Ok, so here is an interesting thought process. And I have put my Nomex underwear on for the replies on this one! (and sorry for the long post - feel free to not bother to read it!)
I’m specifically concerned with those pilots who ONLY fly microlights and converted their UK PPL to a LAPL as that is what everyone ‘told’ them was their best (only) option when it seemed the UK PPL was going to be superseded. It turns out this was a mistake and many people were miss-informed but that is now irrelevant – they just need to find the best way forward now.
OK so they could convert to an NPPL(M) but that means flight tests and a lot of these guys (some of whom flew microlights before there was any licence for it and so gained the licence under grandfather rights back in the day without ever having taken any test!) don’t want to have to take a test to fly an aircraft they have been flying for x-years.
They could also go and do a flight test with an examiner to renew the recency of the LAPL but they cannot do that in a microlight and it would take serious training to be able to pass said test in an SEP as that is a beast they are not at all familiar with.
So to get down to the rub of my current thought process – The LAPL in itself holds no ‘validity’ to fly a microlight. This is given by article 150 in the ANO which basically states that for flying solely in the UK your LAPL is valid for microlight flying as long as you have had difference training (or you have converted from a licence that already allowed you to fly microlights and you have as result no need for said differences training). However it then does not say anything about ANY recency/validity requirements to continue to fly microlights (the allowance to fly microlights on a UK PPL with SEP also has no recency/validity requirements for the microlight privilege). What I mean by this is that if someone who normally used their LAPL for SEP type flying had a ‘fling’ with microlights and got ‘validated’ but then didn’t touch one for a number of years, there would be nothing to stop them jumping in one again and flying it. I’m not talking about whether that is wise or not (and I’m a firm believer that the answer to that is very different depending on the individual – one size does not fit all) but I’m talking about the LEGALITY of it.
So we already know that the LAPL is a slightly different beast than the PPL’s we are used to. There is no rating and the licence itself does not expire. We have established that all those lovely microlight hours that said holder keeps logging don’t count for toffee for the regency requirements to exercise the privileges of commanding an SEP. But the licence itself has not ‘expired’ nor become void and as stated above there is no recency requirement to use the ANO allowance to validate the licence for microlight flying. So… surely that means that you can continue to fly microlight aircraft on a LAPL whilst being in a position where you don’t meet the recency requirements to exercise the EASA laid down privilege of flying SEP aircraft?
To come at this from another angle, imagine an EASA (or UK for that matter) PPL with both SEP and MEP ratings. If the MEP expires but the SEP is still valid you are of course still allowed to fly SEP. Just because one rating on the licence isn’t current, that doesn’t mean the rest are not. Now on a UK PPL, the microlight privilege is part of the SEP, which can expire but there is NO rating to expire on a LAPL. Even 20 years out of recency the licence is still valid - you just cannot exercise the laid down privilege until you are, in effect ‘current’ again.
If we viewed the EASA privilege of the LAPL and the UK ‘validity’ for microlight flying as two separate beasts then surely we can approach this the same way as the SEP/MEP scenario above?
Let’s not forget that we are told that they are different hence why the microlight time doesn’t count towards the SEP validity so the same has to go the other way surely? The restriction of SEP privileges does not restrict the microlight privileges for which there are no recency requirements?
If EASA really are not going to change things to allow microlight hours to count towards the SEP recency (there are logical arguments on both sides of this) then maybe the CAA could amend the ANO (or a temp exemption such as they used when first bringing in SSDR) to clarify this and it would then be logical to state that the UK CAA ‘validity’ to fly a microlight should use the same recency requirements as EASA state for the SEP privileges so to continue to fly a microlight you would need 12hrs PIC in the preceding 12 months .. etc etc but on microlight aircraft if the holder only wanted to use the LAPL to fly microlights… Nah – that’s all too logical!