Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

(UK rules) Microlights on a LAPL

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

(UK rules) Microlights on a LAPL

Reply

Old 12th Oct 2016, 21:11
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,407
(UK rules) Microlights on a LAPL

My understanding is that whilst when somebody had an NPPL they needed a skill test to be able to fly microlights unsupervised. However, once they've done the paper upgrade to LAPL, they only require differences training.

Does anybody know otherwise?

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Oct 2016, 21:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: edinburgh
Age: 65
Posts: 9
I think that's correct but the problem is that you have to remain current with your rolling LAPL hours so that you can exercise the LAPL priviledges on microlights. As you know microlight hours don't currently count towards LAPL currency. I downgraded to LAPL from PPL and now fly only microlights so eventually will have to do a GST to add a microlight rating to my NPPL. I wish this anomaly was sorted.
raven22 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Oct 2016, 22:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,599
The LAPL priviliges state:
FCL.135.A LAPL(A) — Extension of privileges to another class or variant of aeroplane
(a) The privileges of an LAPL(A) shall be limited to the class and variant of aeroplanes or TMG in which the skill test was taken. This limitation may be removed when the pilot has completed in another class the requirements below:
(1) 3 hours of flight instruction, including:
(i) 10 dual take-offs and landings; and
(ii) 10 supervised solo take-offs and landings.
(2) a skill test to demonstrate an adequate level of practical skill in the new class. During this skill test, the applicant shall also demonstrate to the examiner an adequate level of theoretical knowledge for the other class in the following subjects:
(i) Operational procedures;
(ii) Flight performance and planning;
(iii) Aircraft general knowledge.
(b) Before the holder of an LAPL can exercise the privileges of the licence on another variant of aeroplane than the one used for the skill test, the pilot shall undertake differences or familiarisation training. The differences training shall be entered in the pilot’s logbook or equivalent document and signed by the instructor.
I can find no reference in the Regulation to a "Microlight" being any specific Class or Variant of aeroplane! If it is possible to fly the Microlight under the Regulation using a LAPL, then why would one not be able to maintain currency in the same Class or Variant?

In France, neither an EASA PPL nor a LAPL is valid on a Microlight Aeroplane! A seperate licence is required.
From the CAA website:
Regulation (EC) 216/2008 excludes Microlights from European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Regulations and so they remain subject to national rules. You will need a UK national licence to fly a microlight in UK airspace.

Last edited by Whopity; 12th Oct 2016 at 22:44.
Whopity is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Oct 2016, 07:05
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 24,872
From CAP804:

1.6 A Part-FCL licence with single-engine piston aeroplane privileges is not deemed to be rendered valid for a Microlight aeroplane unless the holder of the licence has undergone differences training in accordance with the Air Navigation Order, Section 2 of Part B of Schedule 7, appropriate for a Microlight aeroplane class rating. Refer to Section 5, Part A, Subpart 2, paragraph 3.11-3.13.

1.7 An LAPL(A) does not have an SEP rating, but does have SEP privileges endorsed, therefore may be rendered valid for Microlight aeroplanes, subject to satisfying the above requirement.
(ANO references are probably obsolete, as the CAA has not yet updated CAP804 to include recent ANO and Aircrew Regulation changes).

3.12 Exercising licence privileges on SSEA, SLMG and Microlight aeroplanes on the basis of a SEP (Land) Class Rating.
The SEP Class rating includes the SSEA. The holder of a UK/Part-FCL licence (not NPPL) with a SEP rating, may, subject to differences training on the appropriate class with a suitably qualified instructor, exercise the privileges of their licence on microlight aircraft or SLMG. However, any experience gained in microlight aircraft or SLMG cannot be counted towards the flying experience necessary to maintain the full SEP or TMG
privileges of their UK/ Part-FCL licence.
'SEP privileges' also includes such privileges exercised using a LAPL(A). So no, currently you may NOT maintain a LAPL(A) with microlight experience.

