PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)
-   -   Is the NPPL safe under the plans of EASA? (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/308120-nppl-safe-under-plans-easa.html)

gcolyer 11th Jan 2008 09:06

Is the NPPL safe under the plans of EASA?
 
Is the NPPL safe under the plans of EASA?

Captainkarl 11th Jan 2008 09:35

I believe so
 
I don't think they'd stop a license and right even of someone flying if they have been doing it fine. If they did stop they'd get a lot of sh:mad:t from people (Especially me, Ive already had my wings clipped once (class 2 + PPL) I ain't having them taken away!!) whom are not medically fit to hold a class 2 but can fly on a NPPL. They could even risk facing a discrimination against disabilities case:ugh:. :confused:

gcolyer 11th Jan 2008 09:46

They are stopping the IMC! basically EASA will not recognise any countries individual license...such as

IMC
BCPL

NPPL is a UK only license so I am hazarding a guess that this is also on the hit list.

EASA are taking over FCL (Flight Crew Licensing) So anyone with a JAR license will soon have an EASA license. Anyone with the old style UK CAA license is stuffed.

Captainkarl 11th Jan 2008 09:53

If they stuff me they'd better be ready
 
They'd better not even try to stuff me like a turkey...:mad::O

So why not the NPPL but restricted to UK airspace?

gcolyer 11th Jan 2008 09:58

Thats a good question Capt.

Everyone is asking the same about the IMC. But every other state that has signed up to EASA and the airlines want to see the back of it, so it is pretty much a done deal.

Your best bet would be to see if you can get an FAA class 3 medical and an FAA PPL. That way you will get a full PPL + night qualiufication and you will be able to fly G or N reg aircraft in Europe (just not IR in a G reg).

Captainkarl 11th Jan 2008 10:13

hmmm
 
I am aware though that the CAA etc is going to be close to releasing a version of the NPPL which would allow me to carry passengers based upon the fact I could do so in the USA. However getting a FAA PPL and a Class 3 isnt an option as I still would not be able to carry my friends and family as the restriction placed upon a FAA PPL for a Insulin diabetic is that pax flights (ie friends and family) can only be done in FAA airspace which we have a distanct lack of here in the UK :ugh::(

BRL 11th Jan 2008 18:13

Split this from the Spare Seats Thread.........

Rod1 11th Jan 2008 18:20

New EASA recreational PPL likely to come in around mid 09. Based on our NPPL with a “similar” medical. Report from the committee should be out very soon. Hoped to give all the advantages of the NPPL without the UK only restriction. Also likely to allow VFR on top as is allowed in most of Europe.

I assume that the NPPL will be discontinued but that grandfather rights will apply, but this is a guess.

Rod1

IO540 11th Jan 2008 19:42

I think the NPPL will get grandfathered into the LAPL, but the details are unknown - additional training may be required depending on the exact LAPL spec.

Captainkarl 11th Jan 2008 19:46

Yeah I have heard of the LAPL, so is there any point in me completing my NPPL?

gcolyer 11th Jan 2008 19:55

If there is going to be grandfather rights in to the LAPL then definatley go for it. If not then it depends what EASA plan to do.

BEagle 11th Jan 2008 20:25

The NPPL is the product of industry-wide consultation in the UK. It also has an upgrade route to the JAR-FCL PPL(A).

Regrettably, the pointless LAPL has neither a unified industry input, nor any defined upgrade path to the EASA FCL. Moreover, certain UK organisations want to have direct influence on the MDM032 group, rather than agreeing a common way ahead with other UK pilot associations. Perhaps because they see themselves as the 'Light Aircraft' licence facilitator for this stupid licence - and the business opportunity this would bring to them.

Personally I see no point whatever in any 'harmonised' sub-ICAO licence such as the absurd LAPL. There is no guarantee that the NPPL will have any grandfather rights, neither will it be as straightforward for Microlight or SLMG Rating holders to add a SSEArating as it is at present.

My recommendation to everyone would be to respond to the NPA when it appears by saying that EASA must not be permitted to legislate at sub ICAO level - and there is no need whatsoever for the pointless LAPL since the NPPL gives its holders precisely what they want.

Is it any coincidence that the 'PFA' has decided to re-title itself the 'LAA'?

