Talk:Pilot licensing in the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Helicopters are neglected here.

Rather than trying to repeat all the CAA rules better to have links to the rules?

Paul Beardsell 11:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Age restrictions

Browsing several thousand sites on aviation licensing and so on I have so far managed to deduce that it's near impossible to find out the actual age limit for piloting aircraft in any given country using only the internet. However, I also found hints of an age limit of 17 for aeroplanes (airplanes) and 14/16 for helicopters. Anyhow, I'd like to see this page updated to include the age restrictions at some point or (if it's the case) a note about the lack of age restrictions. If the restrictions are country-specific, either an appropriate table or a link to an article outlining the age restrictions in different countries would be useful.

I'd do this all myself but I have no idea what the age rules are on aviation! Yoda2031 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICAO will lay down a global standard, but their documents are hard to get hold of. On top of that many countries do deviate from ICAO. In the UK you need to be 16 to go solo, 17 to be a private pilot, 18 for a CPL and 21 for an ATPL. Gliders are an exception as they're not regulated by the CAA. BaseTurnComplete 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth noting that, in the UK at least, you can log hours towards your PPL from 14. But can't go solo until 16.

All these answers appear to be correct to me and surely citations can be found. Is there any reason why the article hasn't been updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilesense (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPPL - Could/should it have its own page

I've found it really difficult to accumulate information about the NPPL specifically and would like to see this available in a single place. Although the CAA does provide some documentation, there's still potential confusion here and scope for suggestions/differences between PPL and NPPL. This would help the reader determine what it takes to achieve an NPPL versus PPL, and whether this is a sensible step in a private pilot's career.

For example:

- Can be used in UK including Channel Islands and Isle of Man
- Medical requirements (DVLA Group 1 and 2), 5 year validity or more, singled off by GP
- Can be rated on other aircraft types
- Can't be used abroad or for non-UK registered aircraft
- Ground exams same as for PPL (although might change in future)
- Navigation Skills practical Test is shorter than for full PPL, but worthwhile doing the same 150nm so that could count towards PPL should you decide to upgrade in the future.
- Requirements to be current (6 in 12 and 12 in 24), 1 hour with instructor per 2 years
- Can't be upgraded to include night flying or Instrument ratings
- 30 hours of the training can be used towards PPL
- European licensing scheme may supercede NPPL (or affect it) in 2012, possibly allowing use within EU

So for bimbling around in VFR conditions, this might suit many newcomers - especially since the cost should be around 35% less than for PPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilesense (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it deserves a section of its own, but do think that the section of this article could be expanded to include the history of the licence, the number of pilots using it, together with some of the points mentioned above (properly sourced, of course). --Simple Bob (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPPL merge discussion

I don't support having a separate page for National Private Pilot Licence and am therefore proposing that the content of that page be merged into this one. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although new to wikipedia editing, the reasons I'd prefer to retain a separate page are that (a) there's a lot of additional detail in this new article which would either be lost or would make the current article unbalanced towards NPPL and (b) I found it difficult to unearth the various rules and information about the NPPL, hence wanting to have this in one place/article. Thanks for tidying up the spelling/formatting errors and suggesting additional content. Mobilesense (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of NPPL is almost identical to PPL, the exams and sylabus are identical. The only cost saving lies with the AME medical (approximately £150) as the NPPL only requires a medical declaration from your GP (which costs approximately £25). This is a saving of £125, which in the grand scheme of things is negligible. What NPPL offers for me (and I think many other pilots) is the less stringent visual accuity requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.56.35 (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement about cost is untrue. The NPPL can be achieved in 32hours minimum. The JAR(FCL) PPL can be achieved in 45hrs minimum. The cost difference in hours flown is substantial. The point about the medical is however, I believe correct. I suggest the NPPL page remains separate as although it could be merged with the main page it does stand alone as a type of licence with it's own rules and regulations worthy of further detailed comment that would otherwise clutter the main page. That said I'm not expert at more advanced wiki editing possibilities that would merge the articles without making it more difficult to read.Markatendurancekayak (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NPPL can also now be used to fly across the channel to France, expanding the privileges of the NPPL. It is also a license available in the UK and such, fits under the title of this page. (Martin Palmer 26th September 2011)

LASORS date

The article references the LASORS publication by CAA, claiming this is published annually online and in print. The reference states the year 2007, but links to an edition for 2008. A search on the CAA site finds no online version for 2009 or later, although it does appear to be sold in hard copy for 2009 elsewhere. Therefore I think the reference should be updated, first to remove the 2007 (so it will always be current) and secondly to remove the statement that it's updated annually online (which it hasn't been). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilesense (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is. LASORS 2008 was the last version published and is available online and in print. The next version, LASORS 2010 is expected in July 2010. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see what you were on about. I updated the reference date to reflect the 2008 title. When 2010 comes out we can update the reference again. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More References

I was looking for additional references to improve this article, as suggested in the header. Other than the LASORSS on the CAA site, I'd suggest adding reference links to JAA and EASA. For example, the sentence "Each member nation in the EU has responsibility for regulating their own pilot licensing." could reference the [FAQ Section C.1]. There's also a potential confusion by using both terms JAA and JAR in the article. Would these benefit from minor clarification? There is a already a link to the Wikipedia JAA page at the top, so this would just be to confirm where UK CAA, JAA and EASA fit together. This could include a link to [JAA site] which confirms the organisation was disbanded in June 2009. The JAA ceased to exist (other than as a training organisation) at that date, which might otherwise confuse readers when explaining JAA licences. The page on the Joint Aviation Authorities also needs updating to reflect their demise (it currently talks about transition stage only). Mobilesense (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since making the above suggestion, there have been a few developments wrt EASA flight crew licensing, including the recently published document by CAA on how this might impact current UK PPL regs. I think this would be worth adding on at the bottom, these may take effect as soon as 2012. Although a page on EASA licenses could be referenced, the text here would be more about its impact and differences in the UK, for example as expected by the CAA in their [recent document ]

There are also possible implications relating to medical checks - it is possible that GP signoff may be withdrawn for NPPL or its equivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilesense (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the only reference relevant to LASORS is the Air Navigation Order. With the change planned next year to EASA the ANO will have to be amended or replaced but it expect it will continue to be the legal basis on which aviation is regulated in the UK. LASORS is the CAA guide to the ANO which is why it is considered the 'bible' for aircrew licensing however, I bet the CAA has a disclaimer that it does not override the ANO and therefore the ANO remains the source document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markatendurancekayak (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LASORS

The introductory remark, "[t]he principal reference for flight crew licensing in the UK is LASORS, which is published by the CAA on paper and online", may lead readers to believe the stated document to be a UK regulation. This document through its various amendments has proven to be in some instances contradictory, incorrect or misleading. I would therefore propose amending the sentence to put greater emphasis on its status as a mere guidance document and would be grateful for suggestions or criticisms before doing so. (Weirpwoer (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'd agree that some clarification about the status of LASORS is worthwhile, but let's ensure that this in presented to the new reader in such a way as to avoid unnecessary complication or confusion. Adding one or two sentences which clarify what it's based on and that in case of contradiction (internal or external) that other legal documents take precedence. This may also be an opportunity to introduce one or more additional references too. Mobilesense (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microlights

Should this page have some more material on Microlights and the British Microlight Aircraft Association? Arrivisto (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]