Nppl Changes!
 

NPPL CHANGES!

Several changes regarding the UK NPPL came into effect today. The explanatory AIC was agreed yesterday, but the AIC production process means that it physically cannot be promulgated until the end of March.

Do I need to do anything immediately? NO – there will be a ‘transition period’ from now until the end of April 2009.

What are the main changes? Mainly to revalidation. Whereas up until now Microlight and SLMG Class Ratings on an NPPL have had 13 month validity periods and a logbook stamp, SSEA Class Ratings have had a ‘rolling’ validity period. After your next revalidation (which must be within the transition period) all Class Ratings will have a 24 month validity period and a Certificate of Revalidation will be used, not a logbook stamp.

Does this affect ‘old-style’ UK PPL(M) or PPL (SLMG) holders? No. They can stay on the present system if they so wish.

What are the new revalidation requirements? ‘12-in-24 + 6-in-12’ Meaning that in the new 24 month period you will need to fly 12 hours TT on SSEA, SLMG and/or Microlights, of which 8 must be as PIC and 12 t/os and ldgs are required. 6 of the 12 TT must be in the final 12 months.

Is there a ‘dual training flight’ requirement? It’s now optional – but if you don’t fly at least 1 hour with an instructor in the 24 month period then, when your Class Ratings are next revalidated, you will be restricted to ‘Single Seat Aircraft Only’. If you only ever fly something like a single seat Microlight or a Cosmic Wind, you may wish to exercise this option.

Is the ‘dual training flight’ still a minimum of 1 hour? No. You can do whatever training you wish in any of the 3 Classes of aeroplanes you can include in an NPPL. So, if you normally fly off tarmac and go to a nearby grass strip, do half an hour’s training, then land for lunch before coming home again, that’ll all count. If it doesn’t add up to at least 1 hour then you can do the rest at another time.

Up until now I’ve only held a SSEA Rating, but I’ve taken Microlight differences training and exercised my licence privileges on Microlights. Can I still do that? Yes, but when you apply for your next revalidation the Examiner will add a Microlight Class Rating to your Certificate of Revalidation with ‘Exempt’ in the ‘Date of Test’ column. For legal reasons you will need to fill out a form (which will be available from www.nppl.uk.com) and send it off to the CAA so that they can issue you with an updated licence. You can carry on flying both SSEAs and Microlights without needing to wait for the new licence. The CAA expect this to be a nil cost process, but this has yet to be confirmed. Don’t say anything sarcastic – they’ve been very, very helpful in all this!

Does the same apply if I’ve been using my SSEA Rating on SLMGs? Yes. And also if you’ve been exercising your NPPL (SSEA) privileges on Microlights and SLMGs.

Does this also apply if my SSEA Class Rating has lapsed? No. If your SSEA Rating has lapsed, then you will need to renew it by GST. If you then wish to add Microlight and/or SLMG Class Ratings to your licence – even if you’ve been previously flown such aircraft on your SSEA Rating - you will need to follow the requirements listed in NPPL XC REV 07 which you can find on the ‘Licence Allowances’ tab on www.nppl.uk.com .

If I hold more than one Class Rating, will I need to meet the ‘12-in-24 + 6-in-12’ requirements on each Class? NO!! Good news – the ‘12-in-24 + 6-in-12’ can be accumulated on any of the 3 classes, so long as the total adds up to at least ‘12-in-24 + 6-in-12’, including the 12 t/os and ldgs. The only additional requirement is that you must fly at least 1 hour on each Class – which may either be as PIC or as PU/T with an instructor on that Class. Again, that’s a minimum total in each Class. So, for example, 2 x 30 min in one of the Classes will be fine.
But that means I need only fly an hour in 2 years in a SSEA to maintain my validity if I do everything else in a Microlight? Isn’t that a bit risky? Not at all – if you own your own SSEA would you really let it rust for the rest of the period? And if you only did an hour, would anyone be happy to rent you an aeroplane? In any case, you still have to maintain 90 day recency in any Class to carry passengers in that Class.

What about Instructor Ratings? You will be able to include a FI or AFI Rating on Microlights and/or a FI Rating on SLMGs in an NPPL. This includes the right to receive remuneration.

Does this also apply to SSEA instruction? NO. There are no changes to the requirements for SSEA flight instruction.

What about Seaplanes? The ANO has introduced a formal requirement for differences training for seaplanes. For Microlights this will be as decided by the BMAA, but for SSEA seaplanes, the same requirements as for JAR-FCL SEP (Sea) Class Ratings will apply.

Any medical changes? Nothing significant – just administrative tidying up.