TheOddOne 11th Jan 2008 20:28


Yeah I have heard of the LAPL, so is there any point in me completing my NPPL?
Yes, of course! Don't go on hold for possibilities that may never happen. Get your NPPL gone as conveniently early as possible and enjoy your flying; that's what it's all about!

At present, all your NPPL hours will count towards a JAR-PPL. If EASA decide that the NPPL won't have grandfather rights, then you might well have the time to upgrade to the JAR-PPL and have that converted directly into an EASA-PPL. You might well then be able to down-size into a LAPL.

On the other hand, your NPPL might well convert directly into a LAPL. No-one can say at the moment; it's ALL speculation.

I reckon it's going to be at about 2 years before things are finalised, based on the speed of progress in other areas.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

gcolyer 11th Jan 2008 20:40

TheOddOne our chappy Captainkarl has type 1 diabetes and cannot hold a JAR PPL.

My thread was split from another due to thread drift. Basically Captainkarl wanted to get some right hand seat time in as he reached 50 hours and then got diagnosed with diabetes and lost his medical. He then asked about the NPPL which is when I asked about the longevity of the NPPL.

It totaly sucks for the poor guy loose one license and now has the possibilty of loosing his only other chance of being able to fly in UK/European skies.

TheOddOne 11th Jan 2008 21:01


It totaly sucks for the poor guy loose one license and now has the possibilty of loosing his only other chance of being able to fly in UK/European skies.
Yes, agreed. Perhaps EASA medical requirements might become more enlightened, certianly Dr. Peter Saundby is working hard for us in that direction. I also had a medically restrictive position until a couple of years ago. I have a UK BCPL (earned by taking the CPL exams and CPL flight test rather than grandfather rights) but couldn't get a UK or JAR Class 1 medical. Now, they've changed the eyesight correction limits slightly (I was only just outside) and I've a JAR CLass1 and a JAR FI on my BCPL. What'll happen to me? No idea, but I'm just doing what I can now; I'm sure I have some time to enjoy my new career and maybe enough time to make suitable arrangements when the changes start happening. So all I'm saying, don't let worries about the future put you off enjoying flying now.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

shortstripper 12th Jan 2008 10:45

In all the confusion, this thread has thrown up one interesting question (well loads actually, but this one is positive) If I'm to loose my UK PPL A :mad: and have to have an EASA one instead, will it allow me to fly VFR on top? If we're loosing UK priveledges, are we also loosing UK restrictions?

SS

gcolyer 12th Jan 2008 10:57

Shortstripper

Knowing are beolved leaders we will probably get shafted both ways:eek: But wouldnt it be nice to loose those UK namby pamby restrictions.

DFC 12th Jan 2008 12:15

Those who are training for the NPPL in the UK at the moment have nothing to worry about. The current position is that the training that is to be completed has to be completed to JAR-FCL standards by JAR-FCL qualified instrucors and the theory exams are also the JAR-FCL PPL theory exams.

Therefore is the NPPL came to a sudden halt and a new European licence replaced it, even with no grandfather rights, you can show evidence of training and testing which will be satisfactory for the issue of such a licence.

----------

BEagle,


Personally I see no point whatever in any 'harmonised' sub-ICAO licence such as the absurd LAPL. There is no guarantee that the NPPL will have any grandfather rights, neither will it be as straightforward for Microlight or SLMG Rating holders to add a SSEArating as it is at present.

My recommendation to everyone would be to respond to the NPA when it appears by saying that EASA must not be permitted to legislate at sub ICAO level - and there is no need whatsoever for the pointless LAPL since the NPPL gives its holders precisely what they want.
Your anti-European stance clouds your statements.

The NPPL is far from perfect. One example being the requirement for a person holding a microlight rating who will already have completed stall and spin awareness training to complete more of such training that is required by an initial applicant before getting an SSEA rating.

I do not think that you can really say that the NPPL gives everyone what they want except for the microlight pilots who are not limited to the UK as their SSEA rating holders are.

---------


If we're loosing UK priveledges, are we also loosing UK restrictions?
Well the simple answer is that you will not loose any privileges. You will gain by not having UK restrictions the two main ones being the terretorial restriction and the weather limitations imposed by the CAA.

