Irv Lee wrote:They are finally talking about a consultation in the next few weeks. Of course if it is the style "there are 4 pre formed options, here they are" then this is a worry when you consider who they might listen to in order to arrive at 4 options. We can trust a small number of individual seniors, names well known in the grass roots world, but how many of the main herd with influence have ever flown with nppl or lapl pilots? You don't get any of them dual in airways or on instrument approaches. Nor flying airliners or military aircraft. My most recent examiner seminar showed that no-one else on it had any concept of Lapl issues and problems.
That above is a speculative worry, but you cannot deny what has been ignored for 18 months now. Small clubs are suffering, first through lockdowns, now through unexpected massive cost rises. There is a big pool of potential customers unable to queue up at the small clubs' doors and spend much needed money. The only reason is the political obstinacy or sheer ignorance that meant an ssea-lapl link (even by test if necessary) was not restored in early 2021. This is a link that existed and was broken in 2018 for no obvious reason.
Restoring the link doesn't affect any ' where do we go from here? ' consultation on licences, medicals, ratings, revalidations, validities, etc etc because there are now pilots who can jump ssea to lapl (those with pre April 2018 issued Nppl ssea). All we are doing by not restoring the link prior to consultation is simply and possibly deliberately starving small clubs of much needed income from money waiting to be spent by many post April 2018 ssea holders, plus the bigger reservoir of microlight pilots holding back from adding more on the rating or licence side since April 2018 as it led nowhere.
So WHO has been advising the DfT and CAA so badly since 2020? ...and why would we imagine the same people with clearly no concept of business problems at the grass roots end would not be the same ones advising on 'the new options'?
Many thanks for this detailed and considered response Irv - you clearly get this and are also frustrated by it.
I can think of several pilots within my own local flying community who have transitioned from NPPL (M) that would benefit if the NPPL (SSEA) to LAPL path were to be restored.
It’s staggering that the relevant authorities don’t see the illogical nature of the situation that exists. For example, an NPPL SSEA holder can:
- fly their own aircraft to the ATO, solo, only to be sent on supervised solo again in that same aircraft as part of the LAPL or PPL upgrade training; and
- be sent on a solo cross country when they routinely fly as PIC on trips that easily exceed the requirements for PPL using their NPPL (SSEA).
The fact that the NPPL is a National PPL suggests that we should have some pride in it and not simply leave it as a cul de sac from which no progression is possible in any sort of pragmatic or proportionate way. Some of the folks that find themselves in this situation didn’t choose NPPL as it is the lesser of the available licenses, they chose it because microlights provided a less expensive, more accessible route into flying, with the intention of progressing as and when they could afford it. Even in our small club, I know of several who started with NPPL(M) with ATPL as the end-goal.
It’s hard to believe that anyone in authority would agree with this situation if they were aware of it.
In my own situation I intend to progress to PPL and IR(R), but the current process, if it can be called that, certainly doesn’t encourage or otherwise facilitate that in a manner that considers the impact on the student in terms of time, money and efficiency.