New LAPL: carrying passengers?

[raven22]

I may be unable to obtain a Class 2 medical certificate but will be able to obtain an LAPL medical. If I then apply for an LAPL(A) on the basis of my EASA PPL(A) is there any exemption from the 10 hours PIC required ( FCL.105.A (b) )before I can passengers? The rules seem to be designed around new licence holders rather than those who have been around longer!
Any thoughts appreciated!

[Mach Jump]

I have asked the CAA this very question on behalf of several confused pilots, and here is the reply I received.


In a message dated 26/07/2013 14:33:55 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:

Dear Mr xxxxxxxx

Thank you for your email regarding the carrying of passengers when holding an EASA LAPL licence.

The requirement 'Holders of an LAPL(A) shall only carry passengers after they have completed, after the issuance of their licence, 10 hours of flight time as PIC on aeroplanes or TMG.' is correct for holders who have just been issued with a LAPL licence, but this is not required if you have converted from another licence.

To confirm if you were to convert your current licence to a LAPL then you would not need to fulfil this requirement.

I hope the above has clarified your query.



Yours sincerely

John Clarke| Licensing Officer | Licensing and Training Standards



MJ:ok:

[cockney steve]

Which is, of course ,in total contradiction to the wording, which definitively and categoricaly states:-
'Holders of an LAPL(A) shall only carry passengers after they have completed, after the issuance of their licence, 10 hours of flight time as PIC on aeroplanes or TMG.' unless there is an unquoted modifier.

Otherwise, it appears that another load of slapdash, ill-considered legislation is being modified on the fly, so to speak.
how about "no, you needn't bother, we make up the rules as we go along"

It's sensible and pragmatic, but is it legal?

[Whopity]

European law is generally vague and ambiguous. It is not meant for pedantic people, it is designed to be put in a cupbaord and left there.after the issuance of their licence,is unqualified, it does not say which licence, so the CAA's interpretation is entirely valid. Its all CRAP treat it as such.

[ChickenHouse]

I object European law is generally vague and ambiguous.!

European regulations are quite precise, for a legal practitioner with absolutely no practical knowledge on the issue. It is just, that reality does give a **** on legal hairsplitting and common sense is so many intellectual lightyears from legal paperworks writing ...

[raven22]

Thanks all, particularly Mach Jump. Saves me waiting 18 working days for a reply from the CAA!

[Whopity]

European regulations are quite precisePrecision is relative, most of what I have seen is closer to the precison of a Bodger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodging) than an Engineer!

[bartonflyer]

My understanding (from my AME after consultation with the CAA) is that if you have an EASA PPL then you do not need to actually get a LAPL issued to fly with a LAPL medical rather than a Class 2 medical.
You can fly with the EASA PPL, but you are then restricted to the privileges of a LAPL when your medical is a LAPL.

[Mach Jump]

Thats not my understanding from the CAA.

You can fly with a LAPL and a Class I, Class II, or a LAPL Certificate, but if you only have a LAPL Certificate then you must have a LAPL to go with it, and you cannot hold two EASA Licences for the same category of aircraft.


MJ:ok:

[bartonflyer]

I think we agree - I'm not saying you hold TWO Easa licences, just 1 - an EASA PPL - but when operated with only a LAPL medical certificate it then restricts you to the privileges of a LAPL licence.

I'm in the same boat as the OP, have lost my Class 2 medical but I can get a LAPL medical.

[Mach Jump]

Sorry, no.

If you have a PPL you must have a Class I or II medical to fly. A LAPL Certificate is not acceptable.

If you want to fly with only a LAPL Medical Certificate, then you must have a LAPL. (or an NPPL)


MJ:ok:

[bartonflyer]

Well. we'll just have to agree to disagree, I have it in writing from my AME, after consultation with Flight Crew Licensing!

[Mach Jump]

Well I guess we will have to do that, but, if I were you, I would email the CAA and get confirmation directly from them.

The problem is that EASA forgot to include the privileges of a LAPL in the PPL, although they are included in the CPL/ATPL, and until they correct their mistake, you can't excercise the privileges of a LAPL if you have a PPL.


MJ:ok:

[airpolice]

I'm sure that Beagle will be along shortly to keep you all on track. The 10 hours thing seems to come up every few months. I've even raised it myself. They were intending to say, ten hours from your first licence being issued, not on the the issue of LAPL on the transfer to LAPL from NPPL, but that's how it was worded.

Can't see anyone being hanged for taking pax on the first day of using the LAPL if they have 100+ hours of pax carrying since they got their NPPL.

[BillieBob]

MED.A.030(c)
Applicants for and holders of a private pilot licence (PPL), a sailplane pilot licence (SPL) or a balloon pilot licence (BPL) shall hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate.

As Mach Jump said, the PPL does not include the privileges of a LAPL, unlike the CPL and ATPL, and, even if it did, you could not exercise those privileges unless you held the applicable medical certificate (i.e. at least a Class 2). Unless the UK CAA has sought derogation under Article 14(6) of the Basic Regulation (and I'm pretty sure that it has not) either the AME or the CAA Medical Department has got it wrong.