When responding to NPA 2014-29(A), IAOPA (Europe) proposed an amendment which would allow experience in 3-axis microlights to count towards the experience requirements for maintaining SEP privileges, provided that at least 1 hour and 6 take-offs / landings was also flown in non-microlights:

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), when flight time is completed during flights operated in the same class of aircraft falling under point (e) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, it shall be given full credit for the purpose of FCL.740.A (b) (1) (ii) and FCL.140.A(1), provided that:
- the aircraft is fitted with a three-axis control system, a non-flexible wing and is not foot-launched; and
- at least 1 hour of PIC time and 6 take-offs and landings are completed in aircraft in the same class which do not fall under this point.

Last edited by BEagle; 13th Oct 2016 at 07:20.
BEagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Oct 2016, 07:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 493
Microlights are not included within the scope of EASA Part-FCL by virtue of Annex II to the Basic Regulation. It is then down to national policy as to what experience gained in Annex II aircraft does count towards EASA licences. The CAA have stated that experience gained in non-EASA SEPs other than microlights may be used towards the issue, renewal, and revalidation of a licence, rating, or certificate.

For the LAPL(A) holder, where SEP privileges are held, differences training may be completed in order to fly microlights using that licence in accordance with ANO Article 150:

(6) A Part-FCL licence with single-engine piston aeroplane privileges is not deemed to be rendered valid for a microlight aeroplane unless the holder of the licence has undergone differences training in accordance with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 8, appropriate for a microlight aeroplane class rating.
However, it has been national policy that a SEP rating (or SEP privileges in the case of the LAPL(A)) may not be revalidated on the basis of experience gained in microlights. This has changed in ANO 2016 for national licences such as the UK (non-EASA) PPL where experience may be credited for revalidation by experience of the SEP class rating, with the exception of the NPPL where cross-crediting has remained unchanged.

NPA 2014-29(A) addresses this issue for EASA licences in an amendment to FCL.035, but has been held up.

ifitaint...
ifitaintboeing is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Oct 2016, 07:35
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 24,872
This has changed in ANO 2016 for national licences such as the UK (non-EASA) PPL where experience may be credited for revalidation by experience of the SEP class rating.
Another daft piece of CAA policy. Maintenance of a UK PPL with SEP Class Rating may be achieved by flying a basic 3-axis microlight (the meaning of which they haven't even defined), so you could fly nothing else for years and then hop back into a Harvard and fly it as PIC? Internationally.

More joy for Examiners when people with 2 licences come to revalidate their SEP Class Ratings - microlight time won't count towards the rating included in the Part-FCL licence, but it will towards the same rating in a UK PPL....

Why didn't they just wait until the CRD for NPA 2014-29(A) had been published then introduce the relevant change into the ANO?
BEagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Oct 2016, 12:22
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,407
Many thanks all, that is, err, clearer - even if I feel that I should now apologise for helping highlight what a depressing bu66ers-muddle licencing still is.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 08:28
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
So... dragging up an old thread here to try and get it up to the current regulation changes. And just so folks know where I'm coming from here, I'm an instructor trying to advise LAPL holders as opposed to a LAPL holder myself.

Since this thread last saw the light of day NPA 2014-29 has been amended to revision (B). I get tired of read through these EASA legal documents so have given up reading both the (A) revision mentioned above and the current (B) revision to see what has been changed so lets just focus on what the (B) revision states. Oh and this is still only a PROPOSED amendment so still nowhere near implementation before anyone gets excited into thinking we are almost at having a sensible clarification of the rules!

The issue is that it would seem it is this ability to count 3 axis microlight time for recency that they have back-pedaled on as in another forum someone has stated this from EASA:
"After consultation with the EASA experts, the decision taken was to remove the text amendment in FCL.035(a)(2) proposed with NPA 2014-29 because with this amendment the requirements of the Basic Regulation would have been altered. If deemed necessary this should be done in the Basic Regulation itself rather than in its implementing rules. EASA has prepared an AMC and proposed it with NPA 2014-29(B) and this AMC will be published after the adoption of the amendments to the Aircrew Regulation as GM."

However when I read that bit in revision (A) I'm not sure I took that to say you count Microlight hours anyway!

In amendment (B) it now states the following:
A new AMC is added after GM1 FCL.135.A;FCL.135.H: ‘AMC1 FCL.140.A Recency requirements; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) Revalidation of class and type ratings — aeroplanes All hours flown on any aircraft registered in an ICAO Contracting State shall count in full towards fulfilling the hourly requirements of this Part as long as the aircraft matches the definition and criteria of the respective Part-FCL aircraft category as well as its class and type ratings.'