------------

I would recomend that everyone take time to read and consider the comment and response documents when they arrive. I would also recomend that individuals make appropriate comments and not simply rely on organisations to represent their position because as can be seen from BEagle's comments regarding anything that does not have a E 2 R stamped on it, many organisations will comment for political or other reasons rather than the simple desire for improvement and harmonisation of aviation in Europe.

Regards,

DFC

IO540 12th Jan 2008 12:22

SS - the LAPL is years away and nobody knows the details. It is fairly widely speculated that VMC on top will be one of the privileges - simply because that is the ICAO default, on which the UK is the only exception in Europe.

But the LAPL is thought to be sub-ICAO, which means all bets are off. They could have all sorts of silly rules on it, appropriate to whatever (reduced) nav content there might be.

EASA's written proposals so far indicate that EASA wishes to deregulate the private flying scene, which is GOOD, but at the same time they seem to operate by getting the implementation details drafted by various committees which are inevitably staffed by the same old vested interests. And if a committee delivers something barmy (which WILL happen on occassions, due to the people on it and all the politics outside the room and under the table) the EASA executive can override the proposal and start again. And no I don't understand it either. This makes any attempt at guessing the future impossible.

My take is that we will end up with a pan-European VFR license, possibly sub-ICAO (this being required to enable a reduced medical), and the huge question is whether it will have any kind of instrument option (which would then offer a way forward for IMCR holders). Basic VFR seems assured, along with sex, chips, Big Brother, football, fishing, and all the other pillars of british intellectual life.

Legal VMC on top is nice, very nice in fact, but let's be honest - who is flying behind you enroute and videotaping the cloud cover around you with a view to prosecuting you for not being in sight of surface because there were no visible holes in the cloud? The real crunch with being limited to VFR is that you cannot afford to get stuck above a solid overcast when at your destination and you cannot afford to get caught out like that even if you have VMC on top privileges. There are various cheats but the only legal method is a Mayday. So, the enroute issue is moot and I would not lose any sleep over it.

shortstripper 12th Jan 2008 13:53


Well the simple answer is that you will not loose any privileges. You will gain by not having UK restrictions the two main ones being the terretorial restriction and the weather limitations imposed by the CAA.
I should have made it clearer that I was referring to the priveledges of the old UK PPL A. Loosing present priviledges such as IMC, lifetime licence, attached SLMG ect would be quite a loss ... but softened if we get things like PPL FIR, and VFR on top as enjoyed by many other Europeans. I know the thread was aimed at NPPL so I drifted a bit.

IO540 .... Point taken!

SS

Captainkarl 15th Jan 2008 00:02

the worst day
 
The worst day was when I had my class 2 medical taken away :-( Sucks that I can't carry pax on my NPPL. Yet if I lived in the USA with a FAA PPL and class 3 I could carry paz :-( Unfair. Still don't know if I should go and complete my NPPL just to get it more restricted or taken away :-(

Sedbergh 15th Jan 2008 07:10

Where EASA is concerned - be afraid - be very afraid.

Just like all the UK glider pilots/owners:uhoh:

IO540 15th Jan 2008 07:48


Where EASA is concerned - be afraid - be very afraid.
Just like all the UK glider pilots/owners
Not sure why you feel that. The "sports" pilot community is the safest one in Europe. "Pure Leisure VFR" is accepted as given. The committees are stuffed (over-stuffed) with delegates supporting sports aviation even if it screws all of "utility GA".

EASA executive policy is not the problem here. The "problem" with EASA is that we have yet another set of committees on which one bit of GA is happy to shaft the others, just to get easier licensing and medicals for their own group.

Sedbergh 15th Jan 2008 08:35

IO 540

Effect of EASA so far on UK gliding:

a) Register all gliders with CAA instead of BGA (ok Annex II a/c excepted)
b) Paint G - REG numbers on all gliders instead of BGA regs
c) Register ownership with CAA
d) Fit fireproof reg plate to all gliders (ever hear of a glider crashing & burning??)
e) Transition maintenance paperwork from BGA to EASA for "EASA" CofA - nightmare

It just cost a mate of mine £1800 to have all the above done professionally on his glider. Doing it yourself with a friendly Glider Inspector will be less but very time consuming

Net benefit to safety - absolutely F*** all. Net benefits to taking glider to Europe - very slight - we can do it already. Net benefits of selling glider into Europe - possible but most gliders get imported from Europe in reality.

