LAPL Revalidation

[justmaybe]

Had presented to me today a LAPL in which a CRI had signed the Aircraft Rating page to 'revalidate' the SEP for 24 months. No other ratings held on licence. Am I missing something here? My understanding is that if the requisite hours/trg flt have been completed then there is no requirement to sign licence??

[Mach Jump]

You are right. Under normal circumstances there should not be any signatures in a LAPL.

I'm afraid we are going to see a lot more of this kind of cockup in the near future. :*


MJ:ok:

[Broadlands]

Yep, I admit I have already made that cockup on someone's LAPL. I also sent a 1119e to the CAA but heard nothing back.

Won't do it again though.

[Whopity]

A LAPL does not have an aircraft rating in it! It is a LAPL "aeroplane" which could include a TMG endorsement. Hardly surprising when the CAA authorise people to do things with no guidance or training!

Last week I saw a licence with no CAA stamp or signature in it.

[Level Attitude]

The LAPL will be in exactly the same format as other EASA Licences. There will be, therefore, the 'Certificate of Revalidation' sections.

Since these sections exist, human nature would assume they are there to be used.

Unfortunately they cannot be removed (or pre-filled with "N/A LAPL") since an LAPL Holder can have one rating that does expire if not Revalidated/Renewed ie The Mountain Rating.

Badly thought out system IMO.

[Mach Jump]

Badly thought out system IMO.

You pre-suppose that it was thought out at all!.:yuk:


MJ:ok:

[Broadlands]

Just to add I should know better and made the mistake at the end of a long day after doing 2 other PPL revals. I agree with Level Attitude that the format triggered me off down the wrong path thinking it was a ppl.
Not an excuse, but I sure wish the form was different for a LAPL.

[Whopity]

Since these sections exist, human nature would assume they are there to be used.But, an "Examiner" should first check to see if the rating is in Section XII before signing anything! In fact the Examiner should check everything in a licence as there have been so many errors and omissions.

Appendix I to ANNEX VI PART-ARA Flight crew licence states:

The competent authority shall include additional customized pages containing tables which shall contain at least the following information:
—
Ratings, certificates, endorsements and privileges;
—
Expiry dates of the ratings,
To sumarise, when additional forms are required, the INcompetent authority fails to produce appropriate ones, but when no additional forms are necessary, it generates a plethora of them. At the end of the day its financially driven; one IT solution for all licences.

[Level Attitude]

But, an "Examiner" should first check to see if the rating is in Section XII before signing anything! In fact the Examiner should check everything in a licence as there have been so many errors and omissions.I totally agree that Examiners should try and check everything they can whenever they are presented with a Licence.

However, I am not sure your point about checking Section XII is valid:

I do not have an actual LAPL to hand to check but from the example given in CAP804 Section 1 Part C, Appendix 2 Page 9 it clearly shows, in Section XII that the LAPL contains both an SEP(Land) and a TMG Rating????

[BillieBob]

The Authority has been informed of that particular error on a number of occasions but appears to be entirely unable (or unwilling) to correct it.

[Mach Jump]

The problem with the LAPL is that it was introduced with a number of cockups that we had already corrected with the NPPL, and a botched up version of a Revaidation/Renewal system that we had already found to be practically unworkable. :*


MJ:ok:

Ps. For once I don't blame the CAA for this. I believe it was the Germans who insisted on it.

MJ

[Broadlands]

I seem to be constantly picking up faults in the licences coming through.
Recently I checked a licence from a PPL and was surprised to see it was a CPL which the (now qualified) pilot was unaware of.

Interesting phone call to Gatwick followed!

[BEagle]

MJ, there are moves afoot (at last..) to bin the unworkable 'rolling validity' system. As we did with the NPPL.

Ze Tchermans insisted that it had always worked well for their gliderists; however, an amiable Mark Benton look-alike from the German CAA told us at a recent meeting that, in fact, German glider pilots were just as bad at ensuring their validity as everyone else. Which surprised me somewhat.

[Mach Jump]

That's good to hear, BEagle.

Please tell me that they are going to make it identical to the EASA PPL!

If they invent yet another different set of Revalidation/Renewal requirements, I don't think I'll be able to maintain the will to live. :{


MJ:ok: