NPPL or LAPL?

[BEagle]

As many will know, the NPPL has been running for about 8 years now. Designed primarily for day VFR flying in UK airspace in simple light aircraft - such as 'SSEA' light pistions, SLMGs and Microlights and requiring nothing more medically demanding than a Medical Declaration. It is also a 'lifetime licence'.

Whereas the proposed EASA 'LAPL' would require a substantially more demanding medical, probably debarring many Class 1 Medical Declaration holders from flying aircraft such as Cessna 152s or PA28s. However, it would be usable internationally across all EC Member States. It would need to be re-issued every 5 years.

A simple question. Which of the following would you sooner have:

A. A lifetime licence usable only in the UK, but with a simple Medical Declaration.
or
B. A 5-year licence without Microlight or SLMG privileges, usable intra-EC but with more demanding medical requirements.

Please restrict your comments to these options only!

Thanks.

[pulse1]

I hold a CAA PPL (lifetime) but have let the medical lapse. Purely for convenience and low cost I changed to an NPPL SEA with Medical Declaration a few years ago. At my age, I am happy to be restricted to the UK only.

For me, at 70, OPTION A is the only one. It is likely that the more demanding medical requirements of the proposed LAPL will mark the end of my flying, not because I think I would fail it at the moment, but the cost and emb*ggeration of an expensive medical might be the final straw.

I really want to fly until my pocket, body, brain or passengers/instructors tell me it's time to stop. OPTION A allows me to do that. One day, my Medical Declaration may restrict me to driving a car but will still allow me to fly solo or with another member of my group. I may well want to do that for as long as I can.

[Lister Noble]

As I have stated before,I require a lifetime licence usable only in the UK, but with a simple Medical Declaration.

I am not interested in flying abroad,or in emptying my bank balance for medical fees,which in my case would be around £700+ per year as I have a Pacemaker fitted.

My GP has full medical knowledge of me and has had no hesitation in signing my HGV type self declaration,and in fact does not even charge me for this.

I would be happy to do whatever I can within reason to help this proposal go forward to ratification (is that the correct term?)
Thanks once again Beagle for keeping us informed.
Lister:)

[Echo Romeo]

I have no real need for a class 2 med either, I can do all the flying I want on the NPPl and med dec, so option A for me, and long may it live :ok:

[Nomendum]

Option A, without doubt.

- nomendum

[davydine]

At the moment I can't get a class 2 medical because my glasses prescription does not meet the initial requirements so if I wanted to get a licence it would have to be NPPL.

I live in the south east, so day trips to France are within range and it would be nice to do them, but for me, the big restriction would be the IMC or Night ratings. As the NPPL is VFR only you would need a very good forecast to do much more than a day trip be it in the UK or accross to mainland Europe. so to answer A or B as per BEagles question I would have to ask two questions.

1) would I get through the LAPL medical
2) could I get an Instrument or Night rating that would allow me to fly in a bigger range of conditions.

If the answer to 2, above is no then definately NPPL

Please bear in mind that this is the view of someone who has done some gliding and is considering training for a pilots licence when i can afford it and when EASA work out what sort of licence will be available to me in the future...

[BEagle]

Instrument - no.

Night - perhaps, but it would depend upon your being able to pass the mandatory eyesight test which is proposed to be an element of the LAPL medical certificate.

It isn't particularly difficult to fly across the UK under VFR - hundreds do it every weekend.

[Lister Noble]

I've had a glance through the new proposals,and there are a lot more medical restrictions for the EASA, NPPL equivalent.
Being signed of by one's GP will be more intensive than HGV or Car type self assesment medical requirements,and may involve costly tests.
Anyway I'll just enjoy the next couple of years and see what transpires.
Lister

[davydine]

Hi Beagle, thanks for the update.

I know it's not dificult to fly accross the UK VFR, the interest in the instrument rating more from the point of view of how i imagine I would fly, given the chance.

The two main factors against learning to fly for me are time and money. Whilst I would love to fly I need to square that with time spent with my wife and kids and the thousands of pounds learning to fly would buy a lot of family holidays!