Well thats interesting, thanks Beagle.

So I have to go back to signing licenses for NPPL revalidation's?

Yes!








.

NPPL Changes
 

BEAgle

To clarify. Does it mean that if an NPPL comes to me today I should apply the new rules as you have outlined them with immediate effect. i.e. we do not have to wait for the AIC issue.

If a NPPL comes to you today (or before the end of the transition period), it must be valid under the old system and you will then need to sign the Certificate of Revalidation as I stated above. Once that has been signed, the holder comes onto the new system.

If the holder has been exercising Microlight and/or SLMG privileges on an SSEA Class Rating , you need to contact NPLG for the correct form and guidance note. It hasn't yet been uploaded onto the website as we don't want Examiners misunderstanding. Even if written in words of half a syllable, let alone in 'shall not unless' ANO-speak, you would be surprised how many Examiners seem to be incapable of following even the simplest instructions....

We still see some Examiners conducting JAR-FCL PPL Skill Tests for the NPPL instead of the NST and GST, for example....:ugh:

Looks like we owe you a pint or two.
Well done and thanks

Thanks Beagle for that very informative post and all your input!
John.

I for one am not cheering. Did I miss the response to the RIA or was this just steamrollered through? For microlight pilots at least the change to revalidation is not a good thing.

1. It sets up a different regime for people flying the same aircraft dependent on whether they hold an older (PPLA) or newer (NPPL) licence
2. It adds cost (the equivelent of approximately 5 hours flying) for no demonstrated benefit
3. It adds a bureaucratic step which was not wanted by the panel of microlight examiners or the BMAA in it's response
:mad:

for those of us that only fly microlights on our NPPL(M) licences we have been shafted. We now have to cough up for time with an instructor which those people with PPL(M) or the D licence do not have to do. Since the NPPL was supposed to be an equivalent replacement, how is it that it is now treated as different?

Not best pleased. Can I have the old PPL(M) please?

neilb2nd, the RIA was widely publicised and the BMAA responded accordingly. In fact the exact same words were seen in several responses from Microlight pilots; orchestrated responses are not viewed in the same light as individual responses. MS Word is very useful for sniffing out 'cut and paste' responses to RIAs!

Those on the old-style Microlight licences can continue as they are.

Those with NPPLs don't have to do any dual training if they wish to restrict themselves to flying single seat Microlight aeroplanes only.

But all others WILL have to do some continuation training. That doesn't have to be a single 60 min flight - build it up however you wish. It is well known that the average Microlight pilot flies many more than 12 hours in 24 months, so 'coughing up' to do 1 of those with a FI is hardly going to break the bank.

It was the majority view of the NPPL P&SC that, particularly now the Micolight world is flying aircraft right up to the maximum weight limit which are SSEAs in all but 1 kg, the dual training is now necessary.

When you just flew the original lightweight aeroplanes, things were very different. But you've pushed and pushed the weight limit and it was generally felt that a line had to be drawn. The CAA's safety statistics were also considered.

All those who kept saying how gucci their high performance Microlights were - and how they outperformed tired old spamcans - should reflect on the wisdom of having made such statements.

Can I have the old PPL(M) please? No - it's no longer available.

Beags - ref your post #6, I've had just that problem with an examiner expecting me to do a whole lot of nav-aid work for my NPPL, even though my little Super Cub does not even have any electrics. Not a problem said he - he had a battery-powered VOR for my delectation. All power (sorry!) to your elbow in getting the message across.

BEagle,

I am still flying an old rag and tube microlight, I have been shafted.

Mandator - please direct the Examiner to www.nppl.uk.com so that he can download the correct syllabus and test requirements. And remind him of Regulation 6 concerning improper conduct of tests....

rans6andrew - I find it difficult to believe that a mere hour every 24 months with an instructor has 'shafted' you. When did you last have any sort of a training flight?

Beagle, I'm disappointed in that response, and feel let down by the NPPL committee (and the CAA have likewise lived down to my expectations)

It's frankly rubbish to say that because a number of people agreed with the BMAA response then their veiws should not be taken into account. A hundred pilots saying that an idea is stupid should carry more weight than one saying the same thing. What is the point of the RIA if the output does not have to be justified against the comments submitted?

It's highly disengenuous to say that dual training is a choice. My syndicate partner and I can fly off together with him as P1 on his PPL, but then he has to take the train back after lunch because I can only fly solo on an NPPL! In fact it's worse than that, because I have to take the seat out and he has to take that back on the train with him!

