Replica F6F Hellcat

But the NPPL has only flown for 32 hours. That’s not a saving, that’s depriving yourself of 13 hours of unbounded enjoyment.

Moggy

Whether training flights are enjoyable depends on your instructor.

Daz – a full medical will cost you over a ton. A cheaper option would be the ‘medical’ for the NPPL, which is basically giving a bit of paper to your doc to sign to say he thinks you’re fit to drive a HGV… he may do it for free, or he may charge a small fee.

See here for details:

http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/med/default.asp?page=873

Ah – thinking about it, can you fly tailwheel types on an NPPL?

Yes you can fly taildraggers on an NPPL as long as you either learn on them from the start or undergo conversion training. If you are willing to do conversion training the whole range of goodies available to any PPL holder become acceptable for the NPPL i.e. VP props, retractable legs, floats etc.

The five hours on instruments must be a good idea, whether it is required or not.

Certainly I have twice found myself caught in snowstorms (Don’t learn, do I?) and was profoundly grateful of my ability to keep the aircraft flying safely and execute a 180 back to VMC.

Moggy

For the record I had to do 5 hours on instruments for my PPL last March / April. However I really screwed up the system by going to America, Moggy has very kindly done the maths for me on this one as well and ordinarily it would work out to be just as expensive as a PPL in the UK, however for me time was an issue and I was in a very fortunate position with regard to my flying back home. If I had to do it all over again I have no idea what I would choose, however I did wait over 10 years to get the money together to get my licence. I wanted to wait until I had all the money in the bank so as I knew I would be able to complete the course rather than getting half way through and running out of cash, personal choice for me.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that everyone is different and should go down the route they perceive is best for them after having got as much information as they can.
I’m pleased I got my PPL and now a year on have a little over 80 hours rather than still being under instruction with 40 ish and waiting for the weather to be kind so as I can complete.

Finally, somebody with some sense! 😉

Ha ha ha ha. Thanks.

Me no brain have. Me good pretender me is. Me two Golden Globe awards got for acting.

Thanks, chaps. Probably should have asked an instructor in the first place, but then the original post had nowt to do with any of that! 😀

Daz. Why don’t you go down to a flying school and discuss this really important issue with a qualified instructor? The forum is a great place for information, but I would not want to make any life-changing decisions based purely on this bunch here!

Love you all really!

Finally, somebody with some sense! 😉

Don’t see that 45 hours makes any difference to 32 in terms of experience. Specially as you’ve had your instructor sat next to you for most of that time.

This is the bit I find really scary.

You get better experience flying on your own than with a x-thousand hour pilot alongside you? :confused:

You must have had some really duff instructors.

For the record you won’t find any Cub groups who’d take on a 45 hour pilot either. That wasn’t what I said.

Moggy

Daz. Why don’t you go down to a flying school and discuss this really important issue with a qualified instructor? The forum is a great place for information, but I would not want to make any life-changing decisions based purely on this bunch here!

Love you all really!

If I may, I would like to join in 😉 😀 .

First thing the ‘savings’ if you are doing the NPPL. I’m with Moggy on this one. You actually don’t ‘save’ any money worth talking about. If you take into account the cost for the flying hours from 32 to 45 hours. Let’s face it, pilots with 32 hours, and a PPL, are very inexperienced, and need to get in all the flying they can to get some ‘feel’ for things. In an ideal world, I should think a new PPL would need to fly about 100 hours in the first year to get his/her currency up to standard. That way, they will expand their experience and up their currency level, rather than stagnate at the PPL issue level, or even in some cases, go backwards on the learning curve. That is surely not save way to go about flying.

To ‘save’ money, by buying into a syndicate, is rather a misnomer. Actually I think it would be a lot cheaper for normal PPL’s to just rent. Let’s face it, there are a lot of ‘hidden extras’ in the syndicate package. These extras will pump up the hourly price for pilots that are not flying a lot. A friend of mine used to own a share in a PA 22 Colt some years ago, and he did the maths for owning vs. renting and the results were such that he needed to fly more than 25 hrs. a year to break even. Agreed, these numbers are for Icelandic operations, but I shouldn’t think there was much of a difference. Also, trying to buy a share with only 32 (or even 45 for that matter) hours could prove problematic. I’ve only Iceland to go by here, but you simply can’t find a syndicate here that accepts members with less than 100 hrs.

Now for the the JAR PPL and instrument training. The instrument training is NOT a requirement to get a JAR licence. Six years ago, I wrote up a training syllabus for a flight school here, when the JAR’s were coming into effect. I ended up in a bit of a corner there 😉 Because, if you take all the minimum hours requried by the JAR’s for things like dual exercises, dual solo, solo exercises, solo XC etc, you only end up with something like 35 hrs. total. That is 10 hrs short. So what I did in that case was to include 5 hours instrument time into the syllabus, and spread the remaining five hours on some of the other subjects, like dual XC and dual exercises. (IIRC I put three hours extra on dual XC and 2 on dual exercises). Other schools have done it a bit differently, one other I know of here in Iceland has put the five hours of instrument training in AND the night rating and end up with 43, still 2 hrs short of the 45 hours.