If I could use my licence for, say, weekend trips away then flying has the potential to be a family activity rather than a selfish one. I think that it is probably harder to be sure of VMC for a full weekend, especially as you venture further from home. Of course, my family might not want to fly with me!

Still, since an instrument rating will not be possible then my answer is definately NPPL!

[J.A.F.O.]

A

And if it all changes in two years time then I'll have a headset for sale.

[Fake Sealion]

A gets my vote

[Miroku]

A definitely, as there is no way I could get the medical for B.

[lurker06]

Another vote for Option A

Lurker06

[neilb2nd]

Beagle. Your options are a little simplistic until we know the full details and ramifications of the NPPL / LAPL - or are you saying that it's only ever the medicals that are likely to be different?

Don't forget that the NPPL (Microlights) is already a licence that can be used to fly across Europe, and it's important that this is not changed. Whilst the NPPL for SSEA and SLMG is a 'choice' in that pilots can choose whether to fly on this or a JAR licence - for microlights it's the only one available. Microlight pilots with an NPPL have already been shafted (deliberate choice of words) with an entirely unnecessary revalidation regime that was not supported by the panel of microlight examiners and was opposed in a sham consultation - to no avail.

[Echo Romeo]

A


And if it all changes in two years time then I'll have a headset for sale.



And I'll have a Beagle Terrier for sale. :sad:

[Echo Romeo]

Whoops, text wasn't intended to be that large, dont know what happened there!

[Lister Noble]

Neil,the JAR PPL medical is not a choice if you can't pass Class2,but can still get a NPPL.
Lister

[851Pilot]

Has to be option A!

As a newly qualled NPPL who's waited a lifetime to get here (well - 40 years) and who can't get a JAR medical due to one weak eye I'd be heartbroken if my flying were stopped.

If the licence becomes the LAPL and Europe wide - under tighter medical regs - will those of us currently licenced not be allowed to fly any more - or will we get some sort of 'grandfather' rights?

It's like the recent news that NPPLs were to be allowed to fly in France - but only if you have a JAR medical. That's about as useful as a chocolate fireguard to most NPPLs...

Of course - my ideal is to be able to fly in Europe on a licence that has the same medical requirements as the UK NPPL - which is what I thought was happening.

Are there any stats regarding NPPL safety verses PPL safety?

Sigh...

I had such great hopes for a European Sport Pilot Licence...

Iain

[Lister Noble]

Many years ago I was all for Europe,free trade,less barriers,etc.
But I known what was going to happen I would have been vehemently against joining.
How come we have give away our sovereign rights without actually realising it?

[David Roberts]

"Are there any stats regarding NPPL safety verses PPL safety?"

Yes. Can't quote them from memory but I believe only one medical incapacitation with fatal consequences in 8 years since NPPL started.

I have prepared the ones for UK gliding which has operated on the self-declaration basis since 1960s and from 2002 to the NPPL standard including GP endorsement. Guess what - 6 fatal accidents due to medical incapacitation in 36 years of computerised accident records with proper causal analyses (not just 'phase of flight' type analysis). In that time 14.4m flights and probably around 5 million hours. Hence FAR considerably less than the 1% risk accepted by JAA, and no uninvolved third parties affected. One involved third party (student) died in that time as a result of possible instructor incapacitation.
Work out the rate for yourselves!
Oh, and sadly three fatal accidents to tug pilots (also glider pilots) whilst towing, due to medical incapacitation. But they held JAR Class 2 medicals.

[J.A.F.O.]

JAFO wrote:
And if it all changes in two years time then I'll have a headset for sale.

Echo Romeo wrote:
And I'll have a Beagle Terrier for sale.

Swap you, oh, what the heck, you can have both pairs.

[Echo Romeo]

J.A.F.O. :D

[J.A.F.O.]

That's a no, isn't it?

[Echo Romeo]

yup, sorry.

[ninja-lewis]

Another vote for A.

My hearing does not meet the Class 2 standard or the proposed LAPL standard but easily passes the Group 2 HGV standard for the NPPL I'm training towards.

[pigs are us]

Vote for A.

