LAPL

[RTN11]

Saw an LAPL for the first time today, and it has no rating on it at all. No SEP or SSEA, nothing. Having looked into CAP 804, is this actually normal, and you just refer to the logbook to check if the holder is current enough to fly?

[BillieBob]

The examples in CAP 804 are incorrect and, despite repeated complaints, have been since it was first printed. The only evidence of currency for an LAPL is contained in the logbook - it is not clear how you are supposed to determine whether this is an accurate record, particularly if it is maintained electronically.

[Mach Jump]

RTN11

Yes. You are right.

You can only accept whatever a pilot presents you with as a logbook record.

Don't forget that LAPL currency is a rolling thing, and he/she must have completed the requirements within the 2 years preceding the date and time of the proposed flight.


MJ:ok:

[misterling]

As an old fart like myself is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain EASA part Med standards, I have converted both my fixed and rotary licenses to LAPL.

LAPL validity is, like the original NPPL, in that it is the responsibility of the individual pilot to ensure, before each flight, that he or she is complying with the validity requirements of their license.

[BEagle]

Unlike a normal pilot licence which includes rating validity dates signed either by the authority or an examiner appointed on their behalf, the only indication of LAPL validity which a pilot could show is based on his/her own personal log book entries.....

....which have no independent guarantee of accuracy.

'Rolling validity' didn't work with the NPPL and is no better with the LAPL.

[cotterpot]

I have a LAPL and in addition to a countback myself, I use Logbook.aero which lets me know if I am current. For me it is a good licence.

However following a recent house move I advised CAA and they asked me for a copy of my revalidation page. I had to point out to them that is was blank :rolleyes:

[Mach Jump]

As they are almost impossible to enforece effectvely, isn't it about time we abandoned all the different experience requirements, and just allowed Instructors to sign for an hour's training as a Revalidation, for PPLs, NPPLs, and LAPLs?


MJ:ok:

[Shoestring Flyer]

Slightly confused re LAPL.
I thought that you still had to have done 12 hours in the 2nd year and have a 1hr review with an instructor just the same as you do with an ordinary EASA/UK PPL? Is this not correct?

[patowalker]

My LAPL shows SEP (Land) under Ratings, certificates and privileges.

Under Certificate of Revalidation it shows the Date of Rating Test and Valid Until, signed off by the Examiner.

The validity of an LAPL obtained through an NPPL paper exercise matches that of the NPPL. So when you are due for an hour with an instructor to revalidate the NPPL, you take that opportunity to get the LAPL revalidated at the same time.

I keep my NPPL current, just in case ...

[BillieBob]

I thought that you still had to have done 12 hours in the 2nd year and have a 1hr review with an instructor just the same as you do with an ordinary EASA/UK PPL? Is this not correct?No, it is not correct. In the 12 months preceding any flight you must have flown 12 hours as PIC, including 12 take-offs and landings and have received refresher training (i.e. not a 'review') of at least 1 hour total flight time with an instructor.My LAPL shows SEP (Land) under Ratings, certificates and privileges.Then your LAPL has been incorrectly prepared by the licensing authority.

[bookworm]

Unlike a normal pilot licence which includes rating validity dates signed either by the authority or an examiner appointed on their behalf, the only indication of LAPL validity which a pilot could show is based on his/her own personal log book entries.....
....which have no independent guarantee of accuracy.

To get the "rating validity dates signed either by the authority or an examiner appointed on their behalf", doesn't the pilot simply present his logbook to the authority / examiner with "no independent guarantee of accuracy"?

[Mach Jump]

Just to be clear:

It doesn't matter how you got your LAPL!

A LAPL is unique in the UK/EASA system, in that it does not have a Class Rating to be renewed/revalidated.

The privileges of the licence can only be exercised if the holder has, in the 2 years preceding the proposed flight, completed 12 hours as PiC of aircraft covered by the privileges of the LAPL, plus 1 hour of training with a Flight Instructor, or CRI.

There is nothing to sign, and nothing to' Renew' or 'Revalidate.

