LAPL(H) vs PPL(H) confusion

[Animal Mother]

I'm currently doing a ton of research before committing down the path of being completely skint and giving all of my hard earned to a heli school. I've just come across the LAPL(H) and now I'm confused .

From what I can gather, gaining the LAPL(H) is a shorter (and therefore cheaper) route to getting into the air in a non-commercial capacity, it's even slightly easier as the medical requirements are more relaxed than PPL(H).

I see there are some restrictions to the LAPL(H) but they aren't very onerous or draconian (not such that the majority would be put off from gaining the LAPL(H)). You can still fly all over the EU, you can still fly with passengers, and you can still fly some of the smaller "starter" aircraft (inc. turbine) that a new PPL(H) holder would be flying anyway.

So:
What is the CAA's intention/aim by introducing the LAPL(H)?
Why wouldn't you do the LAPL(H) (as it can be "topped up to a PPL(H) anyway)?
Are there any significant downsides to doing the LAPL(H) over the PPL(H) in the first instance?

[jeepys]

From memory the LAPL is only 5 hours less than the ppl anyway.

Good luck in getting your licence in 40 hours as opposed to 45. In fact good luck getting your licence in 45.

I don't really see the point of the lapl except for the lesser medical requirement which seems daft.




QUOTE=Animal Mother;9802318]I'm currently doing a ton of research before committing down the path of being completely skint and giving all of my hard earned to a heli school. I've just come across the LAPL(H) and now I'm confused .

From what I can gather, gaining the LAPL(H) is a shorter (and therefore cheaper) route to getting into the air in a non-commercial capacity, it's even slightly easier as the medical requirements are more relaxed than PPL(H).
L
I see there are some restrictions to the LAPL(H) but they aren't very onerous or draconian (not such that the majority would be put off from gaining the LAPL(H)). You can still fly all over the EU, you can still fly with passengers, and you can still fly some of the smaller "starter" aircraft (inc. turbine) that a new PPL(H) holder would be flying anyway.

So:
What is the CAA's intention/aim by introducing the LAPL(H)?
Why wouldn't you do the LAPL(H) (as it can be "topped up to a PPL(H) anyway)?
Are there any significant downsides to doing the LAPL(H) over the PPL(H) in the first instance?[/QUOTE]

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by jeepys

From memory the LAPL is only 5 hours less than the ppl anyway.

Good luck in getting your licence in 40 hours as opposed to 45. In fact good luck getting your licence in 45.

I don't really see the point of the lapl except for the lesser medical requirement which seems daft.

This was kind of my point. It just seems a stupid idea generally.

[carlmeek]

I am one of the UK's single figure LAPL(H) pilots. We are a rare breed!

I have been flying fixed wing for 10 years starting on microlights NPPL, upgrading to NPPL(SSEA) and then changing to a LAPL(A). This was all because of a medical condition that used to prevent me getting a class 2, but no longer does.

I started training for the LAPL(H) late last year and completed it in 40.1 hours. For me as an existing LAPL holder with a medical in place, it was a no brainer. My previous wide ranging fixed wing experience (tail draggers for example) gave me the ability to do it in minimum hours.

For anyone ab-initio, I agree that there is really so very little difference between a PPL and a LAPL. Both can have night rating, hours is probably irrelevant. Revalidation of a LAPL is arguably slightly easier each year. If you are doing it for private purposes only I would recommend the LAPL because it will cost you less in medical and revalidation will be simpler. If you are under 35 you will get a 5 year medical certificate.

[misterling]

I am also one of the few LAPL(H) holders and obtained my helicopter licence in retirement after a career as a fixed wing pilot.

In my case I am in my 70s and would now find it difficult to hold on to even a class 2 EASA medical. I hold both LAPL(A) and LAPL(H) and this gives me a means to carry on flying, hopefully for some years to come.

I live in an area where there are no resident helicopter examiners and the less onerous revalidation requirements for a LAPL(H) over a PPL(H) make annual revalidation a lot easier.

Whichever route you choose, you will find helicopter flying an enjoyable and rewarding experience.

[Animal Mother]

Thanks misterling and carlmeek, your responses really put things into perspective for me. Being completely new to this world it's improtant to get views from a broad range of people so that I can make the most informed decision.

Right now, for me, it looks like I'll be heading to the PPL(H) route as I'd like to have the opportunity to fly in Southern Africa. I think the Class 2 will be ok for me although I'll be limited to daytime flight due to colout vision deficiences. Unfortunately this has kiboshed my CPL(H) plans.

[EddieHeli]

Originally Posted by carlmeek

I am one of the UK's single figure LAPL(H) pilots. We are a rare breed!

I have been flying fixed wing for 10 years starting on microlights NPPL, upgrading to NPPL(SSEA) and then changing to a LAPL(A). This was all because of a medical condition that used to prevent me getting a class 2, but no longer does.

I started training for the LAPL(H) late last year and completed it in 40.1 hours. For me as an existing LAPL holder with a medical in place, it was a no brainer. My previous wide ranging fixed wing experience (tail draggers for example) gave me the ability to do it in minimum hours.

For anyone ab-initio, I agree that there is really so very little difference between a PPL and a LAPL. Both can have night rating, hours is probably irrelevant. Revalidation of a LAPL is arguably slightly easier each year. If you are doing it for private purposes only I would recommend the LAPL because it will cost you less in medical and revalidation will be simpler. If you are under 35 you will get a 5 year medical certificate.

What are the reduced reval requirements out of interest?

[muffin]

I am also one of the LAPL brigade, in fact I think I have the first LAPL(H) that was issued in the U.K. I also have an LAPL(A) as well. For me it was a no brainer. I previous had both PPL(H) and PPL(A) but lost my medical shortly before the LAPL came into existence. However I could pass the LAPL medical wth no problem so was first in the queue when it came out. I was the very first one that my AME had done. The LAPL has allowed me to continue to fly both rotary and fixed wing ever since, so I have to say that for me is is probably the only good thing that has ever come out of EASA. As long as you keep within the currency rules it is very simple to keep legal by simply doing your instructor hour every 12 or 24 months as the case may be. I cannot understand why more prospective pilots don't go down that route.

[misterling]

EddieHeli.

There are actually no revalidation requirements for a LAPL(H), and there is no Certificate of Revalidation in the license. There is a rolling recency requirement as stated below.

"Within the 12 months prior to your intended flight you must have completed on the specific helicopter type.

(a) at least 6 hours of flight time as PIC, including at least 6 take-offs and landings; and

(b) refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with an instructor."