NPPL for us all ...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
Re: Instructors teaching beyong 180 deg turn under hood.
Not sure where you got your PPL, but all those "extras" you got are in the FAA syllabus. The examiner will want to see them done to his satisfaction.
FAA PP Practical Test Standards
Then there's the tail-dragger checkout:
Again, I believe you are talking about FAA land, no syllabus for this, you are already rated if it's single engine, you get an endorsement, never see an examiner. Being a cynic again, I would say the insurance companies set the standards for those endorsements, not the instructor.
You quote from the Chandler Air syllabus, their own, that place certainly has the best instructors. If you do a basic aero course with them, they even teach and require competition standards before they let you lose on your own. But again, no examiner to please (though they have an examiner on the staff, so maybe again it is the examiner setting standards).
Teaching 60 deg bank
As you said, they do this because it will make them able to do a 45 deg bank easier, so keeping the examiner happy on the test.
But I'm a cynic, of course there are lots of superb instructors out there who will do the best they can for their students. There are even more who will just get the student through the exam. The original poster suggested it was the high quality of instructors who will maintain the standards, I disagree. It's the vaster experience of the examiners, they who can tell whether the guy will pass before he has taken off, who will ensure standards are kept high. When they keep sending students back for some re-training, then the instructors will notice and improve. Cynic, eh?
cheers
Re: Instructors teaching beyong 180 deg turn under hood.
Not sure where you got your PPL, but all those "extras" you got are in the FAA syllabus. The examiner will want to see them done to his satisfaction.
FAA PP Practical Test Standards
IX. BASIC INSTRUMENT MANEUVERS
A. STRAIGHT-AND-LEVEL FLIGHT
B. CONSTANT AIRSPEED CLIMBS
C. CONSTANT AIRSPEED DESCENTS
D. TURNS TO HEADINGS
E. RECOVERY FROM UNUSUAL FLIGHT ATTITUDES
F. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES
A. STRAIGHT-AND-LEVEL FLIGHT
B. CONSTANT AIRSPEED CLIMBS
C. CONSTANT AIRSPEED DESCENTS
D. TURNS TO HEADINGS
E. RECOVERY FROM UNUSUAL FLIGHT ATTITUDES
F. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES
Again, I believe you are talking about FAA land, no syllabus for this, you are already rated if it's single engine, you get an endorsement, never see an examiner. Being a cynic again, I would say the insurance companies set the standards for those endorsements, not the instructor.
You quote from the Chandler Air syllabus, their own, that place certainly has the best instructors. If you do a basic aero course with them, they even teach and require competition standards before they let you lose on your own. But again, no examiner to please (though they have an examiner on the staff, so maybe again it is the examiner setting standards).
Teaching 60 deg bank
As you said, they do this because it will make them able to do a 45 deg bank easier, so keeping the examiner happy on the test.
But I'm a cynic, of course there are lots of superb instructors out there who will do the best they can for their students. There are even more who will just get the student through the exam. The original poster suggested it was the high quality of instructors who will maintain the standards, I disagree. It's the vaster experience of the examiners, they who can tell whether the guy will pass before he has taken off, who will ensure standards are kept high. When they keep sending students back for some re-training, then the instructors will notice and improve. Cynic, eh?
cheers
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, slim_slag, there aren't too many of your posts that I disagree with, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, and I'll just put your opinion down to a healthy dose of cynicism 
You are quite right in spotting the C.A.S taildragger syllabus. The PPL syllabus I was referring to which requires only a 180-degree turn on the instruments is the UK JAR syllabus - if the FAA syllabus requires more, then that's excellent, but my instructor told me that the 180-degree turn is all that's required in the UK, and that's all I was tested on.
I don't believe that any instructor would let any student, whether it be for a PPL, NPPL or any other license or rating, go for a skills test unless they were a safe pilot - regardless of what skill level they believe the examiner will be looking for. (And I also don't believe that examiners will pass candidates unless they are safe - but since they get to spend only a few hours with the candidate, the instructor's opinion will probably be closer to the mark.)
