PPL or NPPL>!
 

I only understand that the difference between a PPL and an NPPL is that one allows you to only fly around the U.K. But surely there are other differences.

My reason for asking is that i am thinking into to starting my PPL or NPPL. Just wondering which....:confused:

NPPL v PPL
 

KileA,

Apart from what you have written in your post, it also depends on what you want to do next. If you have ambitions to become a commercial pilot you must do PPL. If you do NPPL, you will be required to do PPL before you can proceed. Remember, PPL, CPL and ATPL are JAA licences; NPPL is a UK only arrangement.

I don't know the details of the NPPL, (I'm a PPL holder,) but I do know the required hours are less for the NPPL, which suggests the syllabus is also reduced.

If, however, the sum total of your ambitions is to be able to fly to Compton Abbas for a bacon butty on a Sunday morning, perhaps NPPL will be adequate and a bl***y sit cheaper than PPL.

Good luck,

Broomstick.

You can find details of the JAA PPL in the LASORS publication which is available on the CAA website www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/lasors2005.pdf

The NPPL details are available on www.nppl.uk.com

Breifly, the main advantage of an NPPL is fewer hours to the licence and less stringent medical requirements. The downside, depending on your intentions, is that you are limited to UK airspace during the day - i.e. no licence 'add-ons' are possible, except for upgrade to flying 'complex' aircraft weighing less than 2000kg.

I would suggest you go and talk to your local flying school. I guarantee they will have had a lot of queries like this and will be able to give you some advice. I wouldn't worry about them being biased either - in my experience they'll be glad to see any new customer, whether for NPPL or JAR!

The private flying forum may also help if you do a search on there for details....

Best of luck.

Before I move this from Wannabes, I should correct Broomstick on one error he has made. You do not need a PPL in order to go on to an ATPL. I never held any pilot's licence before I gained my ATPL.

Scroggs

Not wanting to shoot you down scroggs,but unless you do an integrated course how do you aqquire night rating 150hrs etc required for starting cpl course without a ppl?

As a side track why not let pilots go on to cpl with an nppl,since most budding cpl's don't do any overseas flying or carry more than 4 pax whilst hour building.the saving would pay for atpl theory course and its the cpl/ir bit that counts when going for a job?

I know the s:mad: s at aviation house would be against it on the grounds of money but I think its a fantastic plan,shame I've already got a full ppl;)

Can you fly paras on a NPPL ? Day, VFR, up to 4 pax, less than 2T - or do you need a professional licence ?

dow

It doesn't say you can't in LASORS,if you were not paid for it then in theory it should be ok? I'm sure there is probably some training req. to do it though.

http://www.nppl.co.uk :ok:

I'm doing a NPPL because of the less stringent medical requirements.
All the ground exams are identical to the PPL and most of the flying syllabus is exactly the same.
You can fly anywhere in the UK in VFR (good visibilty) conditions with planes that fly up to 140 knots and carry max 4 passengers.You can upgrade NPPL to PPL and take 30 hours with you if you go along that route.

Lister:D

The hours required to get an PPL or an NPPL are minimum hours.

it might take one student 50hrs to get an PPL, but another may take 70 hours to gain their NPPL.

IMHO the NPPL is a waste of time and money, unless done for medical reasons and then it needs to be seen as a dead end anyway.

The standard that's needed for proficient flying around UK airspace will be the same, PPL or NPPL. One may as well go for the PPL. Going abroad is one of the things that makes flying really worth while. Most of the people who stick to flying locally pack it up for good, very fast.

IO

Never have I heard such nonsense and to offer such as advice to an aspiring pilot is idiotic.

The NPPL may not suit you but there are more ways to fly than in cloud at FL frozen to death from A to B.

If kile wants to fly for flyings sake and take that privileged view of the earth that only a few are allowed just for the sheer joy of it and has no ambitions that take him (or her) beyond the UK and to do all of that within a budget then the NPPL may be perfect.

The NPPL will not be appreciably cheaper at the start but the "running costs" could make the difference between someone who stays with it and someone who falls by the wayside.

You don't have to just bimble around the local area on an NPPL, nothing to stop you flying a thousand types of aircraft, learning aerobatics, touring the islands and highlands, landing on the beach at Barra, popping down to Bodmin, taking the family to Blackpool then down to Bexhill - and that's just the Bs. And doing any one of a thousand things that I've not mentioned.

Doesn't actually sound like a dead end to me.

JAFO

The NPPL will not be appreciably cheaper at the start

Glad you agree.

the "running costs" could make the difference between someone who stays with it and someone who falls by the wayside.

What "running costs"? The difference in the cost of the two medicals, spread over two years' flying. Anything else?

Even instructors I know personally agree with me. They don't necessarily tell their customers that though, because a NPPL looks cheaper on their school price list, which is why the flight training industry lobbied for it.

Time to duck again.