Soooo... it states "Part-FCL aircraft category" but I have been through Part FCL and it uses the phrase "aircraft category" a LOT but nowhere in part FCL does it state what the part-FCL aircraft categories are! There are lots of other documents that state aircraft categories but this line clearly states PART-FCL. Does anyone care to pin their colours to the mast and state what they see as these 'categories' and therefore whether a 3 axis microlight would count as/when/IF this NPA ever gets adopted?

To save you hunting revision (B) is available here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-.../npa-2014-29-b

The fact that they allow TMG hours which are potentially more 'different' to SEP than one of these modern fast microlights just seems stupid to not allow microlight time to count.

Slightly off topic but still related - the LAPL recency requirement is to have logged 12hrs as PIC in the preceding 12 months. It then states that if they don't have said time they can, and I quote:
perform the additional flight time or take-offs and landings, flying dual or solo under the supervision of an instructor, in order to fulfil the requirements in (a).

But (and this has been done to death elsewhere on this forum) when flying with an instructor in the aeroplane the 'student' can't log it as PIC as the instructor is PIC and there is no such thing as 'dual' other than for multi-crew aircraft and then in this one little phrase in this regulation! SO while all the rest of the regulation says when you cannot command the aeroplane as PIC (IE with a lapsed rating/recency out of validity) you cannot log it as PIC, yet this bit states you must log it as PIC to get the recency back! Solo supervised the 'student' is PIC but dual?! Or am i missing something here? When you do fly with said instructor on-board - what does the instructor log if the 'student' logs PIC? You cannot both log PIC and yet the instructor is there acting in an official capacity as crew on that flight...!?
PeteMonty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 08:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,599
Welcome to Eurogarbage. If it made sense they wouldn't have a job for life!
what does the instructor log if the 'student' logs PIC?
From the Regulation AMC1.FCL.050
(iii) the holder of an instructor certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she acts as an instructor in an aircraft;
FCL.010
"Category of aircraft" means a categorisation of aircraft according to specified basic characteristics, for example aeroplane, powered-lift, helicopter, airship, sailplane, free balloon.
Whopity is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 08:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,352
FCL.010
Category of aircraft means a categorisation of aircraft according to specific basic characteristics, for example aeroplane, powered-lift, helicopter, airship, sailplane and free balloon.
. 'Dual' has nothing at all to do with multi-pilot aircraft but is an abbreviation for 'dual instructional time', which is also defined in FCL.010. If an LAPL(A) holder does not have the required 12 hours PIC in the preceding 12 months, the regulation simply permits any shortfall to be replaced with dual instruction or supervised solo - it does not suggest that the dual instruction should be logged as PIC.

Whopity just beat me to it!
BillieBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 09:48
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Back to the original question.

I have a EASA PPL & am an unrestricted instructor. I have had Microlights differences training on 3 axis machines. However when I asked for my NPPL to be amended to include a microlight class rating the BMAA confirmed that I would have to pass a GST & oral exam before it could be issued.

So I can instruct on microlights with my EASA licence but am not entitled to a class rating on my NPPL without a test!
l10fly is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 11:17
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by BillieBob View Post
. 'If an LAPL(A) holder does not have the required 12 hours PIC in the preceding 12 months, the regulation simply permits any shortfall to be replaced with dual instruction or supervised solo - it does not suggest that the dual instruction should be logged as PIC.
Yes but then surely if you did that and opted to do that dual as opposed to supervised solo then the holder ends up with 12hr PUT logged which then still doesn't meet the requirement for 12hrs PIC in the preceding?
PeteMonty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 11:26
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Whopity View Post
for example aeroplane, powered-lift, helicopter, airship, sailplane and free balloon
So does this mean we can (again, i stress, when (if) this is adopted) call a microlight an 'aeroplane' and use those hours for validity??!! EASA don't recognize a microlight at all but the whole point of this amendment was that EASA realized that there were all kinds of Annex II types that could be suitable and so they needed to expand so it wasn't just restricted to EASA types... If we had to fit a microlight into one of those provided categories then it best fits into 'aeroplane' and I suppose that would be one way of interpreting the wording? By omission of another category to put it in it must be in that one!