I wonder if the reason we're disagreeing on this is a difference between UK and US instructors? I've seen comments from lots of Americans who are critical of the level of commitment of US instructors - not so much on PPRuNe, but quite commonly on AvWeb's Question Of The Week (when it's relevant to the question, of course). The only experience of American instructors which I have is the instructors as Chandler, who, as you say, are the best there are. But are American instructors - Chandler excepted - lacking the dedication that UK instructors have? I hope this comment doesn't start a "them and us" type debate, because that's not my intention - I'm just trying to clarify why I believe that instructors will not allow NPPL candidates' skill levels to become a safety problem.
FFF
-------------
You are quite right in spotting the C.A.S taildragger syllabus. The PPL syllabus I was referring to which requires only a 180-degree turn on the instruments is the UK JAR syllabus - if the FAA syllabus requires more, then that's excellent, but my instructor told me that the 180-degree turn is all that's required in the UK, and that's all I was tested on.
I don't believe that any instructor would let any student, whether it be for a PPL, NPPL or any other license or rating, go for a skills test unless they were a safe pilot - regardless of what skill level they believe the examiner will be looking for. (And I also don't believe that examiners will pass candidates unless they are safe - but since they get to spend only a few hours with the candidate, the instructor's opinion will probably be closer to the mark.)
I wonder if the reason we're disagreeing on this is a difference between UK and US instructors? I've seen comments from lots of Americans who are critical of the level of commitment of US instructors - not so much on PPRuNe, but quite commonly on AvWeb's Question Of The Week (when it's relevant to the question, of course). The only experience of American instructors which I have is the instructors as Chandler, who, as you say, are the best there are. But are American instructors - Chandler excepted - lacking the dedication that UK instructors have? I hope this comment doesn't start a "them and us" type debate, because that's not my intention - I'm just trying to clarify why I believe that instructors will not allow NPPL candidates' skill levels to become a safety problem.
FFF
-------------
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But are American instructors - Chandler excepted - lacking the dedication that UK instructors have
Maybe some of the best NPPL instructors would be high time PPL's who clearly have dedication to flying for fun (no pun intended
) but who are clearly not hour builder's to get into the right seat of a boeing....Now the costs could really be brought down
EA
Chaps - just a bit more patience please and all your questions will be answered. Please remember that the NPPL is something that our industry asked for - so we've delivered. We'll also be developing the JAR-FCL PPL upgrade requirements in concert with the CAA SRG once the NPPL training syllabus is released.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
I'm not too much of an expert on UK instructors, not bothering with flying in the UK so much, but I would assume that standards in the UK/US are generally similar.
If I was to stick my neck out, I'd guess the average standard was higher in the US because it's easier to fly here, so you can keep current, and you give more instruction so learn more yourself. For the same reason, I'd say the top 10% of US instructors are better than the top 10% of UK instructors.
I'd also guess the bottom 10% of US instructors are worse than the bottom 10% of UK instructors because it's easier to fly in the US, so the schools have to scrape the barrel a bit more to get employees. More hour builders in the US too, I would guess, who in general make inferior instructors to those who teach and fly because they like it. At least that would be the case pre 11/9. Very contentious, and I really don't care, so don't bug me on it
If instructors set the standards, why do we need examiners? I do understand the concept that the examiner is purely rubber stamping the instructors opinion that the student is safe to let loose, and I think it is a good one, but the examiner makes the judgement call that counts. I suspect that in practice, the instructors will teach NPPL students to the same standards as their PPL students, but just miss out parts of the syllabus. BEagle confirms that he will be examining the applicants the same way. In the US, somebody who wants a significantly restricted recreational certificate would be trained to the same standards as someone who wanted a PPL, though I have never actually come across such an animal.
BEagle
NPPL is something that our industry asked for..
Ever heard the saying that goes something like 'we gave them what they asked for, but not what they needed'??
Cheers
I'm not too much of an expert on UK instructors, not bothering with flying in the UK so much, but I would assume that standards in the UK/US are generally similar.
If I was to stick my neck out, I'd guess the average standard was higher in the US because it's easier to fly here, so you can keep current, and you give more instruction so learn more yourself. For the same reason, I'd say the top 10% of US instructors are better than the top 10% of UK instructors.
