Ok. I have not thoroughly read Part FCL since May this year when I did my EASA IR conversion, but back then the night rating was required, and the NAA certainly asked for it.
Peter wrote:
but it fails those who want to go a bit further
It fails in making you a good builder also, so what is your point? 
I agree with balliol. A PPL makes you capable of operating a SEP in VFR, why should it do more than that?
I also think things have changed. Today you can start with microlight, then fly VFR all you want with absolutely minimal marginal costs per hour. Then LAPL and PPL and so on. I think the future of PPL will in fact be only for those wanting something special, be it aerobatics or long distance IFR or whatever.
This has been in place for quite some time now.
Officially for a year or so but the UK CAA has been doing it for at least 10 years while ensuring most AMEs didn’t know 
Re the LAPL, reports suggest almost nobody is doing it, so what does this tell us?
The trouble is: Money IS a subject. And a very sore one for most people.
We have one problem in GA which puts this even into a greater aspect: We do lack young folks who want to fly GA planes.
I need to give away something here, which would probably get me ejected in certain other places, but I have been involved in flight simulation for almost as long as I fly for real until 2013. In that time, as a senior editor for a german flightsim mag, I have encountered literally hundreds of teenagers and folks in their twenties who would want nothing more than learn how to fly and operate their own airplane, yet staggering costs of getting a PPL combined with fairytales about airplane ownership has kept them in front of their computerscreens. Some of these folks have achieved quite some knowledge and skills, e.g. with virtual ATC and other activities, which would actually help them a lot in real life, had they the possibility.
Having said that, my objective has been since 2009 to see how the cost of obtaining a PPL could be brought to an acceptable level and thereafter dispell myths about ownership. The flightschool I work with is the cheapest to do a PPL in I know of in our country and it is a joy to see that they mainly graduate youngsters with the primary ambition to do just that, PPL, possibly with an IR at some stage.
As for the syllabus: When I did my PPL I did not feel that after doing my 35 hours and the checkride (I already had the RT done at the time) I was inadequately trained. We had done nav flights of 3 hours and more (which in a C150 is a butt-wrecking exercise), we had navigated by then modern means (VOR/ADF) and my teacher told me many things he knew from his practice as a King Air pilot.
So stories like the ones posted here regarding absymal training as well as FI’s who simply lack the practice to teach folks the real stuff of flying rather than being scared of leaving the pattern themselfs bewilder me and I thank the “sky gods” that I never had to put up with people like that.
I think however that in the present days, it would be really important to train practically and leave too much theoretical ballast aside.
- The first hours certainly should be dedicated to basic flying skills, leading up to the first solo. Still I think some small nav flying would be helpful during that time.
- After the solo and when the basic flying is “mastered” it is time to leave the home turf and to do cross country navigation. And there I would still say, that while it is important to initially teach the basics of VFR ground hogging, it is much more appropriate and important today to fully integrate modern day things like GPS, Moving maps and modern day flight planning. I would never release my airplane to someone who does not know these things and is able to use the on board equipment and, thanks to that school, I never even came close.
I would even think that a 500 NM international flight with stops at one to two ATC controlled airports might be a very profitable addition to the curriculum. Take the airplane away from the comfort zone of the home turf and show the student what this thing actually is built for. Night flying is an integral part of the US PPL, I think it should be so here as well, even if it only should serve initially to keep the dreed of “must get home before sunset” out of the way.
It is 2015. Not 1950. An it is high time that all schools reckognize that and stop thinking that distinguishing Blackpool from Paris visually is the highest achievable VFR goal. What we need out there are private pilots with confidence, knowing their limits, with good radio and technical skills and who are comfortable in their environment. Not burgerrunners and club bar braggers. And I actually think we could achieve that with LESS money than the conservative training of today needs and with better results. Which is what our youngsters need.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
As for the syllabus: When I did my PPL I did not feel that after doing my 35 hours and the checkride (I already had the RT done at the time) I was inadequately trained. We had done nav flights of 3 hours and more (which in a C150 is a butt-wrecking exercise), we had navigated by then modern means (VOR/ADF) and my teacher told me many things he knew from his practice as a King Air pilot.That is very similar to my experience from taking the PPL in 1984. I did not feel in the least inadequately trained. Inexperienced certainly, but with enough training to take on increasing challenges myself. (And I did the PPL in even fewer hours — 25 — due to the crediting rules for gliding license holders in force in Sweden at the time.)
This was of course in a non-profit club with voluntary staff working for free so there was zero economic pressure. The FIs did charge a tuition fee, but they were all airline pilots instructing in their free time so they were not depending on the fees for their living.
I would even think that a 500 NM international flight with stops at one to two ATC controlled airports might be a very profitable addition to the curriculum.
That kind of thing was indeed included in my training…
Many times I talk to people about my way of traveling there is always a perception that I somehow have to ask for permission and stick to a fixed schedule. They believe what they know from the airlines and read in the newspaper does universally apply.
They all are in favor of flying. Dispelling some of the myths would be helpful and allow them to pick it up themselves. But then there are pilots who reassure the myths.
One of my instructors actually said “IFR actually allowed me to fly for real” and he was referring to planning and dealing with airspace structures.
Aviathor wrote:
Ok. I have not thoroughly read Part FCL since May this year when I did my EASA IR conversion, but back then the night rating was required, and the NAA certainly asked for it.
It came in with EIR/ CB IR, so it’s over a year and a half.
LeSving wrote:
I think the future of PPL will in fact be only for those wanting something special, be it aerobatics or long distance IFR or whatever.
You don’t need PPL for aerobatics. But you need it for IR, MEPs, turboprops, jets and SEPs over 2 tonnes or with more than 4 seats, as I recall (I’m assuming we’re talking about LAPL(A)).
Peter wrote:
Re the LAPL, reports suggest almost nobody is doing it, so what does this tell us?
Question is how many schools offer it. I would say few at the moment. While it would be enough for most of the “VFR-only crowd.”
You don’t need PPL for aerobatics
How is that?
Airborne_Again wrote:
That is very similar to my experience from taking the PPL in 1984. I did not feel in the least inadequately trained. Inexperienced certainly,
I agree. What A_A, M_D and I have in common is that we did not train in the UK. Could that be a factor?
Not only did I not feel inadequately trained, but I had the ambition and eagerness to do x-c trips. That’s what I got my license for. I also was in a club where more experienced pilot’s did do trips from Norway to continental Europe and talked about it in the club house. The club house was a meeting place where people came together just to hang out and talk.
In the US there was no socialising. The “clubs” we’re just rental companies with instructors. Also in France I have not found a club with the same atmosphere that I knew in Norway. So now I hang out at EuroGA
@Mooney_Driver Hear, hear. I think this is easier to achieve with ULs where you have LAA. At LAPL/ PPL level, you have EASA to deal with. LAPL(S)/ SPL (which you can extend to include privileges for TMGs) are somewhere in between and can present an interesting route when you want to bring the cost down.