[Lister Noble]

Latest LOOP sems to think it's a done deal,how do they know more than us?:confused:

[Ian.Ellis]

Option A. Can't afford anything more.

[Whopity]

One cannot help but wonder who the "Stakeholder" was that persuaded EASA that there was a need for the LAPL/LPL in the first place.

[David Roberts]

"One cannot help but wonder who the "Stakeholder" was that persuaded EASA that there was a need for the LAPL/LPL in the first place."

Me for one. Let me explain why.

The scope of EASA rulemaking embraces licences for gliders and balloons, as well as aeroplanes and helicopters. JAA did not cover gliding and ballooning licences. Therefore EASA would need to design licences for these as well as transfer aeroplane and helicopter licences to EU legally enforceable rules drafted by EASA. Further JAR PPL (A) medical Class 2 was seen by many as unnecessarily 'high'. Remember the debate over 10 years go and hence the development of the UK NPPL with more attainable medical standards so that pilots who could not get the Class 2 could still fly?

The UK gliding movement has used medical standards akin to the UK NPPL (DVLA standards) for a long time and a lot of pilots are still flying as a result (see my earlier post re accident stats due to medical incapacitation - it's not a problem). So when faced with the prospect of an unknown EU licence for glider pilots - and balloon pilots - which might start life as similar to the parallel JAR PPL(A) with the associated medical - 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. The proportionality argument.

The UK was not the only country that saw the risk in the regulatory developments and therefore a need for an EU licence comparable to their own NPPLs. And also those countries without an NPPL equivalent - here was an opportunity for a sensible entry level licence.

The Commission and EU Parliament accepted the reasoning in our representations, EASA supported it, and hence the Basic Regulation 216/2008 included the (then) 'LPL' concept - now renamed LAPL after considerable lobbying from many of us for the name change.

Now if you want to ignore the LAPL and just have an ICAO compliant PPL(A), PPL(H), PPL(B) or SPL then fine. But if at any stage of your aviation career you cannot meet the medical standards for these, what will you do? Give up? Equally, for those wanting to take up private flying and they can't meet the more stringent medical standards, why should they not have a LAPL?

Not everyone with a fan on the front wants four bars on his epaulette as he progresses to an airline job. 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.

Now of course not all the draft rules for the LAPL are perfect. Nor are certain 'interested parties' willing to contemplate GPs doing the medical assessment. But the Parliament passed 216 with a clause to the effect that GPs can do this where national rules permit. So countries without a parallel GP system to the UK (access to patient's medical records etc) are not obliged to adopt this route. But those countries that do want to, can. The corruption of the original intent, by adding extra qualifications for GPs in the latest draft, has to be seen off.

The LAPL syllabus etc is all quite sensible and acceptable, by and large. It was never going to be a word for word transcript of a UK system, because there are 26 other countries involved to greater or lesser degrees. But speaking primarily as a glider pilot I am reasonably content with it overall, apart from the tweaks needed for the medical process and the need for clear mitigating measures. But maybe that's because, with my colleagues in the European Gliding Union, we drafted the rules which by and large are adopted in FCL. Who was it who said 'Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions'? Eisenhower I think. I did not see any equivalent effort from the power flying fraternity adopting this approach.

[peter272]

Now if you want to ignore the LAPL and just have an ICAO compliant PPL(A), PPL(H), PPL(B) or SPL then fine.

I am one of many with the ICAO compliant PPL(A).

It would seem I may not be able to retain the rights to this and must either convert to the JAR-PPL or go for the LAPL. Advice seems to be that the downsides of converting to the JAR licence makes it not a good idea, much as the CAA would love us to do it and remove a problem.

I think one of the questions I'd like to ask is who decided that the national PPL with thousands of current holders is going to be ignored under these proposals. In most other countries I guess there would be an automatic grand-fathering, but the CAA is notable for its silence on the subject. Perhaps it needs us to have to pay for the conversion and the 5-yearly update.

[Whopity]

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 thisYou 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!

[robin]

[QUOTE][/Peter272
Quote:
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. QUOTE]

If I read this aright, the UK PPL will still exist, its just that it won't be renewable by instructors/examiners.

