Nppl
 

Can anyone update me of where the NPPL issue is at...I asked the CAA who sent me a 'we dont reply to individual enquiries of this type please see our web site for the most up to date information' but there is little on the web site :mad: and I want to pursue this line of license initially due to the reduced medial conditions and because at least to begin with I just want to learn to fly....

I think you and I are in the same boat. There have been a number of threads about the NPPL over the past few months, try searching through the archives and you will find the past discussions.
However to put you in the picture, the NPPL will mean you are able to fly in daylight VFR with up to 3 passengers in UK airspace. The medical, as you say, is the same as the DVLA professional driver and should be easier to pass. There are some that disagree with this point but I will move on!. You have to complete a minimum of 35 hours training and then the Nav and GFT tests. There are still the same exams (Law, Nav, Met etc)as the JAA PPL. BEagle, who very often contributes to this forum is on the steering committee and is a source of what stage it is at etc. I believe that it is due to be introduced on the 1st of May? but I am not sure. I think it is expected to be a sport licence and not a starting block to an avaition career and therefore there will be no IMC, night etc rating, but I think you can do differences training for tailwheel, variable pitch prop etc.
I have now got 50 hours but no solo so I can't wait until the new licence is introduced!
Good luck

Start date for NPPL - last I heard was July.

An amendment to the Air Navigation Order is required, so keeping an eye on the Hansard or Stationery Office websites may give a clue, or indeed AOPA/PFA.

I agree that the CAA site doesn't appear to have much new...

We expect the NPPL to be launched on 1 Jul 02. The delay has mainly been down to refining administrative proposals to a standard acceptable to the CAA; these are primarily technical issues as the basic concept of the licence has been agreed for some while now.

Basically, the licence may have one or more ratings for SEP, SLMG, Microlight. There are accreditation rights for other aviators which are far more generous than under JAR/FCL. The medical requirements will be simpler. A NPPL with SEP rating will restrict the holder to Day VFR flight in UK airspace in an ac with no more than 4 seats and an AUW of no more than 2 tonne. You will not be able to add Night, IMC or FI ratings to a NPPL with SEP Rating. Training for the NPPL with SEP rating will still be required to be conducted in aircraft and at sites which meet the same requirements as for JAR/FCL training. There will be an 'upgrade' process to the JAR/FCL PPL. Initially, only the JAR/FCL PPL exams will be available, it is possible that a simpler form of exam may be available later, depending on market demand. Revalidation/renewal procedures should be simpler than they currently are for the JAR/FCL PPL with SEP rating.

Hopefully it'll be worth the wait.....

Interesting to see that there will be an upgrade process to JAR-PPL. I didn't think this was going to be included originally.

Please note that Beagle used a misleading description- SIMPLER- twice and, therefore, confirms that NPPL actually means both easier exam and slacker medical, as well as less training.
The NPPL is all you'd expect from the fly-boys but it is not in anyone's interests other than those of the sub-standard pilot (and greedy schools).
The NPPL will allow geriatrics to fly (hopefully on their own and well away from populated areas) but this motorbike licence of the air is not for the credible pilot.

P.S. the potential up-grade to a full licence would be a useful selling point for the schools but commonsense suggests that, in view of the additional costs and the minimal savings on a NPPL course, students should start with JAA PPL.

Why does 'simpler' imply any lowering in standards, 'notice'? Or is that the jealous observation of someone who has had to pay over the odds for a JAR/FCL PPL?

Read the post carefully, dear civil serpent, and you'll note that it's the industry and the CAA who are keen on the NPPL. We're merely trying to ensure that a minimum safe level of skill and medical standard are accepted.

Personally I neither need nor would train pilots towards a NPPL. BUT others do - so we're just making sure that their needs are catered for without detriment to safety.

Flying Snapper: "I have now got 50 hours but no solo so I can't wait until the new licence is introduced! "

Lost me there...:confused:

Irv - I would hazard a guess that it's probably because he/she can fly OK but doesn't have a JAR Class 2 medical? Whereas he/she will be able to hold a NPPL medical.


Incidentally, the reason why I personally won't be training pilots for the NPPL is that my RF is embedded in Class D airspace and we are required to train pilots to JAR/FCL PPL standard. However, if someone can't get a JAR Class 2 medical then we will train them to JAR/FCL standard, but they will only be able to hold a NPPL.