And thanks guys for such speedy and insightful replies!
PeteMonty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 15:57
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,599
which then still doesn't meet the requirement for 12hrs PIC in the preceding?
Note FCL.140 gives two options
(2) perform the additional flight time or take-offs and landings, flying dual or solo under the supervision of an instructor, in order to fulfil the requirements in (a).
A Microlight is definately an "aeroplane" however that group has in the past been specifically precluded from European Regulation because many European States have dealt with them seperately, and in some cases, no licence was required at all to fly them.

There is nothing to say that the wording in the NPA is what will appear in the final regulation.

All hours flown on any aircraft registered in an ICAO Contracting State shall count in full towards fulfilling the hourly requirements of this Part as long as the aircraft matches the definition and criteria of the respective Part-FCL aircraft category as well as its class and type ratings.
A registered aircraft in an ICAO State will not include Permit Aircraft!
Whopity is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 16:39
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Whopity View Post
A registered aircraft in an ICAO State will not include Permit Aircraft!
Really? Why? I assumed that this was saying exactly the opposite! There is no point putting this wording in there (and I agree with your point that this wording may not be what makes it into the final version!) unless they are making the statement that they mean non-EASA types. IE types controlled by the NAA and it then makes little difference to EASA whether those types are on a national CofA or permit - they are both types that EASA don't regulate! Why say ANY aircraft registered in an EASA state if that is not what they mean (oh, wait they are pros at not saying what they mean!)?
PeteMonty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 18:39
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,599
A Pernit aircraft is not Registered in accordance with ICAO Annex 7

Last edited by Whopity; 9th Mar 2018 at 18:50.
Whopity is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 19:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Whopity View Post
A Permit aircraft is not Registered in accordance with ICAO Annex 7
But the EASA wording says nothing about ICAO. It states any aircraft registered by an NAA. Whether that 'registration' is 'recognised' by ICAO or not is surely therefore irrelevant? Not saying I'm right, just trying to get to grips with all of this in my head!
PeteMonty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 19:14
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Ok, so here is an interesting thought process. And I have put my Nomex underwear on for the replies on this one! (and sorry for the long post - feel free to not bother to read it!)

I’m specifically concerned with those pilots who ONLY fly microlights and converted their UK PPL to a LAPL as that is what everyone ‘told’ them was their best (only) option when it seemed the UK PPL was going to be superseded. It turns out this was a mistake and many people were miss-informed but that is now irrelevant – they just need to find the best way forward now.

OK so they could convert to an NPPL(M) but that means flight tests and a lot of these guys (some of whom flew microlights before there was any licence for it and so gained the licence under grandfather rights back in the day without ever having taken any test!) don’t want to have to take a test to fly an aircraft they have been flying for x-years.

They could also go and do a flight test with an examiner to renew the recency of the LAPL but they cannot do that in a microlight and it would take serious training to be able to pass said test in an SEP as that is a beast they are not at all familiar with.

So to get down to the rub of my current thought process – The LAPL in itself holds no ‘validity’ to fly a microlight. This is given by article 150 in the ANO which basically states that for flying solely in the UK your LAPL is valid for microlight flying as long as you have had difference training (or you have converted from a licence that already allowed you to fly microlights and you have as result no need for said differences training). However it then does not say anything about ANY recency/validity requirements to continue to fly microlights (the allowance to fly microlights on a UK PPL with SEP also has no recency/validity requirements for the microlight privilege). What I mean by this is that if someone who normally used their LAPL for SEP type flying had a ‘fling’ with microlights and got ‘validated’ but then didn’t touch one for a number of years, there would be nothing to stop them jumping in one again and flying it. I’m not talking about whether that is wise or not (and I’m a firm believer that the answer to that is very different depending on the individual – one size does not fit all) but I’m talking about the LEGALITY of it.

