Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
By Bathman
#1462399
At present there is no consistency and I suspect no evidence of safety when adding an additional rating to an NPPL.

For instance if you have an NPPL(SLMG) then all you need to do to add an SSEA rating is training as required and the logbook signed by an instructor.

However for an NPPL(microlight) holder to add a SSEA rating then you have to do a minimum of 3 hours training (one hour dual instrument plus two hours stalling) then pass both an NST and GST.

It would be much simpler if all additional ratings to an NPPL could be the same as for SLMG holders. Namely training as required and the logbook signed by an instructor.
#1462424
The angriest pilots in this situation are those flying microlights by differences training on an sep rating, (on a ppl), decide, possibly for medical purposes, and/or cross counting hours, to get nppl ratings. No matter how many microlight hours they have, they can get an ssea rating simply by asking, but they need a test to get the microlight rating.
Just to clarify, this is talking about getting the ratings issued by the CAA via the GA organisations and payment (ie the rating listed and an expiry date in the licence)
User avatar
By Cookie
#1462431
Irv, a pilot with a UK PPL, valid SEP class rating, and microlight differences training completed, can just apply to add the microlight class to their UK PPL. This allows the pilot to exercise microlight privileges in the same way as if they held a NPPL. Note the same does not apply to the EASA PPL.

See CAP 804 Section 5, Part A, Subpart 2, page 7:

3.13 Issue of Microlight Aeroplane Class Rating on the basis of an SEP(Land) Class
Rating


Provided that an SEP aeroplane class rating is valid in a UK national licence, an Examiner may revalidate the SEP aircraft class rating as a Microlight aircraft class rating. The Examiner makes the relevant entry in the Certificate of Revalidation page in the holder’s licence, entering the revalidation date in the “Date of Check or Test” column and entering the “Valid To” date as 24 months later. The holder must then apply to PL for the inclusion of the Microlight Class Rating in their licence as the Examiner is not permitted to make entries in the ratings page of the licence.


Bathman, the cross-crediting was derived by comparison of each syllabus and required training/tests to meet the same in the other class. Remember that SSEA, SLMG and microlight classes on the NPPL are mutually exclusive.

Cookie
#1462442
Unfortunately the application goes through the BMAA, and the bmaa refuse to accept that Cookie, unless they have changed their minds recently. It has been a few I have heard of over the years, the most recent one I know of was told to do the tests as specified in the conversion document on the nppl web site, para 4.1.1 in http://www.nationalprivatepilotslicence ... V%2011.pdf or they simply wouldn't forward the paperwork. A few years ago you could use a form directly to the CAA, I know people who did, but they started to say they would on,y accept via the organisations.
User avatar
By Cookie
#1462451
The process to add a microlight class rating in this way has existed for quite a while so I don't know why the BMAA would reject it. See AIC W053/2011 para 2.1 on the NPPL website which was issued prior to publication of CAP 804. It's also answer 43 on the Higherplane Training website. :wink:

Application should be made using the form on the NPPL website to the relevant association (LAA for SSEA or SLMG, BMAA for microlight). Any problems, as above, where the NPPL documentation clearly shows something should be actioned but isn't, please do get in touch.

Cookie
#1462518
Let's not confuse what cap804, my site, etc says with what actually happens! The pilot had a little while left before his sep rating expired but not ages. As most of his flying was microlight, he wanted an ssea and micro rating. The bmaa refused, and wouldn't take arguments, they only use that nppl conversion list of requirements, not the real rules.
Faced with unknown turn around times for an appeal to the CAA and then saying "but your sep has expired now" afterwards, he made a conscious decision between getting what he was entitled to without a test, but if it took too long to appeal, he would actually then need two tests, OR spend three figure sum with a microlight club on a test there and then, and actually know the BMAA would then process his paperwork. Like others I have known, he gave in and paid the money for a test.
#1472252
Are you saying that its fine to require conditions are met to obtain a rating for sep if you only have a micro rating, yet it should be automatic to obtain a micro rating if you have an sep rating?, are all sep pilots skygods who instinctively know how to handle aircraft with lower mass/energy and more hands on handling?
#1472259
Who? Me? If so,, suggest a 're read', It is about a pilot very current (and already legal) on microlights wanting a microlight rating, not a self appointed Sky God with a dubious idea of his own abilities.
#1472416
TrailStar wrote:.. are all sep pilots skygods who instinctively know how to handle aircraft with lower mass/energy and more hands on handling?


