LAPL or PPL

[tobster911]

This has probably been covered many times, but I have been absent from the forum for a year or so now.

What is the benefit of getting a PPL over an LAPL to start flying with? As far as I can tell, the LAPL requires 30 hours, and then if you want to go to PPL, you can use those 30 hours then just get another 15 when needed. Is this correct? I can add night qualification and IMC with the money saved over a PPL, as well as build a few hours.

Those who know of me know my long term goal is commercial license, which obviously can't be done on an LAPL, but at 19, that would be good enough for me.

What am I missing?

Thank you

T

EDIT: I've just realised I asked a very similar question last year, but the responses were quite vague and as it was a new license, nobody really KNEW what it was all about. I'm hoping for some extra clarity here :) Thank you

[Prop swinger]

You can't add an IMC/IR(R) to an LAPL.

[tobster911]

"You can attach a Night rating, and an IMC rating to this licence" - Light Aircraft Pilot's Licence, LAPL Flying Lessons | Multiflight (http://www.multiflight.com/flight-training/fixed-wing-courses/light-aircraft-private-pilots-licence-lapl/)

According to MF you can?

[BillieBob]

From UK CAA Information Notice 2015/009:

Important Note:
Applicants for and holders of the IMC Rating or IR(R) must maintain a PPL(A) or higher aeroplane licence. A LAPL(A) is not sufficient. Part-FCL does not permit any kind of IR (Modular, Competency-Based Modular or En-route) to be added to a LAPL(A). The LAPL(A) is designed to be a VFR-only licence and the training and skill test for the LAPL(A) reflect this.

[tobster911]

OK, I stand corrected :) Thank you. PPL it is for me then, methinks. The ONLY reason I'd go for the LAPL would be to be in the air quicker, but as you need 10 hours before you can take passengers, seems a little bit pointless now

[BackPacker]

There's also a difference in the required medical certificate. Depending on how healthy you are, that may or may not be relevant.

[tobster911]

Fortunately for me, I should have no problems passing the medicals

[xrayalpha]

Of course, you go for an NPPL (Microlight) in 25 hours, then convert to an NPPL (SSEA) at 32 hours, then over to a LAPL ... or whatever. You could do it all on a C42.

REMEMBER: fly the aircraft.

These are bits of paper, it takes the same time to learn to fly the same aircraft in a safe manner.

So how do you really save time and money by going for a licence you don't want?

If on a CPL path, an EASA SEP. Even then, you might want to choose your school and find one that fits that profile.

If just sport and recreation, probably the NPPL (Micro) or LAPL. In terms of sport, the BMAA has a healthy competitions scene and ranks well in world competitions. In terms of recreation, the LAPL gives you access to four-seaters and hiring on holidays in Europe.

All points to consider - and forget the minimum hours things. They are irrelevant - it is skills and safety that count.

[tobster911]

Very good point. My biggest reason for not yet knowing is I'm not sure whether it would be recreational or to lead onto something bigger.

I know that my dream is to go commercial, but that isn't going to happen until I win the lottery, or at least until I have my own house etc, maybe in 10 years time. So for now, it would just be recreational.

Do you know: If I started down the PPL route, and got to 30 hours (with all the minimum requirements), could I send of for my LAPL if I decided that the PPL was just not the right course of action at that time?

I would love to do some microlighting, but that route seems like lots of paperwork.

True about the minimum hours thing