Scope here I think for a judicial challenge given the number of pilots likely to be affected

[airpolice]

A


I live, and mostly fly, in Scotland. That's the big country at the top of the M6.


If I had wanted to be able to fly to France or Spain, I would have gone for a PPL but the NPPL is all I need. I only bob about Scotland vfr, and that's all I wanted to do. The current NPPL is just fine for me and lots of pilots in the same position.

If I was going to fly in mainland europe, I would get a PPL and expect to pay the additional medical costs, although it seems madness that I can fly (with my history of heart malfunctions) in the UK and a similarly afflicted German can fly over Germany but we can't fly in each others national airspace.

Are they saying that safety is different over there or that our doctors are different to theirs?

Anyway, for what little it is worth, I vote to leave things alone.

[Whopity]

If I read this aright, the UK PPL will still exist, its just that it won't be renewable by instructors/examiners.The UK PPL will only exist for Annex II aircraft. These are aircraft that are not under EASA control, old aircraft and UK permit aircraft that do not have any EASA documentation and of course Microlights.

If you want to fly EASA certified aircraft you will need to SWAP your National PPL for a JAA PPL. The JAA PPL will be accepted as an EASA Part FCL licence. Its a paperwork and money exercise if you do it early i.e. before April 2012. If you wait, there may be additional conversion requirtements.

UK Instructors/Examiners will be able to perform all the usual functions on either licence.

[Frelon]

Another vote for A.

I have a JAR PPL issued by the CAA but fly in France. Should say "have flown in France"! In the past the CAA have accepted (reluctantly) my French AME Class 2 medical certificate, but am now informed that these French Class 2 medical exams no longer meet the CAA requirements.

I am not able to get to the UK just yet and do not want to pay the extortionate English AME fees, so my licence has expired.

Now if I convert to NPPL I get my GP (who also happens to be a French AME) to countersign my self declaration, et voila.

With the recent changes it perhaps means that I can also fly in France on my NPPL as I have a French Class 2 medical certificate.

I wonder????

[Echo Romeo]

The corruption of the original intent, by adding extra qualifications for GPs in the latest draft, has to be seen off.

To right it does!!

[David Roberts]

The CAA will be publishing on its website in the next few days a document, the purpose of which is to provide an overview of the expected effects on pilot licensing in the UK of the impending EU legislation.

I have seen an advance copy and it is as clear as it can be given that the proposed FCL rules are still in the process of finalisation at the Commission.

[Lister Noble]

"Proposals for the Leisure Pilot Licence and associated Medical Certification (Part FCL, Subpart B and Part Medical Subpart C)
The UK CAA strongly supports the proposed LPL and associated medical provisions as proposed by the Agency and considers it is essential that they go forward substantially as drafted. CAA believes fully in the objectives of the proposed licence as it is provided for in Regulation 216/2008; it is critical to the continuous flying of any UK National Private Pilots Licence holder who currently safely flies an EASA type"

My bold type.

Sorry maybe I'm just thick ,but does this mean that the CAA are fighting for us to continue as we are,or supporting us but with the new upgraded medical?
If the later is the case, it's not doing us a lot of favours

Lister

[blagger]

I'm increasingly beginning to think we've been sold down the river by people with a hidden agenda to protect the gliding community. A cynic might even say that the EIR was designed to protect glider pilot cloud flying rights and get rid of IMCR pilots.

[robin]

I'm still baffled why, if I do nothing but keep it valid, my ICAO compliant PPL (the UK PPL) will be downgraded to an EASA LAPL with the associated limitations.

It is either ICAO compliant or not and we have had no notification or explanation as to why the CAA considers it a lesser qualification than the JAR-PPL.

I have been told by an instructor with ATPL and hosts of other ratings, that to move to the JAR licence would cost him megabucks to have the ratings added to it. Not sure exactly why, but if this is the case the CAA will need to have good reason to impose any additional costs.

