NPPL(m) or PPL(A) - which route?

[DarrenM488]

Growing up I had the childhood dream and ambition of pursuing a career as a Airline Pilot.

However now at 28 and having been distracted from my goals I'm in a fortunate position to be able to afford weekly lessons, and have now accrued around 7 hours on flex-wing microlights.

The initial reason I pursued microlights was the affordability of £90/hour, with a view of then converting to NPPL(A) and then up to JAA/EASA PPL(A).

But I'm wondering if that is going to cost more in the long-run, and would welcome your thoughts and opinions on which direction to be heading?

[greggj]

Personally, I think the only reason you might want to pursue NPPL(A/m) is if you can't get your medical.
As far as affordability aspect goes, some might argue that flying microlights is still better then not flying at all.

Make sure it won't cost you more in the long run to go that route. Make sure that it is even possible to do what you want to do, and check minimal hours required, multiply that by whatever the cost of hour is in your region - and you'll get an answer.

[weirdfish]

As far as affordability aspect goes, some might argue that flying microlights is still better then not flying at all.
.

And some might argue further that flying microlights is just better.

I think the primary thing you need to look at is what will you be able to afford to continue flying after you've got a license, whatever that may be. For example, I'd really like to do my multi engine rating at some point but I won't because I know there is no way I can afford to utilise it.

[Rob P]

Fish speaks much sense.

If you love flight and are really seeking escape to the air, the lightest end of aviation has much to recommend it. If you see your licence as a means of travelling further, faster (debatable) more comfortably with more people, then PPL (A) seems more likely to be the better option.

However the OP has revealed one huge misconception from which it is our duty to disabuse him.

"But I'm wondering if that is going to cost more in the long-run"

No - either route will soak up slightly more cash than you can comfortably afford.

Rob P

[Bathman]

Remember if your thinking of going airline then microlight hours don't count towards the 200 hours/100 PIC you need for CPL issue.

[DarrenM488]

Thanks for your feedback folks, certainly given me some food for though.

I certainly love being airborne, and miss not being able to fly during the recent weather.
I think maybe I'll stick with the NPPL(M) route for now, invest in a microlight after my GST, and see how I feel about my flying career then.

Appreciate your responses, and now I'm a registered member I'll get involved with threads....

Watch out for the "I just Passed my GST" thread in 2013

All the best for the new year,

Darren

[jjones]

some might argue that flying microlights is still better then not flying at all.

some might argue that for an outlay of less than 20k all in (training to and gaining licence, insurance, machine purchase) and ending up with a machine that cruises at 85 kts and burns 13lph and you can maintain yourself for comparatively buttons compared to a Cessna 152 is still better then not flying at all.

[greggj]

Imagine what my friends who paraglide tell me about all that....
And personally I still prefer a small aircraft.

Thing is, with [N]PPL(A) you can fly certain types of microlights, but this doesn't work the other way
Plus, personally I think full PPL gives you bit more knowledge and practice, as far as radio, navigation, etc is concerned.
But then, in the end - whatever makes you tick !

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I was solely flying for fun, I'd stick to microlights, which are much more enjoyable overall than the average knackered 40 year old club rental Cessna. And cheaper. And they can generally use far more airfields (even if a few misguided places like Thruxton and Tatenhill still exclude them, there are huge numbers of tiny grass microlight strips that a flexwing or slower 3-axis microlight will take quite happily, but you'd take very few light aeroplanes into.)

If you want to become and airline pilot, go and learn on light aeroplanes, not microlights, as the microlight hours don't count towards any commercial licence.

If my main interest was touring, I'd fly light aeroplanes, as I like the range and payload I can't get out of a microlight. (And yes, the ability to fly night and IMC, but to be frank, your average PPL will use those privileges pretty rarely, even if qualified to do so.)

If you want to fly both, do the JAR/EASA light aircraft licence then microlight differences training - that's the cheapest route to do both, and gives the option of adding night / IMC and it's less of a faff for international flying.

(Me, I'm just an aviation obsessive so fly flexwings, and 3-axis microlights, and light aeroplanes. This probably explains why I have no money.)

G

[andytk58]

Another vote for the NPPL route here.

But beware, very few flying hours from NPPL SSEA/M cross credit to JAR/EASA licencing. So if you ever need the EASA licence (eg going commercial) it may be cheaper to go down the EASA route from day 1.

Be honest with yourself, are you ever really going to earn a living from commercial aviation? I took the view I'd be better off going NPPL to remove the temptation of ever remortgaging the house to go commercial

Andy