I'd also guess the bottom 10% of US instructors are worse than the bottom 10% of UK instructors because it's easier to fly in the US, so the schools have to scrape the barrel a bit more to get employees. More hour builders in the US too, I would guess, who in general make inferior instructors to those who teach and fly because they like it. At least that would be the case pre 11/9. Very contentious, and I really don't care, so don't bug me on it
If instructors set the standards, why do we need examiners? I do understand the concept that the examiner is purely rubber stamping the instructors opinion that the student is safe to let loose, and I think it is a good one, but the examiner makes the judgement call that counts. I suspect that in practice, the instructors will teach NPPL students to the same standards as their PPL students, but just miss out parts of the syllabus. BEagle confirms that he will be examining the applicants the same way. In the US, somebody who wants a significantly restricted recreational certificate would be trained to the same standards as someone who wanted a PPL, though I have never actually come across such an animal.
BEagle
NPPL is something that our industry asked for..
Ever heard the saying that goes something like 'we gave them what they asked for, but not what they needed'??
Cheers
Which is why the NPPL was developed by a Steering Group which has representatives of all UK recreational flying organisations and to whose meetings the CAA also sent advisors. So the original NPPL was developed into something acceptable to all representatives.
Far better that than being something 'imposed' without any consultation!
Far better that than being something 'imposed' without any consultation!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As BEagle has tried to say twice during this thread, the NPPL is at least a licence under the control of the UK flying community, CAA included in that, and can and perhaps does get some pilots out of the tangled compromise of the JAR.
I know personally of European pilots who have hung up their wings rather than grapple with what they perceive as a burdensom set of new regulations.
I also understand that the flying communities in France and other countries are sufficiently impressed with the UK finally showing some independent thought with respect to EU/European rule making that they are intending to follow suit with National licences.
I know personally of European pilots who have hung up their wings rather than grapple with what they perceive as a burdensom set of new regulations.
I also understand that the flying communities in France and other countries are sufficiently impressed with the UK finally showing some independent thought with respect to EU/European rule making that they are intending to follow suit with National licences.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just read in GA BUYER a two page advert by the European Pilot Project which appears to be the JAA in another guise.
They apparently want to further legislate on the flying requirements for qualifying for a licence as they think that just passing knowledge of their ever complex regulatory maze still leaves pilots responsible for 66.6% of all crashes.
Any pilot qualified before JAA existed should feel suitably humbled.
Anyone doubting the value of the NPPL project should read this advert, and after due consideration, give prunners the benefit of their thoughts.
They do not give any indication in this advert that the effect of the restriction of available airspace, the lack of ATC and Radar help for VFR traffic, in spite of the requirements for the carriage of more and more expensive equipment, have any influence on the accident rate.
With easier, although more complex aircraft, to fly today, they appear to say that it is not the regulatory complexity that causes the pilot errors, but a lack of basic flying skills.
How did our predecessors achieve what they did without the JAA?
They apparently want to further legislate on the flying requirements for qualifying for a licence as they think that just passing knowledge of their ever complex regulatory maze still leaves pilots responsible for 66.6% of all crashes.
Any pilot qualified before JAA existed should feel suitably humbled.
Anyone doubting the value of the NPPL project should read this advert, and after due consideration, give prunners the benefit of their thoughts.
They do not give any indication in this advert that the effect of the restriction of available airspace, the lack of ATC and Radar help for VFR traffic, in spite of the requirements for the carriage of more and more expensive equipment, have any influence on the accident rate.
With easier, although more complex aircraft, to fly today, they appear to say that it is not the regulatory complexity that causes the pilot errors, but a lack of basic flying skills.
How did our predecessors achieve what they did without the JAA?
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that the CAA have now posted a statement on the NPPL on their website here . It doesn't tell us anything new, but I suppose the fact that it's there at all is progress.
Nothing about the date of introduction, but it does mention a press conference at Cranfield.
Nothing about the date of introduction, but it does mention a press conference at Cranfield.
