New NPPL
 

Does anybody know about this NPPL?
I heard it would make the minimum number of hours 32 to get the license instead of the current 45. is this true? if so when will it be introduced? If i started to learn to fly in 1-2 months and it took me about a year then would i be given a NPPL or the ppl they have now.
what advantages does the new ppl have over the old one? why have they bothered changing it?

Tiger_Moth,

The simple answer to your question is that no-one is yet sure when it'll be introduced. As to the advantages and disadvantages and other details, there have been articles and discussion on the NPPL in all the flying magazines such as Flyer and Pilot recently. If you're not reading these yet, you should be, if you're serious about flying. There's a lot more to being a pilot than learning how to manipulate the controls.

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

At the last meeting of the NPPLSC, it was decided that the target introduction date being worked towards is, if all goes well, 1 Jan 02; after that you should be able to start training towards the NPPL. However, there are many processes to go through before then, but all parties involved are doing their best.

The NPPL training requirement will consist of, inter alia, 32 hours of training and consolidation PLUS a Navigation Flight Test followed by a General Handling Flight Test. Due to the reduced number of hours required, ALL navigation training shall be carried out in the environment where the licence will be valid, i.e. the UK FIR, and the Navigation Test must be passed before the General Handling Test can be taken - those are the current proposals. So you might be able to do a few hours of GH in the USA at a PPL-farm, but NO navigation or Flight Tests. Which means it won't be worth the bother....

Sounds a lot like the Recreational Pilot Permit here in Canada, which nobody is too keen on. There's nothing wrong with getting a bit more training before they turn you loose; in the great scheme of things what's a few more hours under supervision when you'll (hopefully) log hundreds on your own afterwards?

------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.

Does anyone have any idea what the Instructor training requirements are going to be for teaching to NPPL standard? Are they sticking with current QFI/AFI's or will a new grade of Instructor be introduced?

Here we now have Tiger-Moth requiring the following info on his 'bulls'.

1/ How long does it take to go solo
2/ How do I stop barffing up on my trial flight
3/ Where are they 'nice' at airports
4/ When can I start paint bombing everyone in dog fights (try eating a few strawberry yoghurts before your next flight)
5/ Ohh..AAH,,woyhee,,yup,,,blah,,blah.
6/ I am learning in a Tiger Moth, ooh, woyee, yaa,,,
7/ How do I get an NPL

Whatever next!.

-.-- --- ..- / .-- .- -. -.- . .-. (Message in morse code).

- .... .- - ... / .- / -... .. - / ... - .-. --- -. --. / -... .- .-. -... --- -..- .-.-.- / -.-- --- ..- -. --. / .- -. -.. / . -..- ..- -... . .-. .- -. - / -- .- -.-- -... . / -... ..- - / - .... . -.-- .-.. .-.. / -.-. .- .-.. -- / -.. --- .-- -. .-.-.-

I'm pretty certain that Morse isn't in the NPPL syllabus.

G

.. / .- -- / -. --- - / ... ..- .-. . / - .... .- - / ..-. .-.. -.-- .. -. --. / -- .- -.- . ... / .. - / .. -. - --- / - .... . / -. .--. .--. .-.. / ... -.-- .-.. .-.. .- -... ..- ...

In the 26 postings by Tiger Moth that I have been able to find he has displayed a breathtaking ignorance and an equally breathtaking arrogance in giving (duff) information in response to genuine questions.

Tiger Moth, I know you are only 17 but please try to learn something about the things you profess to advise on before posting. You ARE the weakest link - I wish you'd say goodbye.

(Sorry to post this publicly but you don't appear to have an email address)

Go easy Calibahn, I've only seen some(admittedly naive) questions from TM, betraying youthful enthusiasm, and one of the virtues of this place is that it's somewhere you can ask questions, silly or otherwise, and get quite good answers (usually). No point slagging each other off here like the pros do in R&N and Jet Blast. :)

Edit: Seems I've just more or less repeated what Wrong Stuff said in Morse above

As Calibahn's Shakespearean namesake said:-

- .... . /.. ... .-.. . /.. ... /..-. ..- .-.. .-.. /--- ..-. /-. --- .. ... . ... /... --- ..- -. -.. ... /.- -. -.. /... .-- . . - /.- .. .-. ... /- .... .- - /--. .. ...- . /-.. . .-.. .. --. .... - /.- -. -.. /.... ..- .-. - /-. --- -

(or perhaps he was referring to Sunday afternoon on 124.6?)

[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 22 April 2001).]

