Flight Training query with regards to kits & the new EASA LAPL

[Greg2041]

If a large group of students build a kit aircraft on the 'approved' LAA list, is it possible for all of the students to learn to fly the completed kit aircraft in pursuit of the soon to be EASA LAPL?

If the answer is yes, how can one then convert the LAPL to a 'full' PPL?

Many thanks in advance...

Greg

[Whopity]

All training for a LAPL shall be conducted at an Approved Training OrganisationFCL.115 LAPL — Training course
Applicants for an LAPL shall complete a training course within an approved training organisation. The course shall include theoretical knowledge and flight instruction appropriate to the privileges given.As I understand it all aircraft used for Approved Training will require an EASA C of A which rules out kit builds.

Re Converting LAPL to a PPL

FCL.210.A PPL(A) - Experience requirements and crediting

(b) Specific requirements for applicants holding an LAPL(A). Applicants for a PPL(A) holding an LAPL(A) shall have completed at least 15 hours of flight time on aeroplanes after the issue of the LAPL(A), of which at least 10 shall be dual flight instruction completed in a training course at an approved training organisation. This training course shall include at least 4 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 2 hours of solo cross-country flight time with at least 1 cross-country flight of at least 270 km (150 NM), during which full stop landings at 2 aerodromes different from the aerodrome of departure shall be made.

[BillieBob]

A kit built aircraft will fall under Annex II to the Basic Regulation and, therefore, will be regulated by the relevant NAA. Nothing in the EASA Implementing Rules relates to Annex II aircraft.

[robin]

... and, under Permit rules, unless the builders are owners of the aircraft it is probably not legal to be taught ab-initio in any case.

[Greg2041]

Thanks you for your answers. Does anyone know why this is the case? It seems slightly bizarre that you can't obtain a PPL qualification on a home-build, assuming it meets all the safety spec.

[Whopity]

assuming it meets all the safety spec.Because it does not satisfy the requirement for a Certificate of Airworthiness; it is permitted to a lower standard.

[Jodelman]

it is permitted to a lower standard

Who says so?

[ak7274]

I reckon you can train from ab initio on your own permit A/C, but can't do the flight test without a dispensation from the CAA......Just a guess mind.

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_Circ_2009_W_071_en.pdf (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_Circ_2009_W_071_en.pdf)

Alan

[robin]

Quote:
it is permitted to a lower standard

Who says so?

Have a word with the CAA Airworthiness dept - they say exactly that.

[Crash one]

Quote:
it is permitted to a lower standard

Who says so?

It may not "be" but it is allowed to "be" permitted to a lower standard, chances are it will be better by far than a CofA job, but that's not the way beaurocracy works.

[robin]

Quite

I had a very interesting discussion with the CAA over the costs of Part M over the costs of Permit aircraft maintenance.

They took exactly that line - "surely you'd be happier maintaining it it to CofA standard"

When I described the way that owners of aircraft recently moved to Permit had uncovered years of poor maintenance done by approved engineers and only discovered by LAA inspectors, they were gob-smacked.

But they still don't fully accept that Permit aircraft are safe......:ugh:

[IO540]

owners of aircraft recently moved to Permit had uncovered years of poor maintenance done by approved engineers and only discovered by LAA inspectors

That's not really a relevant comparison though because any owner with some engineering mentality can make sure a CofA plane is maintained properly - whether he can do the work himself or not.

All this means is that there is a strong correlation between engineering/DIY-savvy people and homebuilders - hardly suprising!! All those who cannot / do not want to pick up a screwdriver but who still who want to own a plane go and buy a CofA one and hand it over to a company for every service, with a signed blank cheque left on the seat.... and then they wonder they often get a crap job done. The maintenance business is a Russian roulette and always will be.

Against that I see a high proportion of homebuilt accidents involving structural failure which is extremely rare on the CofA scene. One needs only to walk around any homebuilt show to see how flimsy a lot of them are. To get the weight down, something has to give somewhere...