MANY thanks BeAgle, and for the Civil Serpent, I wish to gain the NPPL I am totally fit and healthy and at 43 Im not a geriatric, I do however wear a hearing aid, and can hear almost as well as you probably, however I probably would not pass the medical on hearing grounds, according to my Instructors I hear and fly as well as any other student.

The NPPL will allow me to fly, the class II medical is overly stringent in this one regard in my opinion, and as I want to fly because I LOVE flying and dont want an aviation career and have no burning ambition to fly to Europe the NPPL will suit me well

NPPL students may be able to train in less hours, but they still take the same exams, they still have to be competent and take the same ground exams...and above all must be as safe as anyone else. How many instructors would say...Oh its only an NPPL let him go solo now ?? or how many eaminers would pass an NPPL because they were unsafe??

My My, the NPPL does tend to generate an awful lot of ill feeling and bile. The reason that I have no solo hours is because I do not have a class 2 medical. The reason that I don't have a class 2 medical is because my uncorrected vision is VERY SLIGHTLY over the limit. I wear glasses as do a vast number of JAR PPL holders, who I would not expect to fly without their glasses. What then is the difference? If my corrected vision is better than normal (which it is), why am I more of a hazard than the average glasses wearing pilot? This anomaly does not exist in the States, where I imagine the FAA would be expected to prove to a pilot that they are dangerous in the air. I am learning to fly for the love of it, and will earn my NPPL because of the love of flying (and BEagle's hard work!) and not because I want a career in aviation.
Don't assume the NPPL is only for geriatrics just like I don't assume that everyone with a JAR PPL is an elitist prat!!:mad: :mad:

:D :D :D WELL said flying snapper

I think that some of the problems re. for/against the nppl has to come from simple ignorance - that isn't saying which are right or wrong ( climbing on nearest fence ) - but I would ask, in my ignorance, what has been left out of the nppl training compared with the ppl, causing the reduced required hours? Is it the instrument training for example?

This is a serious question, because as a ppl holder, I was basically trained to fly VRF, during daylight. The same as the nppl. Ok, I can fly abroad with my ppl, but I didn't recieve any training for foriegn flying.

I can understand a school of thought that would think 'I did my 40-45 hrs, and to be honest, with hindsight, that was very basic.', so I do wonder how I would have been with 10 or so less hours in the book.

I look forward to your enlightenment. ;)

Regards
LF

The nub of the NPPL issue is the downgrading of current requirements for pilots and, by implication, devaluation of the present standards of ALL private pilots. Critics (and there are plenty who would ban any pleasure flying) are not interested in the average or best but only the worst examples. The better, if not most, private pilots have never been significantly different but the NPPL will facilitate the flying of more dangerous and problem cases, even if the system is free of corruption and other fixing (which it isn't now and it will be worse with NPPL). Under NPPL, a larger minority, who were able to meet the required standards but are not really right, will be pilots, 'just like the rest'.

It is difficult to comprehend how anything which is 'simpler' (your word BEagle) could not be easier. In the intellectual or technical context, this is exactly what has happened with and caused so much criticism of GCSE's, which are simpler and easier than ever.

For PPL training, we have arrived at 45hours, after 40 hours, CAA minimum. Whether that is really adequate is debatable (and there have always been very valid safety concerns about minimum and minimal hours) but there can be no dispute that more is better, both under training and to continue. I have heard many admit they only became anything like competent and safe with more hours, after they got their PPL !

They may have some (questionable) claims about course content and exam standards but it is irresponsible of BEagle & Co to advocate a significant reduction in minimum hours. It is even more bizarre that the CAA (are said to) support them.

On the medical front, there will always be debatable, sad or unfortunate cases, whatever the standards, but 'simpler' must, again, mean easier and that more marginal people will be pilots.

Everyone is sick of 'them', whether it's the CAA, JAA, Council (planning), Government (tax), Airports (landing fees) or CFI. One unfortunate consequence is that any relaxation or rule-breaking is regarded as some sort of victory. The NPPL is one we can do without and may live to regret.

No. The NPPL will be much as the 'old' UK PPL was. Except that the better accreditiation criteria for glider and microlight pilots will make learning to fly cheaper for many - and the medical standards will make learning to fly more accessible for others. There will be a mandatory IF training requirement; the amount in the 'old' PPL was, if anything, excessive as it gave pilots an unwarrranted level of confidence in their limited IF abilities; the 1 hour I received back in the late '60s was enought to convince me never to get caught in IMC until I'd been trained to cope with it properly. So - knock 3 hours of IF off the old PPL course, add the 2 NPPL Skill Tests to the NPPL course and the experience levels are pretty much the same as they were pre-JAR/FCL.