So we already know that the LAPL is a slightly different beast than the PPL’s we are used to. There is no rating and the licence itself does not expire. We have established that all those lovely microlight hours that said holder keeps logging don’t count for toffee for the regency requirements to exercise the privileges of commanding an SEP. But the licence itself has not ‘expired’ nor become void and as stated above there is no recency requirement to use the ANO allowance to validate the licence for microlight flying. So… surely that means that you can continue to fly microlight aircraft on a LAPL whilst being in a position where you don’t meet the recency requirements to exercise the EASA laid down privilege of flying SEP aircraft?

To come at this from another angle, imagine an EASA (or UK for that matter) PPL with both SEP and MEP ratings. If the MEP expires but the SEP is still valid you are of course still allowed to fly SEP. Just because one rating on the licence isn’t current, that doesn’t mean the rest are not. Now on a UK PPL, the microlight privilege is part of the SEP, which can expire but there is NO rating to expire on a LAPL. Even 20 years out of recency the licence is still valid - you just cannot exercise the laid down privilege until you are, in effect ‘current’ again.

If we viewed the EASA privilege of the LAPL and the UK ‘validity’ for microlight flying as two separate beasts then surely we can approach this the same way as the SEP/MEP scenario above?

Let’s not forget that we are told that they are different hence why the microlight time doesn’t count towards the SEP validity so the same has to go the other way surely? The restriction of SEP privileges does not restrict the microlight privileges for which there are no recency requirements?

If EASA really are not going to change things to allow microlight hours to count towards the SEP recency (there are logical arguments on both sides of this) then maybe the CAA could amend the ANO (or a temp exemption such as they used when first bringing in SSDR) to clarify this and it would then be logical to state that the UK CAA ‘validity’ to fly a microlight should use the same recency requirements as EASA state for the SEP privileges so to continue to fly a microlight you would need 12hrs PIC in the preceding 12 months .. etc etc but on microlight aircraft if the holder only wanted to use the LAPL to fly microlights… Nah – that’s all too logical!
PeteMonty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 20:07
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,599
Im specifically concerned with those pilots who ONLY fly microlights and converted their UK PPL to a LAPL as that is what everyone told them was their best (only) option when it seemed the UK PPL was going to be superseded. It turns out this was a mistake and many people were miss-informed but that is now irrelevant they just need to find the best way forward now.
Lots of bad advice came out, but if you held a UK PPL there is nothing to stop you getting it back again or if its a lifetime licence that has not been cancelled then its still valid. I have alwsays advised people to hold both.
So surely that means that you can continue to fly microlight aircraft on a LAPL whilst being in a position where you dont meet the recency requirements to exercise the EASA laid down privilege of flying SEP aircraft?
Thats the conclusion you could draw from Art 150 however;
this article applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft
Whilst the LAPL does not include an aircraft rating, its validity is maintained by experience, so if you do not fulfill the requirements of FCL.140A then the licence ceases to be valid.

How simple it all used to be. Hopefully, time on a 3 axis aeroplane will count for revalidation but I am not convinced yet.
Whopity is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 21:13
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Thanks for the input Whopity!

Originally Posted by Whopity View Post
Lots of bad advice came out, but if you held a UK PPL there is nothing to stop you getting it back again
Yes but again it would mean taking a test this would be revalidation as opposed to renewal) AND that test being in an SEP so something that our theoretical microlight only pilot is unlikely to be keen to do. Could easily cost such a person 5k to do the required training to get familiar with an SEP type aircraft and up to test standard.

Originally Posted by Whopity View Post
Thats the conclusion you could draw from Art 150 however;Whilst the LAPL does not include an aircraft rating, its validity is maintained by experience, so if you do not fulfill the requirements of FCL.140A then the licence ceases to be valid.
Yes this was the one thing that I too thought could de-rail my cunning workaround!

I'd like to stress that no-one should go along with my theoretical idea without first getting confirmation from the CAA that this is legal! Don't just do it cos some guy on PPRuNe suggested it!

If I find the time next week I might write to the CAA to try and pin them down to a yay or nay on it. Would be a first if they did as the best I have ever had out of them in the past is "if you think you would be able to stand by it in court go for it". Really helpful when they are the regulators (or at least national interpreters of the EASA regs) and it will be THEM opposite me in said hypothetical court case! Even just a straight no is more helpful than that kind of woolly ambiguity!
PeteMonty is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service