[Miroku]

The UK CAA strongly supports the proposed LPL and associated medical provisions as proposed by the Agency and considers it is essential that they go forward

This is in direct contradiction of the comments of the CAA representative at the AOPA meeting at Duxford on the 18th September. We were told that the CAA were strongly of the opinion that the existing system whereby a GP could sign a medical should continue to stand.

[David Roberts]

Quote:
The UK CAA strongly supports the proposed LPL and associated medical provisions as proposed by the Agency and considers it is essential that they go forward

Quote:
This is in direct contradiction of the comments of the CAA representative at the AOPA meeting at Duxford on the 18th September. We were told that the CAA were strongly of the opinion that the existing system whereby a GP could sign a medical should continue to stand. [End quote]

I think the first quote was at the stage of the NPA or before (because it refers to the LPL, not LAPL which is the name change in the CRD). That was before certain gremlins got at the LAPL medical and the GP qualification during the post-NPA review stage, the results of which appeared in the CRD in June with the addition of extra GP qualifications etc. Since then there have been 'various conversations' and I know the CAA will be taking a line that very much supports our interests.

[David Roberts]

Quote: I'm increasingly beginning to think we've been sold down the river by people with a hidden agenda to protect the gliding community. A cynic might even say that the EIR was designed to protect glider pilot cloud flying rights and get rid of IMCR pilots. [End quote]

As anyone who knows me will I trust understand, that is complete rubbish. In my roles I represent all light aviation at UK and European level. But I do happen to think the gliding community has been perhaps more organised and focused in getting its messages across where it counts. Which of course is not on forums.

[Lister Noble]

David,I do believe what you are saying and look forward to seeing the final decisions in print.
I think you said that they would appear soon,but will this be in next few weeks?
Thanks for your support of us NNPL lot,amongst others.
Lister:)

[Miroku]

David,

Very many thanks for the clarification. I also tend to share your view that the gliding community have got their act together rather better than other sections of GA.

I wait with interest to see what AOPA, LAA etc can come up with.

Without wanting to start a completely different thread, it seems a great pity to me that the various 'interested parties' could not get togther and speak with one, bigger voice on issues which affect us all!

[BillieBob]

I'm still baffled why, if I do nothing but keep it valid, my ICAO compliant PPL (the UK PPL) will be downgraded to an EASA LAPL with the associated limitations.It won't be downgraded to an EASA LAPL. If you do nothing but keep it current it will remain a UK national PPL, which will not be valid for use in an aircraft with an EASA CofA. It might remain valid for use in UK-registered Annex II aircraft but AFAIK the UK CAA have made no statement to this effect.

To fly an EASA aircraft, you will, not unreasonably, need an EASA licence. This may be obtained by exchanging your UK national licence for the JAA equivalent (which is deemed to be an EASA licence) prior to the enabling Regulation coming into force or by meeting the requirements of Part FCL for the issue of an EASA licence thereafter.

[robin]

Quite

I fly own and fly a Robin - not surprisingly - and occasionally rent a C172 or PA 28

Under the new proposals I can't. Neither can those with an NPPL and limited medical.

So where is the fairness in this? What law has been passed that prevents us from maintaining our existing rights or protect those of us who have been flying within the legal requirements for MANY years from being wiped out?

Why should we have to pay to upgrade (upgrade??) and to maintain our licences?

[md 600 driver]

robin
why wont you be able to fly a 172 or a pa28 on a lpl or npp ?

[robin]

As an EASA aircraft they require will require the full medical for the LAPl which some of us can't get.

The NPPL will allow you to fly non-EASA aircraft - ie Annexe II OR Permit aircraft.

At the moment at my airfield there are around a dozen pilots who will not be able to use club aircraft in the brave new world, as they can't get (effectively) a sign-off by an AME. They fly under an NPPL with self-declaration but the LAPL does not allow that post-2012

[md 600 driver]

robin

i must have read this all wrong the but the way i read it

the proposal that easa aircraft can be flown with a reduced medical like for hgv drivers or nppl , but it will have to be carried out by a ame or trained gp this may cost more but still available

also the medical section is not yet finished so things can change if enough people sent in the crd


how do you read it ?

david roberts

can you please advise as to the latest as you do seem to be the one that knows

[robin]

MD600

the issue would seem to that NPPL drivers are currently flying off an HGV medical. The proposal would require a full medical examination rather than a straight sign-off by the GP and standards that apply today will not be accepted in our brave new world

[davydine]

Could anyone point me in the direction of the latest proposed medical requirements for the LAPL, particularly with regards to the eyesight requirements?