Is the Farm a bit soft for take-offs today Cahlibahn? :)

TM reminds me of a couple of people we know from the other place. Do you reckon they're related? :)

-2Donkeys

I know, I know - youthful exuberance is a wonderful thing but I'm far too old to tolerate that sort of thing :)

What really set me off ranting was TM's 'advice' to do a packaged PPL course (40 hours, hmmm) for £2600 at a location of my aquaintence. In fact it costs £3995 (and, obviously, covers 45hrs flying training).

Don't mind the questions but the 'advice' sticks in my craw....

2Donkeys, yes the strip is unusable, thank you for asking :mad:

*Cahlibahn retires to the snug clutching his glass of milk stout and cogitates on the failings of youth* ;) ;) ;)

No, there's nothing wrong with youthful exuberance. But I too am concerned about Tiger_Moth giving advice on things he knows nothing about. The thread which worried me, and Cahlibahn as well I think, is in the "Questions" forum, called "PPL: How Long". It is a genuine query from another 17 year old. Read it and you'll see what I mean.

Tiger_Moth, you have a right to post whatever you like, as has everyone on PPRuNe. But there are real experts on here, people with thousands and thousands of flying hours, who know more about flying than you will for many years. There are also people of less experience, but who can advise on such things as flying schools FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE.

Maybe you should stick to just reading the forums and asking questions for a bit. Not for ever, just for now.

This is meant as friendly advice and I hope you take it that way.

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

Tiger_Moth, for once let me provide you with some CONSTRUCTIVE advice (for a change).

1/ Read and digest Trevor Thom Book 1 (Flying Training) paragraphs relevant for your current lessons.

2/ Read Trevor Thom Book 2 (Air Law) and FULLY understand this as you will HAVE to pass Air Law exam before you can go solo.

If you then require ANY constructive advice, just ask on here in the correct way and we will all be willing to help, however more time spent on Trevor Thom and less on the Internet should be the order of the day!.

I personally feel that taking your PPL in a Tiger Moth is wrong, it is certainly not a choice I would advise.

Take your PPL in ANY suitable training aircraft (PA28/C150 etc) then simply get checked out in a Tiger Moth afterwards (maybe 5 hours or so could do it).

I doubt that much of the PPL training in a Tiger Moth would suffice for PPL anyhow, unless of course it has a FULL avionics kit (VOR/ADF/DME/Mode C etc), which is doubtful, I would also reckon that your Nav Qual would be rather difficult as landing taildraggers on tarmac(Nav Qual is usually 2 landings in controlled airspace at 'real' airports) is for the experts, certainly NOT low hour pilots.

It would also be rather difficult (and a handful) trying to manage the cockpit with charts etc in an open cockpit.

Tandem aircraft are really not the best to learn, it is far better having the instructor ALONGSIDE you and being able to SHOW you what to do, this is just NOT possible in a tandem.

C150 or PA28 is best, at least you can trim them in and look at the charts etc!.

And boy oh boy morse is difficult to read in written form,,,,,and I read (and send) morse at 30 wpm!.

barbox,

Excellent advice. Tiger_Moth, I hope you're listening.

But I was so SO glad to read your last paragraph. Having just done the CPL navs, and passed Morse with no problems, I wondered why I was finding it almost impossible to read it! I'm glad it's not just me :) :) :)

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

It is because morse is better typed as it sounds not dots and dashes but dit's di's
& dah's.

dahdahdidah dahdahdidah (should sound like god save the 'Q'ueen?)

Morse is music, and like music it is difficult to read in the written 'mode'.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm.............sorry?

Barbox inparticular seems to hate me!
Barbox I agree it would be easier to learn in a side by side plane than a tandem one but it is obviously not impossible in a tandem aircraft. I dont have the financial ability to learn on a piper/cessna and then just convert. If I did that I would not be in a Tiger Moth for 7 years, unless I won the lottery or something. I`ve worked it out carefully. My ppl is about having FUN so I`m going to learn on the plane I like best, I`m not intending to work my ppl up to a cpl or anything. All the same thanks a lot for your advice.

If a trial lesson on the Tiger Moth is £90 for 40 minutes I assume that a 1hr lesson will be £135. You could get an hour and twenty minutes on a C152 at Cambridge for that (and rather more time elsewhere).

45 hrs on the Tiger Moth for £6075 or on a C152 for £4680? Is the undeniable joy of flying the Tiger Moth really worth £1400 during those early training days?