What's being left out? Radio navigation and that's all. Personally I doubt whether many people will manage to reach NPPL Skill Test standard in 35 hours - but if they do, then they can take the tests.

The NPPL Skill Tests will be no 'easier' than the current JAR/FCL PPL Skill Test - the only thing they won't contain is position fixing by use of radio navigation aids and tracking to/from a beacon for 5 minutes. And they will be designed to be taken in 2 halves much as the 'old' PPL tests were.

:mad: :mad: NOTICE, thanks for your condesending and patronising remarks. Slavery of course has been banned and women have been given the vote. The age of consent lowered to 18 (from 21) and pubs open all day now. Alcoholism is not rife, Democratic participation has not increased and the Empire still functions. Hey even people from minority ethnic groups are allowed to have equality......

Your arguements are about as good as the ones I heard as to why junior Doctors should work 150 hours a week...it was good enough for me type arguement.

I accept your right to hold a view, but please, objectivity backed up by FACTS not opinion is what is required here. The academic arguement in favour of the NPPL is also about the statistical probability of one of these NPPL pilots getting into difficulties and the likelihood of a problem occurring.

I can not believe that someone who is a PPL (YOU) can be so bigoted against the increase of GA to people who can perfectly safely hurl lumps of metal weighing 30 plus tonnes about the roads, but who will be trained by the same instructors and examined by the same examiners as YOU yet will be allegedly less safe, more incompetent and on the margins of almost everything else.

I have to say your elitist attitude is quite repugnant

First of all, the disclaimer: I know nothing about the NPPL except what I've read on this site (mostly on this thread, but a bit on some older threads), and my opinions must not only be taken as opinions, but also in the context of my limited knowledge of the subject.

Having said that, I have to admit that I don't understand the need for two "levels" of PPL.

As far as the different standards of medical are concerned, people such as deanofs and flying snapper are either fit enough to be private pilots, or they're not - it's as simple as that. If "the authorities" determine that someone who wears a hearing aid (to use deanof as an example) is capable of flying safely, then that person should be granted a Class 2 medical.

The same goes for the flying aspects of the license. Either I need to know how to track a VOR, or I don't. If "the authorities" determine that it's perfectly safe for someone to fly around without having been trained in tracking to a beacon for 5 minutes, then why should PPL students be required to do this training? (I expect that most people would teach themselves how to use whatever nav-aids they have in their aircraft anyway, the same as people are teaching themselves to use a GPS as a backup nav-aid without any formal training.)

It's not necessarilly making things "simpler" that I have a problem with, because the criteria for passing a skills test will always be updated from time to time - sometimes making things simpler, sometimes making them more complicated. But I genuinely don't understand the need for a two-tier system. Maybe BEagle or someone else can enlighten me?

FFF
----------

Also, how does EASA come in to the picture? Presumably we (aspirant) JAA-PPLs will have to become either EASA-PPLs or NPPLs at some point....?

FFF,

Your comments echo what I am feeling about the nppl. BEagle has explained the main differences being the VOR tracking/fixing and Instrument training. Now ignoring the actual min. hours issue I do feel missing these two elements off any private license is ill advised. When learning to fly, my instructors, examiner and fellow club members only had one totally common piece of advise, that being - flying into cloud without enough experience/training WILL kill you.

In this country, as today proves - 500ft cloud base throughout a large area of the NW ( but its sunny south of Birmingham so all the telly news tells us what a lovely day it is everywhere :rolleyes: ) it is very easy to get yourself near an IMC situation, without showing poor airmanship. Knowing what I do now ( very little, I apreciate ) I would not want to pass a nppl without at least the 4 hours I got from the CAA system.

As for the VOR tracking, I just can't see the reason to remove this for the nppl, except for cost. And we are only talking about 2-3 hours? Knowing how to find where you are has got to be essential, and if another £300 provided this, well.

It just seems to me that many of the issues drummed into me about reserve methods to conduct a safe flight have been binned. Flying VFR, maybe in less that perfect conditions, no Radio Nav experience - Bang, the radio goes...... We have been instructed on all these situations because they will happen one day - the radio happened to me, it was a shock!