.. although, of course, that was the implicit assumption behind the older PPLs before the microloght class existed and the differences training requirement came in .. :)

My BoT SE [sic; not SEP] lifetime PPL specifies a maximum weight of aircraft on which it authorises me to exercise my PPL privileges, but no minimum .. Similarly, it lays down no requirement for tail- (or nose-)wheel, nor for CS/VP prop, nor for retractable u/c, differences training. In theory, I could have (and some RAF pilots then did) learn ab initio on Jet Provosts, and I suppose could have presented themselves to an Examiner for GFT in one, having never flown anything else; if successful, the resulting PPL would have authorised them to fly what we now call a microlight.

Of course, I am not saying this was sensible .. :roll:
#1473532
Irv Lee wrote:Who? Me? If so,, suggest a 're read', It is about a pilot very current (and already legal) on microlights wanting a microlight rating, not a self appointed Sky God with a dubious idea of his own abilities.




No not you and not about just this case, but you are bemoaning a system for not providing automatic entitlement, that would include people without the experience of the subtype.
#1473535
TrailStar wrote:... are bemoaning a system for not providing automatic entitlement, that would include people without the experience of the subtype.


I used my PPL(A) gained on a C152 to fly a Turbulent. IMO there should be no thing as microlights. If it is 3 axis then it is i simply an aeroplane. If you are sensible you will get some training from someone familiar with the type (assuming it has 2 seats) but creating a new type of license is bonkers and should never have happened.
Last edited by MercianMarcus on Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1473557
kanga wrote:
TrailStar wrote:.. are all sep pilots skygods who instinctively know how to handle aircraft with lower mass/energy and more hands on handling?


.. although, of course, that was the implicit assumption behind the older PPLs before the microloght class existed and the differences training requirement came in .. :)

My BoT SE [sic; not SEP] lifetime PPL specifies a maximum weight of aircraft on which it authorises me to exercise my PPL privileges, but no minimum .. Similarly, it lays down no requirement for tail- (or nose-)wheel, nor for CS/VP prop, nor for retractable u/c, differences training. In theory, I could have (and some RAF pilots then did) learn ab initio on Jet Provosts, and I suppose could have presented themselves to an Examiner for GFT in one, having never flown anything else; if successful, the resulting PPL would have authorised them to fly what we now call a microlight.

Of course, I am not saying this was sensible .. :roll:

The original pre JAA (and pre CAA class D) licences were similarly unencumbered and yet the plethora of regulation introduced since those heady days has done nothing to improve safety statistics, merely continue the relentless hassle, cost, and decimation of GA.
A natural sense of self preservation will ensure safety by adequate voluntry self imposed training and familiarisation before flying a new type. Idiots won't take any notice of regulation anyway.
#1473560
flybymike wrote:A natural sense of self preservation will ensure safety by adequate voluntry self imposed training and familiarisation before flying a new type. Idiots won't take any notice of regulation anyway.


Your notion that humans naturally will do the right thing is laudable but naive in the extreme.

Maybe you should read a book or three on human performance and psychology?

What happens in unregulated/non-policed environments can be seen every day on the television and internet, and by having a look back at recent history.

Unless you think that we here in the UK or pilots are 'a better kind' of person.

:pig:
#1473604
I think very few pilots understand the concept of 'familarisation' (as distinct from differences training) built in to the SEP rating (for example). Yes, they can legally do it themselves. I pleaded with a friend, many many hours in a PA28, who was buying an AA5 and had never flown one before, NOT to quietly sneak off to Kemble and fly it back to Popham himself as his first flight in one. I emphasised no fee for help, because he was a mate, and I knew what the end result would be, I even told him what would happen on landing. Unfortunately he did, and it did.
#1473611
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
flybymike wrote:A natural sense of self preservation will ensure safety by adequate voluntry self imposed training and familiarisation before flying a new type. Idiots won't take any notice of regulation anyway.


Your notion that humans naturally will do the right thing is laudable but naive in the extreme.

Maybe you should read a book or three on human performance and psychology?

Ah yes, sorry Kanga. I had momentarily forgotten about my naïveté.
I'll make that four books and let you know how my revision is going on and whether I need any further help.
In the meantime I'll continue to wonder why the CAA safety review of the increased regulation brought in with JAA showed no improvement in safety statistics, and of course please dont hesitate to post further patronising remarks at will.