[Genghis the Engineer]

Against that I see a high proportion of homebuilt accidents involving structural failure which is extremely rare on the CofA scene. One needs only to walk around any homebuilt show to see how flimsy a lot of them are. To get the weight down, something has to give somewhere...

Actually not really true - all aeroplanes are necessarily fairly flimsy, but the structural standards for CofA and PtF aeroplanes in the UK are identical (they aren't incidentally in Germany or France.) However, where there are significant differences is in burdens of proof, oversight of manufacture, minimum flying qualities standards and requirements for operating documentation.

There are a reasonable number of PtF aeroplanes - the Zenair CH601 for example, with handling qualities that would not make it too hard to pull the wings off because of the very low stick forces. Whilst there are a few, there are only very few CofA aeroplanes with those sort of handling characteristics.

However, yes, there are plenty of PtF aeroplanes that would be fine to learn to fly in - and you can so long as either you're the sole owner, it is a type-approved microlight or gyroplane, or the instructor does it for free. The rules are however unfortunately set for the minimum standard permitted of a PtF aircraft, rather than necessarily the highest or even average standard, and we aren't going to change them very easily.

G

[Greg2041]

Thanks everyone. Over the weekend, I heard several horror stories relating to C of A repairs. I had no idea there were 'rogue' outfits out there. Doesn't the CAA ever check-up?

[robin]

Good question

The issue is that the law states that the owner is responsible for ensuring that the maintenance is done correctly, even though they may not be able to check the quality of the work.

Personally I was stitched up by an organisation that charged me for work they failed to do correctly. They tried to invoice for the hours theyspent learning to do a simple task they said they knew how to do. I was invoiced for 37 man hours for a job that would take 10 hours max and then did it wrong.

I paid for it to be rectified later at the annual. Yet the organisation has all the approvals!!

[IO540]

Tell me something new :)

There are a (very) few owners out there who are lucky to have a trustworthy maintenance shop. The remainder either get proactive and keep an eye on things, or the get variously crap work done.

The "organisation" will always have the approvals. Same with that other massive scam - ISO9000 :)

The CAA rarely prosecutes businesses which pay it license fees. Not suggesting there is any connection, of course ;) But if the CAA got on top of the game they would end up shutting down at least 50% of the GA maintenance business, which they obviously cannot do.

And, to be fair, maintenance companies have to put up with owners so tight you could not get a 6mm reamer up their back end. This doesn't exactly encourage good business ethics.

[Greg2041]

As I understand it all aircraft used for Approved Training will require an EASA C of A which rules out kit builds.

Can you clarify whether this is also the case for the NPPL?

Many thanks

Greg

[BillieBob]

Can you clarify whether this is also the case for the NPPL?Well, assuming that you mean the LAPL (the NPPL will not exist under EASA) then yes, it is. No Annex II aircraft may be used for approved flight training.

[Greg2041]

Right that's clear. I didn't realise that the LAPL was going to replace the NPPL.

Thank you

Greg

[David Roberts]

To be clear (?), the European LAPL will replace the UK NPPL for flying aircraft within the scope of EASA airworthiness rules. You will not be able to fly an EASA aircraft with an NPPL.
To continue to fly an Annex II aircraft (out of the scope of EASA rules) in the UK post-implementation of the EU LAPL we presume the UK NPPL will still survive and be the licence to have. If one has a conversion from NPPL to LAPL then one presumes one will be able to fly an Annex II aircraft with the LAPL.
Confused?

Just guessing.
DGR / Secretary, NPLG Ltd

[robin]

.... and the UK lifetime PPL(A)?

[Whopity]

If you can't fly Annex II on an EASA licence then maybe the lifetime UK licence will survive! Perhaps we should bring back Group A and of course Group D for microlights so they don't get confused with the Eurocrap!

[BillieBob]

You will not be able to fly an EASA aircraft with an NPPL.That is true but does not necessarily lead to an assumption that the NPPL will survive. There is no reason why individual states could not allow Annex II aircraft to be flown on a relevant EASA licence. As to the lifetime PPL, Whopity's idea aside, on the adoption of the EASA implementing rules, the UK lifetime PPL will become worthless. EASA will recognise only those existing licences that were issued in accordance with JAR-FCL. You will need to obtain a JAA PPL prior to 2012.