Tiger_Moth,

I don't quite understand this. Firstly, are you expecting to get your PPL in 45 hours? You may do, but most people take longer. This isn't always to do with your ability; you can be scuppered by the weather, a change of instructor, all sorts of things. Secondly, what happens once you've got your PPL? Do you intend to go on flying? If not, you'll get rusty very quickly, to say nothing of having to do 12 hours in two years just to keep your licence. And most of the fun of flying comes after you've got your licence; getting a PPL is quite a hard grind actually. Yes, I know trial lessons are fun; they have to be; the schools want you to carry on!

What I mean is, if you're so short of money that you can only just afford to do a PPL given ideal circumstances, then doing it in a Tiger Moth is only going to make it hard for you to complete it at all. And if you're not, then why not learn on something easier, rather than probably pay for a lot of extra hours of dual flying?

I know you've set your heart of doing your PPL in a Tiger Moth. I just wonder if you're not caught up in the romanticism of it, rather than looking at the cold reality.

And by the way, we don't hate you. :)

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

[This message has been edited by Whirlybird (edited 27 April 2001).]

Hate you Tiger_Moth?, no way, I just want you to be sensible, your last post here was just that, great!.

OK I realise you only want a PPL, however you will have to have FAR more lessons in a Tiger_Moth than you would in a more sensible trainer (I would reckon at least 10 hrs more)therefore IT MAKES SENSE, to train in a proper trainer just for the cash savings BY FAR.

When you 'land away' in your Nav Qual to be 'signed off' at two 'real' airports have you any idea how difficult it will be to even taxi the Tiger Moth on tarmac let alone land/take off on it, I also have doubts that major airports (where you have to landaway for PPL) would even accept a student solo in Tiger Moth, even if they sent out a 'follow me' truck you would struggle to even see it whilst in front of you let alone follow it!.

At my local club we have a Cessna 140 (1940's)taildragger, solo it costs about £52 per hr with an additional £24 for an instructor, therefore for £76 per hr you could do your PPL in a taildragger anyhow for about £3600!.

You have failed to discuss the problems with cockpit management in an open cockpit, only for the VERY experienced.

Also who on earth are you going to find to swing the prop and remove the chocks at the likes of East Midlands/Newcastle/Humberside/ airports etc whilst on Nav Qual's?.

It's a case of 'get real' or fail or just become a student for ever!.

As the Cambridge Tiger Moth School is a CAA approved training establishment, the problems with the QXC cannot be insurmountable. Oxford, Cambridge and Wycombe are examples of towered fields with grass runways (also Southend? can't remember) and presumably the school phones ahead to let them know that a prop swinger will be required. The recent article about the school in Flyer mentioned that the instrument bit of the course is done in a PA 28.

I'm not trying to underestimate the difficulty involved in doing a PPL in an open biplane, but it's not impossible. TM: don't be discouraged. Other options might include the Cub tailwheel ab initio course at Clacton. Good luck whatever you decide to do.

How do you do the Instrument part of the PPL in a Moth?

Carrier bag?

Cahliban, it is £90 for 40 minutes trial but its only £99.60 for an hour (with instruction), I dont know why but that makes it only very slightly more expensive than a cessna and even if the difference was £1400 I`d still prefer the Moth.
Whirly, I dont expect to get my license in 45 hours! I`m thinking more along the lines of 50-60, hopefully. They say 55-60 is the average. That c140 and the cub at clacton are good deals but im more into the bi plane and open cockpit aspects of the Moth than in it being tailwheel.
Do the navigation bit on a piper! arrggh! whered u hear that? I`ll have to ask them about that but it didnt mention it in the letter they gave me and they didnt tell me that when i phoned them either. I might be able to fly to wycombe for my navigation test. That`d be great because thats where I first saw a Moth and had a ride in it. The pilot of the Moth was the one who told me about Cambridge. Thered be someone to swing my prop there for sure because they have a Moth there.
You say that if im on a budget then i should learn on something else first but why? That is assuming that flying pre ppl is not good but I would enjoy learning on a Moth. Even if it took me 80 hours they would have been on a Moth instead of a cessna which means I would have had more fun.
I`ve worked out that I should be able to keep my license current but it might have to be that I saved up in the first year and then did all the flying in the second year, depending on how much money Id need for university.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

Tiger, can you just explain exactly what it is that you dislike about Cessna`s and Piper`s? They are the best training aircraft in the world, and its for a very good reason.

Why, as Ive said before, dont you train in one of these aircraft, navigation and all, then learn to fly the Moth after? Surely this makes sense?

