we decided we needed an EU licence comparable to the the UK NPPL and UK glider 'licence', for those who might not be able to meet the 'higher' medical.
Strangely enough all one needs to meet different medical standards is a two tier medical system. It really is as simple as that. We actually have them in the UK. You don't need another licence to achieve it
The politicians saw the sense in having licences appropriate to the activity and not just (as the JAA saw it) a stepping stone to a commerical licence.
So did ICAO and the ICAO PPL is exactly that, a leisure licence Why do we want dozens of them? There is no safety justification and certainly no common sense in it. Sorry, you said politicians that explains it! Incidentally, it was AOPA who suggested the PPL was the first module in a modular commercial licence, I wonder why?
here was an opportunity for a sensible entry level licence.
There are plenty of statistics to show that it takes on average 55 hours to train a pilot to a safe standard so that they can carry passengers. The 40 hour ICAO minima provides a perfectly adequate entry level and safety margin. I don't see a lower test standard with this entry level licence; how can you be less safe than safe? The helicopter LAPL actually exceeds the ICAO minima, but is a sub ICAO licencse. Where is the common sense in that?
EASA-FCL contains some of the worst safety regulatuon I have ever seen. It is classic European beaurocracy, putting totally unnecessary detail into legislation which will then be almost impossible to change.
Peter272
It would seem I may not be able to retain the rights to this
You are able to maintain the rights, but it does mean getting a new piece of paper which unfortunately you will have to pay for. I recall the day when the CAA required all instructors to have a BCPL to get around a law change, so they gave them a new licence FREE of CHARGE. How times have changed!
Finally If I have to make a choice its A!