And they havn't started on glider pilots licenses & medicals yet!

As I said - be afraid re NPPL

Rod1 15th Jan 2008 09:22

Sedbergh

The UK gliding community lost out big time with EASA. However this came about because we had a relatively relaxed approach compared with our European friends. In looking at recreational pilots license comparison we have one of the more restrictive approached than Europe. IO540 is quite right that there is a long way to go, but the initial indications are that the European lobby for a “sensible” VFR recreational license is strong and the proposals are likely to reflect this. ( the UK GA Alliance is very involved)

The problem which may happen is the group which sits just above the “VFR for fun” group. A recreational license is essentially a flying for fun license. The JAA PPL is not, it allows pilots to move on to commercial licenses, and it allows a full IR. It is the split of the JAA PPL into recreational and other which is the potential threat. The up side of this is that the numbers of pilots impacted is likely to be a few 100, but if you have got an IR and spent £100k on an IFR aircraft and you get shafted by EASA you are not going to be happy, and I can see why.

From the VFR point of view we are likely to get a less expensive license with a sub JAA medical and comparatively low cost training. I understand the likely implementation is mid 09, so this is actually not very far away.

Rod1

IO540 15th Jan 2008 10:34


The up side of this is that the numbers of pilots impacted is likely to be a few 100, but if you have got an IR and spent £100k on an IFR aircraft and you get shafted by EASA you are not going to be happy, and I can see why.
It's quite a bit more than "few 100", Rod1. About 10x that. And it goes right up to turboprops, light jets, corporate ops.

And there are many more UK pilots who get the IMC Rating and fly IFR in Class G. The "sports" pilot can of course do the same but illegally while enroute, and they cannot fly instrument approaches short of declaring a Mayday first.

There are also other angles on this. I know that you and others think that GA can happily exist flying homebuilts/sports/whatever from grass strips etc, but the economic fact is that the GA infrastructure in the UK and Europe does need the training business for a PPL which leads to commercial flying.

If flight training was restricted to sports pilots (as usual I use the term loosely but you know what I mean) the numbers would be much lower and many GA airfields would close.

As it stands, even the busiest GA airfield, with a bunch of schools, cannot make ends meet on landing fees, fuel sales, and chocolate cake sales. If you take out the "PPL leading to commercial" route, there won't be much left. Look at the condition of most of them - Elstree is a pretty good example. Property development is the only way.

Of course the grass strip operators won't be concerned about any of this - why should they be?

Rod1 15th Jan 2008 12:12

“Of course the grass strip operators won't be concerned about any of this - why should they be?”

That is a little harsh, I fly from a strip and have an IMCR, and we both know of people with IR’S that do the same. The LAA have a significant number of members who have IMCR, and C of A aircraft so it is not just about home built aircraft. We all want to fly into as many places as possible, but all of GA is being forced out of regional airfields. The CAA are vastly increasing the charges to the smaller licensed GA fields which are all struggling. By comparison the strips and the micro training are going very very well. If the new rules allow training to be done on unlicensed strips then many small GA airfields will downgrade to unlicensed and probably see a big hike in numbers. Popem is a good example of an unlicensed “strip” which is a hive of activity compared with most licensed GA bases. I would rather see more busy strips than more deserted, crumbling licensed airfields.

I understand the problem, the issue is if you devolve control of “sport aviation” to groups like the LAA, both on the aircraft and the pilot licensing side then EASA can walk away. This could well create a very positive environment for sport aviation, but what happens to the tear above. Unfortunately the JAA PPL has been a disaster from everyone’s point of view. At least if we get the “light” end sorted part of the system will work and we may be able to do something about the tear up. I am not aware of any planes to touch the CPL/IR end of the spectrum, are you?

Another “hot potato” is the upgrade path. When I did my CAA PPL I never intended to fly commercially, but it was the only game in town. If the new license is the same as the NPPL but Europe wide I will switch straight across as it will give me what I need, hopefully at reduced medical costs. I, and the vast majority of the sport flyers would not care if there was no upgrade path, but some are very adamant that there must be. There is no right or wrong answer to this one.

Rod1

IO540 15th Jan 2008 21:24

The comment may be harsh to the individual but it reflects the reality of GA representation on committees tasked with drafting the regs. The delegate will vote as he is told by the organisation he represents; sod the rest.