If I am misreading the situation please educate me, but I just can't see the point of missing things that I was told throughout my training where life savers.

Flying is expensive - learning to fly is expensive - we who have been able to learn and then able to continue to fly are lucky, and I am most certainly not saying ' I had to pay so you should ', but in my book, 45 hrs is very basic anyway. Flying is all about hrs - the more you have and your still alive, simply the better you SHOULD be.

Any comments welcomed.

Regards
LF
:)

FFF,

You're right - why have two levels of PPL. Let's ditch the gold-plated JAR-PPL and have a ... National PPL, similar to that we had 20 years ago! BEagle has already pointed out that the proposed NPPL is very similar to the old CAA PPL.

LF,

The first NPPL document proposed an IMC rating, more appropriate than a couple of hours fam. training, but that was knocked out (by "elitist ****s" who wanted to maintain a difference, I wonder?). The NPPL course and test is for VFR only, so radio navigation/tracking is not necessary - doesn't mean that trainees can't request, or instructors train for, it.

BEagle,

You must sometimes wonder why you participated in this attempt to slow down the decrease in the pilot population. Keep up the good work, nil illegitimi carborundum!

Reduced medical standards are a good thing, lets face it you'll probably do more damage keeling over at the wheel of a car on the M1 than in a light aircraft over mrs miggins field. The JAA class 2 is far to stringent for the private pilot (not a Wannabe)...

BUT I can only see limited use for a licence which cannot be used anywhere else. Maybe this is a plot by WWW and his 'keep flying in Britain' friends to do exactly that (joke)!

Happy Saint Georges day...
EA

One thing I haven't seen mentioned by those who fear the end of the world if minimum hours drop below 45 is that there are already thousands of pilots (including me) flying around the UK on microlight licences. These only require 25 hours and have the same sort of self-certifying medical arrangements as are proposed for the NPPL.

While there are of course microlight accidents, these are not at all out of proportion to the rest of the GA world. Radio navigation and instrument training are not part of the microlight syllabus because the aircraft are not equipped with the relevant instruments. This seems not to have led to widespread disasters, plagues of locusts or the end of civilisation as we know it.

If the NPPL is a charter for filling the skies with second-rate pilots who should be confined to their invalid carriages on the ground, then presumably microlighting (and gliding?) should be banned forthwith, since the hours minima are less again.

I think that the current JAR requirements impose a burden of cost and bureaucracy which is disproportionate to the needs of the recreational pilot and go beyond what is required to ensure safety. The current system helps to keep people out of flying, which some, even within the GA world, seem to regard as an excellent thing. If you agree with that view, the NPPL is a threat. If you hope that there is still a future for recreational flying in the UK then I think it's to be welcomed.


Alasdair

The problem here is that people are confusing politics with common sense. The pre JAR system was good, but we won’t get it back. JAR was a mistake, but we just didn’t do enough to stop it. Therefore we need a process that puts management of UK private flying back in our own hands. Enter stage left, political expedient, “NPPL”.

With regard to reduced hours. . .

For those advocating mandatory radio nav training, do you know that there are lots of little planes flying around with no equipment. How on Earth do they manage? Also, I assume Microlight pilots get no IMC training at all. How on Earth do they manage? Must be luck I suppose.

I have already asked my instructors to take me through the entire 'normal' PPL training so that I get the Radio Nav experience etc, just on reduced medical (and costs) grounds I choose the NPPL as the license.

May I thank the many helpful and objective critics to this thread, I have found your comments educational and helpful.

:)

englishal,

I agree - reduced medical standards are a good thing. Why do we need a separate license for these reduced standards, though? Why not just apply them to the existing Class 2?

aarthur,

Personally, I have no problem with reduced hour requirements. I have faith in instructors not to send students for their skills test, and examiners not to issue a license, until the student is sufficiently skilled as to be able to keep out of trouble. Personally, I couldn't care if the minimum was reduced to 20 hours. I can't see anyone getting a license in much less than, say, 40 hours - and I'd expect that to be the exception, rather than the rule - whatever the minimum is.

dah dah,

Am I right in thinking that what you're saying is that JAR won't allow us to reduce the medical standards of the PPL to those being suggested for the NPPL, or to remove elements considered non-essential, such as VOR tracking? If I've understood you correctly, then this explains why there is a need for a separate license, and answers my question - thank you.

