have 580 hrs and ALL of my flying is VFR and I AM STILL LEARNING.
I have seen a friend meet his maker who was under experienced and that "possibly" contributed towards his end.
All I am asking is that we don't get carried away with this new licence. Someone has quoted on this thread that some people are ready to fly as PIC after 20 hours and others after 60. That is a very valid point.
I am just saying that by continually reducing the requirements to become fully fledged points only one way. That way is down.....
I love microlights and would relish the chance to have a go in one of those flexwings one day. They look great fun and I would like to become qualified at some point to fly one.
While us fixed wing PPL's would not have a clue as to how to handle a flex wing into a 220 m grass strip with a cross wind and rabid sheep in the way, how would a flex wing chap be able to feel confident approaching Birmingham A'port on a Saturday evening in a Cherokee.
Horses for courses, all I say is let's not try and amalgamate them into the same thing too soon...............for safetys sake.
Hang on a sec' chaps.
I am by no means against the NPPL for the reasons some of you seem to imagine. I am not a flying snob and I am certainly not a CPL with night ratings who wants to fly in cloud.
I have held a PPL for 13 years (I'm 30), have 580 hrs and ALL of my flying is VFR and I AM STILL LEARNING.
I have seen a friend meet his maker who was under experienced and that "possibly" contributed towards his end.
All I am asking is that we don't get carried away with this new licence. Someone has quoted on this thread that some people are ready to fly as PIC after 20 hours and others after 60. That is a very valid point.
I am just saying that by continually reducing the requirements to become fully fledged points only one way. That way is down.....
I love microlights and would relish the chance to have a go in one of those flexwings one day. They look great fun and I would like to become qualified at some point to fly one.
While us fixed wing PPL's would not have a clue as to how to handle a flex wing into a 220 m grass strip with a cross wind and rabid sheep in the way, how would a flex wing chap be able to feel confident approaching Birmingham A'port on a Saturday evening in a Cherokee.
Horses for courses, all I say is let's not try and amalgamate them into the same thing too soon...............for safetys sake.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluskis, I 100% agree with you. As far as producing a competent pilot goes, that is up to the pupil, instructor, and the training organisation. I suspect the plonker/ace ratio will be about the same as a PPL.
Ravenflyer - you'll love the Super Cub, one of the best microlights ever built. Not as good in crosswinds as a flexwing though.
Monocock - if you don't mind sitting in the back (I'm afraid I'm not an instructor and don't have dual controls) drop me a note and I'd be delighted to demonstrate the joys of flexwing flying. Be warned, look what's happened to Whirly since I showed her !
Everybody - it does appear that much of the justification for NPPL was that minimum hours so long as you're competent, cross-crediting from other aircraft types, inclusion of microlights and SLMG as ratings, had vanished through the kackhanded implementation of JAR-FCL. It seems that most of the praise of the NPPL is that it's managed to circumvent what we all agreed from the start was unnecessary and excessive Eurocracy. What a world we live in !
G
Monocock - if you don't mind sitting in the back (I'm afraid I'm not an instructor and don't have dual controls) drop me a note and I'd be delighted to demonstrate the joys of flexwing flying. Be warned, look what's happened to Whirly since I showed her !
Everybody - it does appear that much of the justification for NPPL was that minimum hours so long as you're competent, cross-crediting from other aircraft types, inclusion of microlights and SLMG as ratings, had vanished through the kackhanded implementation of JAR-FCL. It seems that most of the praise of the NPPL is that it's managed to circumvent what we all agreed from the start was unnecessary and excessive Eurocracy. What a world we live in !
G