This has all grown a rather longer than I thought at first, but I hope it answers some questions.

Old info! Is anyone here actually and currently doing a PPL, Mogs? 😉 😉 😉

Where in the JAR PPL syllabus did I have to do 5 hours on instruments? :confused:

BR

Dunno, but you used to have to for the CAA version :rolleyes:

Moggy

Where in the JAR PPL syllabus did I have to do 5 hours on instruments? :confused:

Try buying a Cub share for a £1000 and flying for £30/hr. Not ever going to happen! What gets me too is this mentality that having a syndicated aircraft rather than a rented one saves you much money. All those hidden extras add up!

3 hrs Maule time this week. Happy cookie 🙂

BR

Guys, thanks for the input.

I think, given my current financial situation, the NPPL would be more suitable, but that’s not to say that I wouldn’t like the full one, too!

Think I’d better leave this one alone now. You clearly don’t think my input is of any value, and there’s no point arguing with people who arent listening.

FC, your input is valued. It’s your maths that are the problem.

Do me a favour. Take a look at your logbook, and take an estimate of what it cost you to fly your first 45 hours. That’s 32 on the NPPL and the next 13 as a pilot.

Please remember this is a discussion forum – if we don’t have discussions what is the point of it?

Moggy

I just get upset with people who try and put people off things unnecessarily – you have been strangely defensive yourself and dreamt up some spious mathematical reasoning to try and put people off. maybe it comes back to what someone else suggested – that pilots don’t want to masses to have access to what they do – who knows?!

I know several groups that have got low houred people in them actually. Don’t see that 45 hours makes any difference to 32 in terms of experience. Specially as you’ve had your instructor sat next to you for most of that time.

Think I’d better leave this one alone now. You clearly don’t think my input is of any value, and there’s no point arguing with people who arent listening. I’m happy with my 2 grand saving, it has meant that I could afford a licence and thus opened the doors to lots of opportunities. Without this system I would still be dreaming of my PPL. The NPPL has pros and cons but I don’t think it should be ruled out as an option. Thats not defensive is it? Just honest.

Simple fact is that you do save that amount of money. With the difference you could buy a share in a cub for say a grand and fly for thirty quid an hour. Thats no more ridiculous than your assertions about money.

Good luck finding a Cub group that would take on a 32 hour pilot.

There’s nothing wrong with the NPPL and I have never suggested there was, you seem unecessarily defensive FC. But the hard arithmetical fact is the major part of the savings come from flying less, which is hardly the point. We all know it is cheaper to fly less hours, but we all enjoy flying so we fly as many as we can.

Mythical £2,000 ‘savings’ should not be posted on a forum that people starting out flying may use for reference.

Moggy

Simple fact is that you do save that amount of money. With the difference you could buy a share in a cub for say a grand and fly for thirty quid an hour. Thats no more ridiculous than your assertions about money.

I think I have actually given a fair assessment of the NPPL/JAR system. Both have their values and if the NPPL will encourage more young people into flying then I’m all for it. It just seems a shame that some estalished pilots dismiss such initiatives because it’s different to what they did. People need to be able to make their own choices looking at the options not have other people’s misconceptions shoved down their throat. I’ve tried to give Daz both sides of the story. Yes, the NPPL will save you money (thats clear) but it is a pain to upgrade etc etc. All you have done is to to rubbish it without any due cause and make your own prejudiced position quite evident in a one sided way.

Daz, there are simple advantages and disadvantages to each option. You have to make a decision based on your personal needs and financial position. Its as simple as that I guess. I’ve tried to outline some pros and cons for you but people seem to think that it’s me being biased so I’d better leave this one alone now!

Chill FC.

It is of no importance to me if anyone choses an NPPL or a PPL.

The question we are discussing is Daz, not you.

The above was merely to correct the erroneous impression that you had given that there was £2,000 worth of savings to be had by going the NPPL route.

Moggy

Look Moggy, for you a large amount of money might not be an issue but i can promise you that for a lot of people it is an issue and it certainly was for me. I was fortunate enough to have an air league scholarship for twelve hours but I still struggled to find the money. The extra money for a JAR licence would have made it pretty much impossible for me to do it. It also would have taken me longer to save up the money, therefore, due to lack of currency I probably would have had to spend yet more money. I now have a document that says I can fly a plane and it cost me a lot less to get it than it could’ve done. If money is no object then, of course, do the JAR one but if it is then the NPPL makes life a considerably easier.

Besides, I think you and I might have different ideas about fun. Trawling around the skies in a 152 for 5 hours of instrument flying is not my idea of a great day out. And I think it would be wise of you to remember that we’re not all in a position to be as flippant about money as you seem to be.