In another bid to help us all here, does anybody know the crosswind limits on the Moth? - and any other obvious factors as to why doing a PPL in one is lunacy?

Surely its going to be even more limited to the uk met than my lovely warm PA28?

C`mon y`all, lets get the upper hand here.

TM: according to article in Flyer it is just the basic instrument familiarisation part of the course which is done in a PA 28. There is no set number of hours for this. The idea is simply to demonstrate the ability to perform basic manouevres on instruments (essentially the big 180 out of the clag). Presumably in the test the Examiner will look for a level turn made by reference to the Moth's old fashioned turn and slip gauge coupled with the altimeter, in the absence of an AI, DI and VSI (though some Moths have the latter), or maybe you have to do the instrument bit of the test (which lasts about 2 minutes) in a separate Piper sortie.

It seems that the rest of the course is done on the Tiger Moth. No doubt the school can confirm this.

Regarding the whole of the course as flying and as fun is a good attitude.

The cross wind limitation point is a valid one, and you will undoubtedly lose flying days because of winds which would not be a problem in a more modern aircraft, but you'll just have to put up with that, and it's something that will stay with you as long as you fly vintage aircraft. Even very experienced Tiger Moth pilots stay on the ground when there is a cross wind of more than 9 knots or so.

I'm sure that Pipers and Cessnas have many good qualities, but suggest that it may be an exaggeration to describe them as "the best trainers in the world". Aren't they really tourers that have become mainstream trainers by default? The world's air forces don't use them for basic training. Are they missing something?


(edittid for badd speling)

[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 29 April 2001).]

Yeh I agree FNG, maybe "most popular" would be a better description. I can only presume that the military dont bother with them is as most arent aerobatic capable. Why by two when one will do and all that...!

FNG you mention that the Worlds Air Forces do not use Pipers or Cessna's as trainers.

Looking at the USAF they are going back to 'basic' trainers due to the accidents in their Slingsby's, hence their recent decision to scrap over 100 of them rather than 'risk' selling them and being sued for any future accidents with GA owners.

I wonder how many of the USAF fatal accidents were due to the Slingsby dropping the right wing and spinning on the stall?.

Hence their decision to revert to a basic initial training aircraft like their prior to Slingsby aircraft,,,,,C150's!.

The RAF also use 'docile' aircraft, such as the Bulldog, which seems very similar to a Grumman AA5 but with a steerable nosewheel.

I have some 75 hrs in a Slingsby T67, I would NOT have appreciated training in this aircraft due to it's stall characteristics, far better being in a 'docile' staller if it goes wrong when solo training?.

However the T67 is a SUPERB aircraft in the right hands and the USAF trainer was basically a T67 airframe.

Not sure how the Tiger Moth stalls, but surely a point to check before deciding to take PPL in one.

The Slings is a lovely aeroplane, yes. Aircraft seems to handle totally normally. Checking out in one a few years ago, check pilot encourages me to pull harder over the top of a loop. Constant aural stall warning.
'No, Pull harder!'
Pull harder and very obvious buffet is felt.
'This time, pull harder!'
Flicked....obviously. Stopped within 1/4 turn. The aircraft communicates intentions well. We also abused it in various ways to provoke it but it doesn't actually bite without warning.
Problem is these common training aircraft are actually so docile that anything disguise the faults of pilots.
A good trainer is ghastly aeroplane.
Lots of adverse yaw, to show students what their feet are for.
Tailwheel to teach them how to land properly and crosswind techniques.
Obvious buffet and break at the stall. Healthy wingdrop on spin entry. (Condor was good as I recall.)

Please, the Bulldog and AA-5 are not in the same league. A clear case of British is best this one!

My ha'pen'th for TM. Go gliding and join your local UAS. Otherwise, if you don't want to listen to or clearly have no intention of accepting the advise you request-don't bother asking the question!

I gather that USAF Slingsby mishaps were engine related (or pilot induced, or a bit of both), rather than a result of spin characteristics. Hasn't stopped the RAF from continuing with them through their civvie contractors. Odd to compare a Bulldog to an AA 5 (can an AA 5 aerobat, or land in a 25 knot crosswind?). Anyway, RAF Bulldogs had some odd spinning incidents but weren't binned as a result. I've spun a Bulldog and wouldn't necessarily describe it as docile.