BEagle

Tocsin's reply suggests that I, and others, have been belittling your work in this issue. I can't speak for others, but that certainly wasn't my intention, and I apologise if my post could have been misinterpreted this way. As you can probably tell from my reply to dah dah, I have a question which I don't know the answer to, and I am looking for the answer to that question. It seems from dah dah's post that there is a perfectly good answer to my question. I'd welcome any more details, from dah dah, BEagle, or anyone else, and I applaud BEagle and everyone else for any attempts to get more people flying.

FFF
-----------

What makes me dubious about the "motives" behind this is the fact that this is a "VFR" rating yet people are taking this course becasue they can get in with reduced medical standards??? Now surley good eyesight is more relevant VFR flight than IFR flight?? If the standard has been set for so many years, why on earth must it change now? The requirements for a Class 2 are not that stringent.

I honestly think that this is a way of increasing revenue, not a means to encourage people into the skies. I am 40hrs into a PPL, I will hopefully done and ready on 45hrs. At 30hrs I wasn't close to being confident enough to live up to the responsibilities of a full liscence. I could pootle about the skys pretty safely, but only in a limited capacity. I will also say I'm a fast learner, I have bags of natural talent as far as flying is concerned.

If the NPPL is tested to the standards I expect it to be then 99% of pilots are going to take 45-50hrs to get the NPPL still! Aftrer all who does 3hrs VOR training??? All of the instrument nav can be taught in about 20mins!

Tocsin, I hope you don't consider my comments as grinding - without discussion and opinion the nppl would never have happened.

aarthur, I don't have the accident figs. re. micros, but they are a different type considerably. Speed, Stall, Vis. Landing distance etc. are just some variables. Following your argument, do you consider that both licenses should have the same training? If not, and taking you agree with the nppl levels, the argument can't stand.

dah dah

You also say pre Jar was good. That allowed for IMC and Radio Nav training, so was it good or too excessive? There are many non Radio Nav equipt a/c around, agreed, but my argument is that if 3-4 hours is too much time and money to spend on training to avoid the likeliest killer of G/A pilots (under whatever title or hour pass rate you use) I am concerned.

Deanofs made a point that he wants to train in the elements I am discussing, and I know instructors who would insist on some basic IF training. All I am trying to promote is safety, not that we need 30 40 50 hrs.

Medically I couldn’t agree more with the pro comments.

Beagle – as with FFF – this isn’t meant to be a grinding post, the more people flying the better.

Regards
LF

FFF,

Agree totally.

Why not have a 'national' medical allowing a holder to exercise the privileges of his / her JAA PPL but only in the UK airspace. Then the CAA can relax the standards to their hearts content....I think too much emphasis is placed on medical checks. Take a look at the FAA system, where a Class 1, ATP, medical is roughly equiv to the JAA class 2, certainly no more stringent. And the irony is that you get just as many pilots 'die at the wheel' whether they have an FAA or JAA medical certificate.

Secondly, if the NPPL is going to be a 'serious' licence, why not let Microlight / Glider hours count towards the NPPL at a rate of 50- 100%. At the moment you can get a 'discount' of upto 10 hrs or 10% (i think) towards the JAA PPL if you have Micro PIC hours. Why not make it 50% or more, lets face it it is not that much more difficult to fly a PA28 or a microlight, just slightly different techniques. So if you have 50 hrs PIC in a microlight then 25 hrs of this will count towards the NPPL. This would really cut the training costs down.

The NPPL is not for me though, I want a licence allowing me to fly in the US, France and Europe, as well as in IMC and at night. If however there was an ICAO recognized NPPL which allowed all these things, or even a Private IR rather than IMC rating, then I would be VERY interested.

Cheers
EA

Two contributors have said that they are waiting for the NPPL because they cannot achieve a JAA PPL on medical grounds - hearing or eyesight.

I have been to a number of AME's in recent years and, for the last two years, have passed with no hearing test and the eyesight test has been no more than reading the 7th line( I think) on the chart with my normal glasses.

I discussed the NPPL with my AME and he thought that, in most respects, the test and the cost of a standard PPL test should be similar to that for the HGV test. Based on my personal experience, which may not be typical, you are more likely to get a realistic medical test and cost from an AME who only does Class 2 medicals. This implies that some interpretation of the medical requirements is left to individual examiners. The simplistic judgement that "you are either fit to fly or not" is not helpful.

If there are any AME's on Pprune who can help it might be interesting to hear from them.