At the moment I know I can train for an NPPL but not a PPL as I can't get through the initial class 2 medical on the grounds of the strength of my prescription. (If I already held a PPL then i could renew the medical, it's just the initial medical that is a problem)

I am beginning to wonder if i should start training for my NPPL now, even though i can't afford it at the moment so that I get a licence which I can convert at a later date to whatever licence becomes the norm.

I really need to know what the initial requirements are. i don't want to find myself in a position where I can't pass the medical and find I have missed a window of opportunity!

[BEagle]

This is the current proposal for LAPL Medicals regarding eyesight:

7. VISUAL SYSTEM
7.1. The applicant’s visual acuity and visual fields are examined.
7.2. Acuity
The applicant’s visual acuity with or without corrective lenses should be 6/9 binocularly and 6/12 in each eye.
7.3. Amblyopia or Monocularity
An applicant with amblyopia or monocularity may be assessed as fit, subject to a satisfactory flight test, if the visual acuity in the unaffected eye is with or without correction 6/6 or better.
7.4. Visual field defects
Applicants shall have a normal binocular visual field or a normal monocular visual field.
7.5. Colour Vision
For the grant of a night rating applicants should have correctly identified 9 of the first 15 plates of the 24plate edition of Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates. A vision care specialist or a doctor may have conducted this test.

Full LAPL medical proposals can be viewed in http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_42

[BEagle]

The CAA's document 'EUROPEAN LEGISLATION - THE EXPECTED EFFECTS ON THE LICENSING OF PILOTS IN THE UK.' hasn't yet appeared on the CAA website - but the content shows just what an utterly absured Tower of Babel situation would result if this ridiculous €uro-nonsense ever sees the light of day.

There is no need for any change; this whole lunacy is being forced on pilots by a wholly unneccessary €uro-quango. There is no safety case to introduce such massive changes.

The only way to kill off this whole lunacy is by lobbying at the very highest political level to demand that this 'unreasonable legislation' is thrown out - which means lobbying you MEP at the very least.

Whoever thought that some 'European Sport Pilot Licence' would ever be simpler, cheaper or more convenient than the NPPL must also have believed in fairies!!

[neilb2nd]

BillieBob - you say "To fly an EASA aircraft, you will, not unreasonably, need an EASA licence. This may be obtained by exchanging your UK national licence for the JAA equivalent (which is deemed to be an EASA licence) prior to the enabling Regulation coming into force or by meeting the requirements of Part FCL for the issue of an EASA licence thereafter."

I currently fly a motorglider - which is an EASA aircraft - on an NPPL. Are you saying that I can (have to?) convert my NPPL to a JAR licence as a paperwork exercise?

[David Roberts]

CAA document I was referring to earlier in this thread

www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_l&ts_EuropeanLegislation_ExpectedEffectOnUKPilots_Sept2010.pdf

[BEagle]

Yes, that's the one I've been asked to comment upon. The link from the CAA website is Licensing and Training Standards Documents | EASA | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?gid=2061) ; this will be a useful page from which to keep an eye on more potential €urononsense....

Once upon a time, there was a Piper J3 Cub, a Piper Cherokee and a Supermarine Spitfire.

For many, many years, you could fly all of them on a UK PPL anywhere in the world. Every 13 months your logbook would be stamped if you'd done 5 hrs P1 and you'd be good for another 13 months.

Then the UK CAA decided it would be A Good Thing to change the rules before JAR-FCL came in, so that it wouldn't come as a complete shock. You could still fly your Cub, Cherokee and Spitfire on a PPL, but the logbook stamp became a 2-yearly licence page signature instead. And was called 'revalidation' or, if you’d run out of currency (which was now called ‘recency’), ‘renewal’.