Popham is an unusual case. It has an excellent catchment area in a high net worth part of the country. And PPL instruction is easily done from there by flying to a licensed airfield first, and pretending the lesson starts there.

Popham got set up c. 1978 but it is about the last significant GA base that got planning permission from scratch in the UK. I would estimate the budget just for the planning application at best part of £100,000 in today's money. Then you have to build the runway - a few hundred k minimum.

Personally I don't care for the commercial route at all, but I do think of other pilots and IMHO without the extra activity GA would shrink to the freehold farm strips.

If one could set up GA airfields like Popham in open countryside, the whole picture would change beyond recognition. And if GPS approaches were authorised without ATC that would complete the picture - IFR capability with near zero cost to the airfield (decent runway lights perhaps). But this is dreaming.

If I had my own strip I would be personally secure but would still say the same things because one has to see the whole picture.

It's really pretty easy to work out a route forward, but it immediately gets stuck in political dogma. It's going to take many years to change anything.

shortstripper 16th Jan 2008 07:41

I agree with IO540 and the status quo is certainly not fine ... It's a bl@@dy mess!

The trouble is, what kind of mess will it be replaced with????

SS

Fake Sealion 21st Jan 2008 14:12

Summary please!

Just to clarify!

Can someone please explain in summary what are the plans, published or otherwise for the future of the "UK" NPPL? Is there aleady an equivalent "recreational flying" licence issued by other States in Europe? If that is the case, why cannot a "UK" NPPL fly an aircraft in one of those States. I'm not talking of actually flying accross international boundaries as PIC, but to hire and fly an aircraft once in the destination State under the same licence priviledges as here in UK?

Is there an equivalent to NPPL issued in the USA?

IO540 21st Jan 2008 14:17

I don't think anybody knows what will happen under EASA because it is a more or less entirely political process.

The NPPL is not an ICAO compliant license and this is why it is valid only in the UK.

EASA looks likely to introduce a pan-european version and it is reasonable to assume that NPPL holders would be grandfathered into that, at the appropriate time.

Whether an NPPL is worth doing is a separate argument. IMHO it is a waste of time - unless you cannot get the CAA Class 2 medical. In terms of flying skills you need the same amount of training to reach a certain level, no matter what license you get, and if you go for the JAA PPL then you have a worldwide-usable piece of paper.

Fuji Abound 21st Jan 2008 15:20

You should be in no doubt GA in the UK is a financially marginal occupation.

I doubt whether there are any FBOs which make a reasonable profit. The same is true of licensed airfields, unless they have a significant level of commercial operations.

Moreover, over the least few years FBOs have seen their costs increase at a record level starving them of the capital to reinvest in a fleet already far beyond its best. Moreover the current credit squeeze will make it even more difficult to fall back on lease and hire purchase funding in a market place that will be hardest hit by recession given that the majority of punters consider flying a luxury.

Strip flyers are far from immune. How many strips are there with fuel or maintenance? The majority of strip flyers rely on these services being available form near by licensed fields.

FBO of course provide the majority of the income to licensed operators. Their operations are sufficiently marginal already that if you remove a layer of their training it may well make the difference between them surviving or not.

Private ownership will continue to fall as relative costs increase and owners are not prepared to “invest” in old aircraft with their associated unreliability and high cost of maintenance. Buy a new basic Cessna and fly the aircraft yourself around 50 hours a year and the hourly cost will already be nearly £500.

Contrast the UK with France and a very different picture emerges. FBO and local airports receive significant subsidies from local government. They are considered to provide a focal point for the local community. Whilst costs are high the need to realise profits is not as pronounced as in the UK.

It is a gloomy picture. Sad to say I wonder how much GA will exist in this country in ten years time.

There will be a pronounced shift to ULs operating on MOGAS, without the same demanding service regimes as GA. In the mean time we have to work together to preserve the income FBOs so vitally need to maintain their businesses whether we ourselves operate form a grass strip, have a share in a group owned aircraft or rent because each is dependant on the other.

So the IMC rating, the NPPL, a relaxation of the overly regulated fly training market and of maintenace are all vital components to the survival of GA in the UK. Each is as important as the other.


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:49.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.