Having my priviledges curtailed due to blood pressure, I have to say that an NPPL looks very attractive. I cannot take advantage yet but if I get fitter I'll certainly give it a go.

No need to duck, IO; we just have differing views on a couple of things.

Not everyone has lots of money to throw at flying (I wish I did, but there you go) and if someone flies a PFA type - already day VFR and mainly UK only - at, perhaps, £40 a month and £40 an hour, then you can actually get a fair amount of flying in for not a lot of money.

To stay current they also need to fly an hour with an instructor, if that's paid for because you're not having to pay for the medical then that's one less thing to worry about when the family are complaining that they need luxuries like food and shoes.

Perhaps it doesn't seem like much but it could tip the balance.

But I definitely agree with you on the initial costs - if it's going to take you 60 hours then it's going to take you 60 hours - regardless of whether there's an N on your licence or not.

I have had a CAA PPL(A) for 25 years or so. Were it not for the fact that I also have a PPL(H) and need the Class 2 medical for that, I would swap to an NPPL without hesitation. Day VFR in the UK suits me fine as I have no wish to ever fly abroad. As I am on annual medicals the hassle reduction would be very well worth it irrespective of the cost.

Consequently I am of the opinion that the NPPL is an excellent innovation and far from a waste of time.

In reality, all the people I know who have gone for the NPPL, once they have realised that the medical isn't such a problem, they've gone straight over to the 'standard' PPL.

It really doesn't seem to have made any difference apart from those who weren't able to get a class 2 medical.

It isn't a waste of time, but it is far from being the panacea that many seemed to expect.

IOS54,what a load of rubbish.
I don't know how many hours you have but I have pals with 1000's of PPL hours and they enjoy flying interesting planes in interesting company in the UK.
There are some absolutley stunning places to fly to and around in the UK.
Lister:cool:

A lot of it may depend too, on where in the UK you live.

If you live in the south east/south coast, not being able to go to the near continent would be a serious limitation.

If you lived on the west coast, you may very well want to be able to take a trip over to Ireland.

On the other hand, if you lived in the East, North East, or North of the UK, then you might be quite happy to stay in the UK, given the distance from foreign shores.

If a candidate decided to go for an NPPL, and had reached 45 hours of training before being ready for a skill test, can they change their mind at that point, get a class 2 med, and take a JAA skills test instead?

As for the usefulness of the PPL vs the cost saving of an NPPL, then I think IO540 has it right. In the longer term people need something more than bimbling to keep them interested. For some it will be aeros, some touring, some grass strip flying etc. But apart from someone who's passion is aeros (which one can do quite happily forever in the UK) everyone else will increase their enjoyment of flying greatly if they can leave the country. The ability to travel abroad is one of the great freedoms of flying.

[QUOTE]IOS54,what a load of rubbish.
I don't know how many hours you have but I have pals with 1000's of PPL hours and they enjoy flying interesting planes in interesting company in the UK.
There are some absolutely stunning places to fly to and around in the UK.
QUOTE]

Lister Noble,

I don't mean to be patronising; please forgive me if this sounds so. But your profile says that you are just learning to fly at present. I agree that there are lots of interesting places to fly in the UK, but wait until you have 150hours, then think about it again. You will realise by then, that you've seen ever where you want to see that is within 1.5 hours flying time. When you start to think about going somewhere a bit further, you may very well decide that where you'd most like to go is only 2.5 hours away, but is in a different country. You might form a different opinion then.

dp

Dublin.
You are not being at all patronising and indeed I have only around 30 hrs as a student.
Sorry if my post was a bit inflamatory but I thought the reply to the original question posted re NPPL v PPL was not exactly constructive,bearing in mind I was asking the same questions a few months ago.
I do belong to two clubs that fly vintage aircraft from grass strips and have very experienced pilots,I also have friends who are commercial pilots none of whom told me that the NPPL was rubbish when I was asking around at the start,and of course it can easily be upgraded if required and the medical requirements are met .
The NPPLwill allow me to obtain a licence to fly in the UK and build up my hours,I want to fly vintage aircraft in the UK and will see what happens after that.
Lister:D

I am well aware that I am outspoken on occassions :O but just for the record the reason I bother at all is because I think it's a shame to see the number of people that blow away £8k or so at their school, only to chuck it in very shortly afterwards.

We could all differ on the reasons why but not having a qualification that's useful (which, never forget, is not a commercial driver for the school) has got to be a pretty common reason.

The NPPL takeup is a witness to this. According to recent press reports most of the people that do it are previous/existing PPL holders who cannot pass the CAA Class 2. In that respect the NPPL is a very good thing (because IMV the medical requirements are much too onerous; the probability of 3rd party injury/damage is far far less than in a car) but medical issues aside it is very hard to justify it on the reason that was originally used to push it: lower cost.

Very good point made about Permit aircraft offering much cheaper flying than certified aircraft, but you can fly both on a PPL, and get much better privileges.