Mr Moto's description of the perfect trainer fits something like an, er.... Tiger Moth. David Robson, in the preface to his recent (very good) book on aerobatics, says this:-

"Aircraft such as the Tiger Moth, Chipmunk and the Stearman were effective trainers because they developed good hand/eye coodination, an awareness of and a respect for airspeed, a discipline for flightpath control and a sensitivity to surface winds. They were a challenge to fly accurately and well. They taught correct habit patterns and responses - essential to the automatic correction of flightpath or airspeed deviations. The touring aircraft that currently populate the majority of the world's training fleets are not suitable trainers for other than cross-country and procedural training".

I don't know enough about different types, or flying generally, to judge whether he's right, but his view seems to be a respectable counter argument to the "better learn in a spamcan" idea. Anyway, they're all aeroplanes and therefore by definition wonderful.

Mr. Moto
To say that I should not ask a question unless I am willing to do exactly as I`m told is stupid, especially as everyone is not saying the same thing.
Also I would like to point out that I didnt actually ask the question: this thread is meant to be about the new ppl! All I did was defend why I would like to learn in the Moth when others advised me against it.

Speedbird: I dont hate pipers and cessnas I just prefer Moths a lot more. Its just opinion. The reason I cant just learn on a cessna and then convert is that that would put me at least 7 years away from a Moth. 7 years! I just dont have enough money for that kind of thing, so why not choose the plane I like best? Even if it took ages to get my ppl it wouldnt matter to me because I would have done it in a Moth. I`ve been looking forwards to the Moth for ages and bothered to work all the way through the summer for it and subsequently on the weekends when i went back to school, so why, when I get so near the end should I deny myself my dream when I dont have to?

T_M, your first post on this thread stated that

'If I started to learn to fly in 1 to 2 months and it took me a year'.

Therefore where has the 7 years come from as stated in your latest post?.

We assumed therefore that you intended doing the PPL (or NPL) in a year, hence the advice to train as cheap as possible then do a simple tail dragger conversion in a Moth.

Just go ahead and complete your dream, do your PPL in the Moth.

PS if you want to buy a Tiger Moth let me know, I have a friend who is selling a nice one for £30k.

A thought just occured to me prompted by TM's reference to the NPPL. As the Tiger Moth is an aircraft requiring differences training, will it be permitted as an aircraft on which training for the initial issue of a NPPL may be carried out? (TM - as there is to be no crossover from PPL to NPPL it won't affect you one way or another if you start a JAR-FCL PPL course)

Differences training is a complete red herring - you can learn in a Malibu if you want - or follow Caroline Graces example and learn in a Spitfire (excuse me while I turn green with envy!!), but it seems to me most of the people on this forum would have been throwing up their arms in horror at that suggestion.
To go back to the ORIGIONAL subject, the NPPL is a great idea, but where are you cutting back on the training? You can cut some of the instrument training, but this does not give a 10hr reduction, cutting back on the Nav is not a good idea either as I thought this was an area I understood the CAA was concerned about.
If they restricted the NPPL to say 25 miles of the departure airfield and under the supervision of an instructor (ie. as if it were a student but allowed to carry pax.)then it might make sense, but to just reduce the permitted hours whilst allowing the same freedom to get lost within UK airspace seems nonsense.

Expressed myself badly (as usual) Foxmouth. What I was trying to get at was 'will the powers that be restrict the type of aircraft types which can be used for NPPL training?'

From my understanding,there WILL be a restriction on type of aircraft under the NPPL, but the only restriction I have heard of is in the no. of seats (4?). If this is the case then the Malibu may be out for the NPPL (to many seats), but the Tiger Moth or even the 2 seat Spitfire would still be OK!!

Does anyone know if the NPPL nav test will require radio navigation. If so, what is the minimum radio nav kit required in the aeroplane?

What is the minimum radio nav kit required to complete the JAR PPL?

T_M, the flying school I run used to operate a tiger moth, and we never dreamt of allowing students to use her as a regular training platform, they handle like bricks and the inflight vis is equally as bad. They are a lovely aircraft for trial lessons, or used for differance training, it can be a great experiance, but that is as far as they go.

I have to question your flying schools motives for letting you use the Tiger Moth as a full time training platform.

Solent 01
I've flown with the Cambridge Flying Group - albeit only three times and about 15 years ago. They certainly were then an honest, straightforward bunch with the best of motives. Weird maybe, but...

Way back then they had two real characters who ran the place - the CFI (who's name escapes me) and a lady who might have been called Betty Willink. Or she might not. It was a LONG time ago. They were probably in their sixties back then, so might not be around still, but I always thought they'd easily outlast me. Are they still around at all T_M?