'Coughing up' as you say to fly with a FI will add a cost to flying. An hours instruction costs an hour - whether I do it in 60, minute sessions or an hour at a go. In any event, the money isn't necessarily the point. You said that the safety statistics were taken into account. I'd be very interested in seeing those statistics that prove that NPPL holding pilots are more prone to accidents than those holding a PPL, and that lack of regular instructional flights was a causal factor. Perhaps you'd like to back up that statement. It doesn't seem to be shared by the BMAA or the panel of microlight examiners.

In the meantime, I too, feel shafted by a group that seems to have based a decision on envy that modern microlights outperform older Group A.

"A hundred pilots saying that an idea is stupid should carry more weight than one saying the same thing. What is the point of the RIA if the output does not have to be justified against the comments submitted?"

If those were individual replies, perhaps.

But one reply copied one hundred times? Not so. As stated in the Consultation Response Document CRD 01-06:

A number of very similarly constructed comments were received, stating very similar objections, and it is probable that a number of comments were submitted as part of a concerted campaign to influence the outcome of the consultation.

Incidentally, 'Single seat' means an aeroplane constructed with one seat. A 2-seater with a seat taken out is not a 'single seat' aeroplane.

You say that the cost is not necessarily the the point of your objection to regular refresher flying training. Just what is your real objection?

Beagle, Do you have a link to CRD 01-06 please? I can't find it on the CAA Website.

My objections to this change are exactly as I said in the first post:

1. It sets up a different regime for people flying the same aircraft dependent on whether they hold an older (PPL) or newer (NPPL) licence

2. It adds cost for no demonstrated benefit

3. It adds a bureaucratic step on the entirely spurious grounds that although I've passed all of the exams and test to hold a pilots licence I'm too stupid to remember the revalidation requirements.

I accept that we can't back out of the NPPL , buit it now offers no advantage and a demonstrable financial disadvantage to a microlight pilot.

I strongly believe that anything that adds cost to our flying needs to be justified. Properly, with facts and figures - not just because I can put 'safety' in the sentence and because someone flying an old Gp A aircraft is envious of a shiny new metal / composite microlight.

It's disappointing that we put up with all of this bureaucratic rubbish just because we fly. I don't have to revalidate a driving licence every two years.

It is not just the cost of buying an hour of instructor time that is the issue.

If I am to be "under instruction" in my own aircraft I need to have the instructor added to my aircraft insurance. This may or may not add to the cost but it is something that increases the chore.

If I am to take my hour of training in another machine then finding one with enough headroom becomes a problem. I ended up with the Rans I have as it was the only closed cockpit aircraft I could find that, when I removed the seat cushions, allowed me to sit normally without having my head pressed against the structure of the cockpit frame. I have sat in a C42, a Eurostar and CT2K and find all to be lacking in cockpit height. In the other training aircraft, the Thruster there is enough room except that the engine blocks most of the view ahead if you are tall. Are there any other 3 axis microlights used for training?

At Brimpton, where I fly from, we don't have any instructors on hand. This means I don't have the option of a spontaneous "have you got time to fly with me for an hour?" but need to book ahead. This leads to weather, instructor and aircraft all needing to be good for the day. It was this hassle that lead me to buy my own aircraft in the first place. At least I only need to have the right weather to be able to fly.

So all in all, it is a total pain, one that has not been inflicted upon the PPL(M) licence holders. If there was a clear need for it they would have been forced into this as well.

p.s. BEagle, I last took flying instruction a lot more recently than most of the PPL(M) licence holders. Is this relevent?

I think I might end up taking an hour of instruction in a flexwing when the time comes. I'm told that they are great fun in nice weather. No headroom issues there.

CRD 01-06 ANO NPPL Amendments - 16 Jul 07 - v.2.00.00.pdf is the document title - I cannot find it on the CAA website either. Quite why that should be, I do not know.

The original letter of consultation was sent to more than 1000 addressees; however, only 45 responded.

You can see the documents released in the public consultation at

BEagle:

I hold a NPPL (SSEA/SEP) which required revalidation by the 19th Dec 2007. In accordance with AIC 3/2004 para 1.3.1 (a), at the end of October 2007 I undertook a 1 hour instruction flight with an instructor who signed my 1 hour PUT logbook entry. At that time I had flown 30 hours as PIC in the previous 12 months.

As a result of the changes you listed in your initial post, what am I required to do between now and the end of April 2009 to maintain my license validation?

By the way, I didn't find the 1 hour instruction flight particularly onerous. An independent check every two years that you can still perform the exercises you were taught when first learning to fly (e.g. PFL, stall recovery, steep turns, etc) keeps you from getting 'rusty', and the cost, using my aircraft and fuel, was only £20.