[peter272]

In theory the CAA could easily consider the UK PPL to be equivalent to the JAR-PPL and make a simple transfer. I'd guess most other countries would take that line as they've done in other areas of regulation.

But what are the odds that the CAA would actually do that?

[Whopity]

the CAA could easily consider the UK PPL to be equivalent to the JAR-PPL and make a simple transfer.They do, it currently costs £176, just fill in the form (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1104FF.pdf) In return they will send you a new licence that only differs from you existing licence on the front page where it says Joint Aviation Authorities. Thats £58.69 a word.

[hoodie]

Thats £58.69 a word.

Oh, it's more than that; unlike the UK PPL you'll have to put your hand in your (already taxed) pocket AGAIN five years later. :mad:

[BEagle]

The best solution would be for the LAPL and any other unacceptable attempts by the €urocrats to meddle in sub-ICAO matters to wither and die. There's a reasonable chance that this might still happen, thanks to the €uropean medical bodies.....

If political pressure could be brought to bear to remove sub-ICAO pilot licensing from EASA part-FCL, the NPPL could continue without let or hindrance and be free from Colognic irritations.

The NPPL is (now) a simpler and better understood pilot licence than the chaotic nonsense of the proposed LAPL which isn't a lifetime licence, has no microlight/SLMG allowances, has a rolling validity within a fixed licence period....it really is UTTER nonsense and is a typical 'one size fits no-one' piece of €urotrash.

But it's a big IF...:hmm:

[Deeday]

If political pressure could [...] remove sub-ICAO pilot licensing from EASA part-FCL, the NPPL could continue without let or hindranceOn the other hand, the NPPL would still remain (almost) worthless outside the UK, which isn't ideal either.

[Greg2041]

Nice and simple then. It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many pilots who are unhappy with the CAA / EASA and yet nothing seems to change.

So are there any lobbying bodies trying to tidy up the mess?

[Greg2041]

Another quickee. I was reading an article in this month’s Pilot magazine about a group who built a Handley Page 0/400 replica.

It mentions that,

“34 had G-registrations and one obtained the first ever Certificate of Airworthiness.”

Can I take it from this that in theory and in practice a kit aircraft can get a C of A?

[Brooklands]

Can I take it from this that in theory and in practice a kit aircraft can get a C of A?
Well if you're prepare to take it though the full certification process then I suppose it would be possible, but it wouild also be eye-wateringly expensive, and may well require significant modifications to fully meet the airworthiness standards.

I think in practice its a non-starter. I suspect the Pilot article was referring to something else

Brooklands

[BillieBob]

Can I take it from this that in theory and in practice a kit aircraft can get a C of A?No, not an EASA C of A at any rate. Certification has already been moved to EASA and they will not issue a certificate to any Annex II aircraft.

[Greg2041]

Thanks for the info.

Greg

[Miroku]

It appears from a note on the LAA site that we have until next Monday to put submissions to EASA regarding the medical requirements for the proposed Light Aircraft Pilots Licence.

If the new proposals are accepted it seems that the NPPL will be abolished as new requirements for the LAPL will require a class 2 medical.

[flybymike]

Most important that EASA LAPL medical plans are scuppered. If you can figure out the (deliberately?) impenetrable comment response tool (designed by a tool) on the EASA website I urge everyone to make clear to them the importance of retaining the existing GP medical declaration arrangements which have worked very well, very safely, and which above all keep people flying.
Apparently the website software will recognise Copy and paste comments and disregard them, so if possible some original wording and thought would be preferable.

[Greg2041]

Certification has already been moved to EASA and they will not issue a certificate to any Annex II aircraft.


So would that apply to a PA18? I know that they are now all deemed Annex II aircraft but I thought some were on a C of A?

Where would a Vans RV-10 sit? Could that, in theory, obtain a C of A?