When JAR-FCL arrived, if you wanted to you could change your lifetime UK PPL into a JAR-FCL PPL which needed to be re-issued every 5 years for which, of course, you would have to pay. The CAA said that this would make things cheaper for everyone in their Regulatory Impact Assessment. Few people were stupid enough to bother. But you couldn't obtain a lifetime UK PPL any longer....

Training for the JAR-FCL PPL was too expensive for many - and some pilots couldn't meet the medical requirements, so a new, simpler licence and medical was invented - the NPPL. Originally with 'simple SEP' privileges, later changed to SSEA because the CAA weren't man enough to stand their ground when challenged. You could, however, still fly your Cub and Cherokee, but not a Spitfire. But only in UK airspace.

Then the €urocrats sniffed real gold and invented EASA. This wholly unnecessary €uro-quango now intends to force everyone with a lifetime UK PPL to replace it with an EASA part-FCL PPL - which isn't lifetime - if they want to fly 'EASA aircraft' such as Cherokees, but not Cubs or Spitfires. Also a JAR-FCL PPL will need to become an EASA PPL. Unless, that is, you simply want to fly your Cub and Spitfire, because you will still be able to do that with a national licence such as a UK PPL or, for the Cub only, an NPPL. If you want to fly a Cherokee as well, you would need to change your NPPL into a LAPL (assuming the medical requirements are still achievable) - or your UK PPL / JAR-FCL PPL into an EASA part-FCL PPL.

So, as I understand it, when the lunacy of Brave New €uroland finally arrives:

• You'll be able to fly a Cub, but not a Cherokee, on an NPPL in UK airspace.
• You might be able to fly a Cub on a LAPL outside UK airspace; you could fly a Cherokee, but not a Spitfire.
• You'll be able to fly a Cub or a Spitfire on a UK PPL, but not a Cherokee. Certainly in UK airspace and perhaps elsewhere?
• You might be able to fly a Cub or Spitfire on an EASA PPL but probably only in UK airspace, but you would be able to fly a Cherokee inside or outside UK airspace.
• The NPPL and LAPL have different revalidation / renewal requirements and the LAPL might also have reissue requirements. None of which are the same as for the UK PPL or EASA PPL.
• The UK PPL doesn't need to be reissued whereas the EASA PPL does.
• My brain hurts.

How to fly a Spitfire outside UK airspace? You’ll probably just have to wait until €uroland starts wearing uniforms and adopting funny walks. Then, just as in 1940, you won’t need any licence at all!

Isn't the whole thing becoming more than a little ludicrous?

[BillieBob]

I currently fly a motorglider - which is an EASA aircraft - on an NPPL. Are you saying that I can (have to?) convert my NPPL to a JAR licence as a paperwork exercise?If it is an EASA aircraft then you will need an EASA licence to fly it.

[BEagle]

I currently fly a motorglider - which is an EASA aircraft - on an NPPL. Are you saying that I can (have to?) convert my NPPL to a JAR licence as a paperwork exercise?

If it's an SLMG, you'll be able to convert to a LAPL(S).
If it's a TMG, you'll be able to convert to a LAPL(A).
If it's an Annex II 'vintage' motorglider, you'll be able to fly it on a NPPL(SLMG).

Just one small example of the barking nonsense of the whole LAPL...:mad:

[J.A.F.O.]

The future's bright, the future's Lockhaven Yellow.

Think I'll keep the LAA Membership up to date, bit too fat for BMAA.

[kevkdg]

I notice BEAGLES quote:

If it's an SLMG, you'll be able to convert to a LAPL(S).
If it's a TMG, you'll be able to convert to a LAPL(A).
If it's an Annex II 'vintage' motorglider, you'll be able to fly it on a NPPL(SLMG).

I have an NPPL (SLMG), but this entitles one to fly either SLMG or TMG. So, does that mean I'd convert it to a LAPL(S) or a LAPL(A)?

Also, what do I need to do and when?

[BEagle]

No-one can yet be certain. I can't really advise you one way or another, I'm afraid.