FFF & LF,

I was definitely _not_ including your good selves in the "grinding" - your comments and questions were courteous and (I hope) got a reply in like manner! Apologies if my briefness and multiple addressees clouded this.

There were others, in this thread and elsewhere, who were less well-mannered, particularly towards BEagle and his efforts, and I just wanted to add a "big hug" to my message, for him :-)

Personally, I would like to see a private pilot licence, with the minimum of regulation, acceptable to the pilot population and administered by a GA group. (As a lapsed glider pilot - too much work, not enough free time - I remember the BGA and recommend their light but effective regulation).

Regards,
Tocsin

Thanks for the nice words, chaps/chapesses/chapthings.

3 hours on the road today plus another couple on the Central Line in order to attend another NPPL Steering Committee meeting - please rest assured that the CAA medical view is now 100% in place, the admin proposals are at a stage which everyone on the committtee plus the CAA are happy to take forward, accreditation schemes are agreed - in fact everything is looking fine for a 1 Jul 02 launch!

At least I got to hear the magic of Merlins today as the Lanc flew over - thought that it might have been the Zurich Insurance pig-vic team at first!

For those of you who presume, or imagine, that NPPL will cut your costs, just heed BEagle's clue:
'Personally I doubt whether many people will manage to reach NPPL Skill Test standard in 35 hours - but if they do, then they can take the tests.'
Despite his arithmetic, BEagle knows 35 hours is a joke and that the old racket will be alive and well with NPPL.
They won't allow you to take the test, or if you do, pass after the minimum hours. The point is that the school/ CFI/ FI/aircraft owner have a financial interest in maximising the hours you need.
They may not want you to fail and they definitely don't want you to give-up but the longer you take the more money they make.
Maybe the main purpose of NPPL is to allow a lower and misleading 'PPL price' to be advertised or quoted, on the basis of minimum hours, although most people will be forced to buy many more hours. Therefore, you might as well do the JAA PPL, with the likelihood that you will end up with a credible and more useful qualification for much the same money.

As the CAA have, apparently, had to get it all agreed by BEagle, is NPPL going to be a privatised, rather than an official, PPL?
Who will issue the NPPL?

Also, I was very sorry to hear that deanofs disability has degenerated into hysteria about women, ethnic minorities, age of consent etc. -none of which were mentioned by me.

There is much talk about hours and standards, but at the end of the day the criteria for a PPL Skill Test is: is the candidate "SAFE"

It appears to take about 55 hours to train an average candidate to a Safe level in the UK and interestingly, about 75 hours in North America (excluding the overseas UK schools)

Regardless of what course you do, it will surely take the same time to train a pilot to this "Safe" standard? The standard really cannot be lowered.

A JAA PPL student is eligible to take the Skill Test after 35 hours (not 45), i.e when all the "training" has been completed (25 hours dual + 10 hours solo) but nobody achieves it.

The NPPL Medical offers many the chance to fly who cannot meet JAA standards. Surely it would be much simpler to have a UK limited medical with an existing PPL and limit the holder to UK airspace.

Meanwhile, the argument will rage mainly because there are those with a vested financial interest who don't want to lose out; and those with a financial interest in making a fast buck at the expence of others. The poor student is of no consequence, but as sure as eggs are eggs, Mr Average will not crack it in less than 55 hours. So who is fooling who? there will be no saving.

I disagree. The School's financial interest is in doing a damn good job so that I come back after the PPL for 50 hours a year solo hire, not in messing me around to try and extend my PPL by 10 hours (after which I get pi$$ed off and leave). The 'fixed'-price PPL-in-3-weeks operations may be the exception here - but this is already the case with the JAA-PPL.

notice, I disagree.

This is simply not the way that professional instructors operate.

One instructor who I know well is very proud of the fact that her average time for getting students through a PPL is several hours lower than the schools average. Other instructors have a "model student" who progresses faster than average, and is ready to take their skills test very shortly after reaching minimum hours.

Instructors may tell prospective students about these things as part of their sales pitch... but they are also genuinely proud of every student who pass the skills test without requiring excessive hours, and will aim to get every student a PPL in the minimum number of hours possible for that student. I know this because, despite the fact that I have my PPL, and I'm therefore not a prospective student, instructors continue to proudly tell me "Jim's doing his skills test next weekend - he only needed 47 hours."

