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]