[robin]

The answer is to wait

The CAA has already stated the timescale is unachievable (unless they get more staff). There will be a derogation to allow for a phased introduction or there will be a revolution where EASA nerds are put up against a wall and laughed at......:D:D

[pulse1]

Letter gone off to my MEP, Giles Chichester. Told him that, if EASA had been around at the time his old man would never have got off the ground.

[kevkdg]

what does the S in LAPL(S) stand for?

[BEagle]

Sailplanes









.

[robin]

Letter gone off to my MEP, Giles Chichester. Told him that, if EASA had been around at the time his old man would never have got off the ground.

I've done that in the past. He's not his father's son as I got a typical politico's response from him.

I will write again but we need to hit the UK government and the party machines as well. Despite the anti-EU rhetoric we aren't going to get any help except from that illegal flier - Nigel Farage

[BEagle]

Now if I convert to NPPL I get my GP (who also happens to be a French AME) to countersign my self declaration, et voila.

A Medical Declaration may only be signed by a UK GP with a Licence to Practise in the UK. Not even by an AME unless he/she happens to be your UK GP.


So far, the scores on PPRuNe and Flyer are running at:

Prefer NPPL: 31
Prefer LAPL: 1 (only because it includes a LAPL(H))

[VictorGolf]

Make that 32 for the NPPL. I do have a slight vested interest as I fly an Annex 2 type which should still come under the CAA remit along with the licence (I hope).

[kevkdg]

Hi,

Just resurecting this thread on the off chance that more info may now be available a year on. Can't find any official published info, but maybe those in the know, know something?

I have an NPPL(A) with SLMG only and fly a Slingsby T61F Venture.

i have found this from the BGA to assist in classifying the various types of Motor Gliders/Powered Sailplanes:

BGA Proposal
A powered sailplane is a glider equipped with an engine. There are three types
of powered sailplanes:
- Touring Motor gliders (TMG) which have an integrally mounted,
non-retractable engine and non-retractable propeller …
- Self launched gliders which have a retractable engine or a retractable
propeller and are capable of taking off and climbing under their own power.
When the engine is inoperative, they have the characteristics of a pure
sailplane.
- Self Sustained gliders which must be launched like a pure sailplane not
equipped with an engine, but which can climb slowly to extend a flight once
the engine or the propeller is deployed and started. When the engine is
inoperative, they have the characteristics of a pure sailplane.

I'm wondering if I will have grandfather rights to either an LAPL(A) with TMG rating or an LAPL(S) with TMG rating?

Or do i get to choose which one?

Regards

Kevin

[kevkdg]

I may have answered my own question. If the above BGA offered definitions are adopted by EASA, then according to:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/e-Sept2011_v3.pdf

It would be an lapl(A) with TMG.

BUT, I wonder, how can they tell from the licence NPPL(SLMG) whether you have been flying Powered Sailplanes or TMG's. This could only be shown via log book evidence as to what aircraft you did your skills test and have been flying!

[Poeli]

Sorry to bump into this thread, but I've been reading about the LAPL since 2008. Is there any date known that the LAPL/LPL will be launched? In 2008 I was reading about it, in 2010 and now still, but still nothing visible (like schools offering the licence).

[David Roberts]

The LAPL will come into effect 8th April 2012, but there is a maximum three year derogation allowed to member states to provide them with administrative easing of the transition. Some member states may well be issuing a LAPL from April 2012, but these will only conversions from equivalent national licences based on a conversion report from the NAA of the member state, whilst other NAAs will use the derogation time-delay to get their administrative processes set up. The UK CAA aims to issue LAPLs from July 2012.

Applicants for a new LAPL (i.e. training from zero post 8 April 2012) are unlikely to be doing this before the end of 2012 at the earliest as the required Approved Training Organisations will not have had their approvals until at least April 2012, followed by the training elapsed timescale.

Everyone wanting conversion from a national licence to a LAPL will need to complete the process by 8 April 2015 in order to continue to fly aircraft within the scope of EU airworthiness regulations after that date.

[kevkdg]

any ideas when the CAA will publish the conversion report?

[Miroku]

Or indicate the medical requirements?