If the Licence holder falls outside the PiC element of this 'Rolling Validity' at any time, He has to complete the PiC requirement under the supervision of an ATO/RF(Flying School)

There was originally supposed to be the alternative of passing a Flight Test with an Examiner, but until a cockup in the drafting of the requirements is corrected, this is not possible.

There should not be anything in the 'Signature Page'.


MJ:ok:

[Prop swinger]

. . . In the 12 months preceding any flight . . .
. . . should read 24 months.

[patowalker]

Quote:
My LAPL shows SEP (Land) under Ratings, certificates and privileges.
Then your LAPL has been incorrectly prepared by the licensing authority.

Well, it is exactly as the example shown in CAP 804. Under XII Ratings, certificates and privileges - Class//Type/IR shows SEP (Land), with "Nil" under Remarks and Restrictions.

[Mach Jump]

Patowalker:

First check that they havn't given you a PPL by mistake! :eek:

If what you have is definately a LAPL, what they have put in the Signature Page is meaningless, and you should ask them to send you another.


MJ:ok:

[patowalker]

Issued in November 2012, it is exactly like the LAPL(A) here https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2330&pagetype=90&pageid=13766
Examiner signed revalidation in June 2013.

[Mach Jump]

Back then there was a lot of confusion, and people getting all sorts of strange things.

The Examiner who signed it in 2013 should have known better, but everyone was confused then. (Not much better now!)


MJ:ok:

[patowalker]

The Examiner mentioned at the time that he had just been at a CAA presentation on Part FCL licences. :confused:

I can now see that the revalidation and validity date under XII are at odds with the lifetime rolling validity under IX. Will contact the CAA as you suggest. Thanks.

[BEagle]

bookworm wrote: To get the "rating validity dates signed either by the authority or an examiner appointed on their behalf", doesn't the pilot simply present his logbook to the authority / examiner with "no independent guarantee of accuracy"?

Hardly the same thing - the Examiner is unlikely to be assessing whether a pilot has sufficient recency to hire an aircraft.

[Sideslipper]

Does the record of the 1 hour training flight in the logbook have to be signed by the instructing pilot? As stated earlier,obviously not possible with electronic logbooks.
Is it a mandatory requirement to maintain a manual logbook even if you use an electronic one?
Does anybody have a CAA definitive reference about recording the flight?
Using the search facility on their website is a unhelpful as ever.

[ifitaintboeing]

Under AMC and GM to Part FCL, AMC1 FCL.050 Recording of Flight Time

(10) column 12: the ‘remarks’ column may be used to record details of the flight at the holder’s discretion. The following entries, however, should always be made:

(iv) signature of instructor if flight is part of an SEP or TMG class rating revalidation.

[Sideslipper]

Thanks ifitaintboeing:ok:,
My take on the subject is that you need to maintain a hard copy logbook, and you can only use an electronic one as a backup.
If the dog eats your logbook then if you need to prove such things as "Biennial Training Flight" or "3 Landings/Take-offs in last 90 Days", then its a case of going back to the instructor or airfield to get a copy of their records.

[BillieBob]

FCL.050 requires flight time to be recorded "in a form and manner established by the competent authority" and, as such AMC1 FCL.050 is guidance and has no legal force. The UK legal requirements for the recording of flight time are contained in Article 79 of the Air Navigation Order 2009.

Article 79 does not require the personal flying log to be maintained in any specific form and it is perfectly acceptable to keep the information electronically and with no hard copy. Neither is there any requirement in law regarding the way that refresher flying with an FI is recorded - it will be sufficient to identify refresher flying as such without the need for a signature.

The only requirement for an FI's signature is in the case of differences training (FCL.710(c)), which is often provided on a separate label for inclusion in a hard copy logbook. It should not be difficult to design some means of including this (e.g. as a scanned copy) in an electronic log.

The above describes the legal requirements - there is no suggestion that merely adhering to these minimum requirements will be either convenient or efficient when dealing with the UK CAA.