In which case, they may as well have gone for the JAA version (after all Homeguard tells us that the testing and training is the same, despite having 13 hours less experience).

Well, if your first point holds water, then you may as well have gone for the JAA version and not missed out on privileges.

For Homeguard, I do not regard myself as "restricted automatically" just aware that experience counts for a lot. The JAA PPL asks for an extra 13 hours but in exchange gives a greater range of privileges based on the extra experience gained.

An extra 13 hours adds just over 40% extra experience - and in my book that is a hell of a lot more potential to learn airmanship skills which are invaluable. If you don't believe that experience matters, think on why pilots are required to hours build before starting a CPL.

Homeguard,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm afraid I'm with moggiee on this one, even if you happen to be correct that the 13 hours is nothing but experience time (which I seriously doubt !), those 13 hours are highly valuable to a rookie pilot and it's therefore only fair that the extra privileges available to a JAA PPL holder are only available to those who have gained the extra experience.

Most of the NPPLs I know are experienced PPLs, who chose to downgrade their medical, on cost grounds.

I'm one of those - mostly, apart from a few minor problems, now past, and I'm also the original poster.

There's no substitute for experience, no-one can deny that - so I'd like to propose a new licence type for new PPLs, called the Super-JAA. You need 70 hours total, with 15 solo and a Class A medical. That sounds good, and gets in lots of useful extra hours before you can go off on your own.

Any takers?

I thought not.

Yes, extra hours are good experience, but where do you stop on safety issues? Should we all fly in cotton wool balls? Someone out there decided that 32 hours was a good enough minimum, though I rather expect that most do a few more. There should be enough statistics in now to see whether the lower number of hours kills people or not.

And at the end of the course, what are the difference in priviledges? As a fair weather PPL myself, the only lack I've felt is not automatically being able to fly abroad, which was where I started this thread. I didn't do very much in the way of trips abroad when I had the UK PPL anyway (which actually I still have, though lapsed) so it wasn't a big deal not being able to go, just stupid bureaucracy. In return, my NPPL means no yearly medical, and no silly "twelve hours in the second of two years" (who on earth thought that one up?). I didn't know that the NPPL course doesn't have radio nav. Neither did my UK PPL course.

B

Hours
 

M & M

I doubt whether the JAA candidate does finish with more experience than the NPPL applicant. What I don't think you understand is that the NPPL requires 22 hours dual plus 10 hours solo totaling 32 hours. The JAA/UK requires 25 hours dual plus 10 hours solo totaling 35 hours. A difference in training of just 3 hours.

But the JAA pilot must have done sufficient Radio Navigation training to pass the Skill Test (no minimum hours set) and have done 1 hour longer flying solo navigation and that is the only difference in hours. The rest of the training and syllabus element minima is exactly the same!

However the JAA PPL applicant must have a minimum of 45 hours experience as a pilot of aeroplanes. If they can't claim credits from other types of flying then the extra ten hours is usually taken up by the pre-solo time bashing the circuit, revising weak points and Skill Test preparation, which is just the same for the NPPL. I always recommend that our NPPL students do the same QXC (a few extra minutes) as the JAA PPL student which makes any later upgrade simpler and cheaper.

Unless the new student is not able to meet the JAA medical requirements I do stress to them from the onset that they might as well go the whole hog and gain the JAA PPL first, perhaps change to NPPL later.

The majority of NPPL holders have migrated from Microlites, SLMG and gliders because the NPPL offers considerable exemptions to them. Many will already be UK/PPL holders. In all these cases they will already be very experienced pilots and many will be qualified flying instructors.

You both sound like you weren't around at the birth of the NPPL and perhaps remain unaware of the angry debates surrounding the onset of JAA and therefore the true purpose of the NPPL. The advantages with regard to costs are different from what you both appear to understand.

Nah, probably just too busy enjoying the privileges bestowed on us as ICAO/JAA holders :p

I'm not going to try to extend the debate any further, unless moggiee tempts me ... :cool:.....All the best, and happy flying ...

I've been a professional pilot for a quarter of a century, an instructor for nearly two decades and was quite definitely there at the birth of the JAA. I am currently instructing at an FTO that covers all flying training from trial lessons, through PPL, CPL, IR and MCC as well as FIC.

That, good sir, is the risk you take when you assume and patronise.

The fact that I disagree with you (and I'm not alone here) does not make me wrong - just of a different opinion. In my opinion, mountains are being made from one smallish mole hill in complaining about the restrictions on the NPPL.

To discount the value of the extra 13 hours is to miss the point that when you are at the bottom end of the experience curve then ANY extra experience is disproportionately valuable. After all, if experience doesn't matter, why does the CPL set a minimum experience level before a student may commence CPL training?

The JAA PPL is both a licence in it's own right (for those who only want to go that far) and a stepping stone to additional ratings and a CPL (for those who want to make a career from aviation). It sets higher experience requirements because, in all honesty, that extra experience is essential when moving forward to those additional ratings.

If, as is claimed, few NPPLs get by with the minimum hours then choosing an NPPL over a JAA PPL in order to save a few quid is an error of judgement. If it's going to take them 40+ hours then they may as well go for the JAA version and avoid being restricted. You also then may add an IMC, Night or even instrument rating. The extra experience gained from the JAA PPL is very useful when working towards those additional ratings.

No such ratings are available under the NPPL scheme - a fact which NPPL holders must accept as the trade off for holding the licence that they do.

30 hours of the NPPL training can be carried forward towards the JAA PPL, so an upgrade only incurs the loss of 2 hours training and should thus be a straightforward process. However, if the NPPL student takes more than 32 hours to achieve the required standard, then that surely makes the case for the value of the extra 13 hours in the JAA syllabus.

As I've said previously, my sympathies go to anyone who is limited to NPPL for medical reasons - but I suspect that if this is the case then they would have failed to pass the medical for the old UK CAA PPL, so the NPPL does them a favour. However, if you choose the NPPL for purely economic reasons then you quite literally get what you pay for.

moggiee .....

:D

And we all know how valuable IMC/IR is in the UK !

I have flown 8 different types and converted to tail dragger, constant speed prop over 200 hours in 3 years all on an NPPL I am not complaining. I am happy and enjoying my restricted??? privileges