And a personal experience which happened to me recently: the club I hire from has a "28-days currency on type" rule for hiring. I had gone out of currency on the Super Cub, due to a combination of weather, flying a Warrior insetad due to the better nav-aids, and the plane having technical problems. When I was next able to fly the Cub, it had been 29 days since my last flight on type. According to club rules, I needed an instructor check-out.

I asked my instructor to arrange a check-out. When she heard I was only one day over the currency requirement, she refused to fly with me. She said it didn't make sense - she had less total time on the Cub than me, was less current than me, and knew my standard of flying well enough to be happy that I'd be safe, so she signed me out without needing a check-out. Does this sound like an instructor who's got her own financial interests at heart? No! It's an instructor with enough common sense not to make me waste my money on instruction which isn't required.

Sorry for the long rant, but I read a lot about flying instructors, especially hour-builders, who are only out to get as many hours and as much of our money as they can - and it annoys me because, certainly for all the instructors that I've ever flown with (hour-builders or otherwise) it couldn't be further from the truth.


Having said that, I do agree with notice when he says that "35 hours is a joke." Very few people will get an NPPL in 35 hours, IMHO. This is not because of the greed of schools or instructors, but because, for the majority of students, 35 hours is not long enough to learn to fly safely. Those naturally-gifted students who can fly safely after 35 hours may well get an NPPL after that time - but there will be very few of them.

FFF
-------------

Anyone who is serious about _learning to fly_ (n.b. NOT getting a licence), will know that the quoted figures are minima.

As deanofs has said, he intends to request the "full" course, while choosing to apply for the NPPL, for medical reasons.

I, who have enough spare time to consider powered flying for fun, but not enough to return to gliding (until I retire!) would like to do the same, and would have liked to add an IMC rating.

No intention of going on to commercial/ATP, don't want to be sucked in to highest common factor JAA certification.

Advice to my daughter would _probably_ be to do the JAA to keep commercial options open at lowest cost, but I expect her to concentrate on A levels and degree first - so a NPPL may suit her for a few years, IF there is an easy path to JAA (or EASA?).

See how complicated it is? Not just geriatric, hospital cases, but quite a few people with good reasons for considering the NPPL.

Tocsin.

p.s. notice: "As the CAA have, apparently, had to get it all agreed by BEagle" - why aren't YOU giving your time to the CAA steering committee? Your well-reasoned arguments, as evidenced throughout this thread would, I am sure, be a breath of fresh air :mad:

The ignorant rants of 'notice' do not merit direct response.

The CAA wishes to devolve PPL work; the NPPL will be administered by the organisations identified in the NPPL administrative exposition, the CAA has encouraged the members of the NPPLSC to achieve the required solution.....need I go on?

All the NPPLSC seeks is that flying should be both more accessible and affordable; standards shall not deteriorate.

But no doubt some twisted civil serpent mind could never understand that some of us just want others to be able to enjoy the opportunity of learning to fly.......

Instead of being pompous, why won't BEagle defend the downgrade to NPPL?

It is claimed, by BEagle, that:
'The CAA wishes to devolve PPL work; the NPPL will be administered by the organisations identified in the NPPL administrative exposition'
What does devolve mean?
Who are these organisations?
Who will issue the NPPL?

BEagle,

You're right - he just doesn't get it - too thick?

*plonk*

The CAA PLD 'issues' all flight crew licenses. Administration will be the responsibility of the relevant organisations, one of whom will be BMAA for the NPPL with Microlight Rating (identical to the current PPL(M)). The NPPL with SEP and/or SLMG Ratings will be administered by another company which is currently being registered at Companies House. An individual NPPL applicant will have their paperwork checked by their RF/FTO, then forwarded to the NPPL administration body; that body will do the work (as currently does BMAA) required to send the applicant's cheque and certificate of recommendation to PLD. PLD will only carry out the mechanical licence production process.

The cost of the NPPL (which will be a 'lifetime' licence like the old UK PPL) will reflect the reduced admin costs resulting from this devolution of administrative effort.

NPPL applicants will be required to make the appropriate medical declaration to their GPs; the GP will then complete the NPPL fitness declaration for a substantially reduced fee compared even to the JAR Class II medical. The GP does not need to be an AME; the standards the applicant will be assessed against will be those equivalent to the DVLA standards required of professional drivers as those are considered by CAA Medical to be wholly sufficient.

To those who wish to know more, please take no 'notice' of groundless denigration and ignorance - the media release is not far off.