Read the forum code of contact
By: - 11th March 2005 at 01:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Could you expand a bit on that - I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. Maybe it's me being over-tired - please be patient!!!
Thanks
By: - 11th March 2005 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Essentially it is a study to determine the need or otherwise for the smallest category of aerodromes to be licensed for training with all the extra cost that entails. Gliders and microlights do not need a licensed site for training - why should conventional light aircraft?
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Barry
By: - 11th March 2005 at 14:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oooo ok! I'm with you now. (at last!) I would actually go to the other extreme and argue that it should be possible to train for an NPPL at an unlicensed aerodrome using your own (permit) aeroplane. I heard a while ago that such plans were being suggested but it all seems to have gone quite on that front now - seems like they have abandoned the idea of encouraging light aviation now and just want it gone. A great shame - I'm beginning to think we should all move to France!
By: - 11th March 2005 at 15:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's a good idea for an aerodrome to conform to certain standards I think and enforced through a licencing system of some sort makes sense. First it prmotes safety and secondly punter confidence in the operation. However some rightly hold that the existing system is onerous so perhaps a half-way house can be reached? A PPL-specific aerodrome licence? What do you think Trapper?
By: - 11th March 2005 at 16:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suspect that the powers-that-be would shudder at the thought of training committed without fire / accident cover. This will be the main stumbling block.
Irrational I know, but then so are many bits of aviation-related legislation.
Can't see why an NPPL student needs any difference in terms of legislation from a conventional PPL. Training in an airworthy aircraft that they own should be available to both
Moggy
By: - 11th March 2005 at 16:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can't see why an NPPL student needs any difference in terms of legislation from a conventional PPL. Training in an airworthy aircraft that they own should be available to both
Moggy
I know - it's crazy. But the when the NPPL came out there were whisperings of such possibilities and even NPPL instructors who were only PPLs. I suppose it's because our current PPL is regulated by JAR/EASA whereas our NPPL is regulated internally so we could get away with more. Please correct me if I'm wrong though - I'm just guessing.
By: - 11th March 2005 at 18:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Blue Robin,
I have to declare my hand. Having been aerodrome manager at three licensed aerodromes from 1968 through to 1984 I know only too well the cost of compliance with CAP168 even for the smallest aerodrome. If the NPPL(microlights) and the NPPL(SLMG) can be achieved at airfields that comply with a code of practice rather than the need to be licensed then why not the NPPL(SSEA)?
Flying chick,
Those proposals made by the PFA to the NPPL steering group and the CAA a year ago are still to be debated.
Cheers,
Barry
PS - I intend to put forward all your ideas, irrespective of whether I agree with them, at future study group meetings.
Posts: 497
By: Skybolt - 10th March 2005 at 22:25
There is a joint CAA/industry study group, recently organised, that is looking at small licensed aerodromes and the present requirements of Article 101. The CAA would appreciate the widest possible consultation and contributions to the work of the study group.
I am a member of the group having been nominated by the PFA however if you prefer to liaise with your own representative bodies then other organisations such as AOPA(UK), AOA, BBGAA, BGA, BMAA and GAPAN have put forward individuals who are also group members.
It may be that radical change in the need to use a licensed aerodrome for aircraft below 2730KG especially for training may result. There are a number of anomalies in the present requirements that need sorting out in any case.
I would much appreciate any comments you may have on this subject either on this thread or in a PM to me. Your ideas will then be put forward into the study group melting pot.
Many thanks,
Barry Tempest FRAeS
:)