LAPL only instructor

[fireflybob]

We have an instructor who can only instruct for the LAPL as he has not completed the commercial exams.

What happens if one of his students decides to start training for the LAPL but then later on in the training wishes to continue to EASA PPL?

Do the hours with the LAPL instructor count?

Thanks for any help.

[BEagle]

I presented a proposal to EASA in 2013, along the lines any training received during a partly-completed LAPL course (whether or not delivered by a LAPL-only FI) should be credited towards a PPL course - for example if the student decides to go for a PPL rather an a LAPL, following a change in medical circumstances. Although all participants at the EASA TAG/SSCC/FCL meeting supported this and EASA agreed to include it in some vague 'regular update to Part-FCL' programme, over the following 3 years they did nothing about it.

So I asked the CAA in Dec 2016; I was advised that the proposal looked OK, but they needed to check with Köln...

...where some 'Befehl ist Befehl' functionary, totally out of step with the aims of the GA Roadmap, said "Nein - Dies ist nicht möglich!"

So no - advice to a student in such a situation is that, until we can cudgel more sense into certain €urocrats, if he/she starts a LAPL course then it must first be finished, before later being upgraded to the PPL in accordance with the requirements of FCL.210.A(b).

Which everyone with half an ounce of common sense agrees is stupid.

[S-Works]

You might want to discuss this with the LAA and come up with a single statement as I am in possession of a letter written to Phill Hall at Sywell contradicting this and saying it's acceptable.

Don't shoot at me as I am with you on your view of this but there is a conflicting information here.

[hobbit1983]

But shurley should Bloggs start a course and do flight training....up until a certain point the training is identical, and as long as the FI can do both, PPL vs LAPL need not be specified?

Sorta like Schroedinger's flying lessons...?

[BEagle]

hobbit1983, that was NOT the question...

bose-x, unfortunately the UK CAA has no regulatory discretion in this matter and the most recent information I have was communicated directly by CAA Policy Lead - Licensing, who wrote in Nov 2016

Although this was raised in 2013, as you point out, EASA have not produced any regulatory material and the UK CAA has yet to define and publish an effective policy.

However, he also advised that the UK CAA would support credit for students moving from a LAPL course to a PPL course, subject to a TNA by the ATO/RF. But Köln refused to endorse his proposal.

This was raised again at an EASA/Industry/NAA meeting in late Jan 2017 at which LAA was represented by Europe Air Sports, so I'm surprised that the message didn't get back to the LAA. Unfortunately, despite the topic having been discussed at length, perhaps because EASA knew full well that their behaviour over this had been clearly less than reasonable, the discussion was omitted from the MoM.... There was another Industry/NAA meeting in early April at which I proposed that EASA's intransigence should be formally challenged; unfortunately the EAS representative did not attend the meeting.

However, the CPL knowledge requirement limitation for PPL/FIs (as distinct to those limited to providing LAPL instruction) is well-known to RMT.0596, the rulemaking task concerning Subpart J & K (instructors and examiners), and will be further considered by RMT.0678 'simpler, lighter rules for GA'.

I don't know from whom Phil Hall received the letter to which you refer, but regrettably any interpretation other than that stated by CAA Policy Lead - Licensing, is incorrect.

[S-Works]

Drop me an email and I will share it with you.

[Whopity]

This is increasingly worrying as there is a growing number of these instructors, they have completed exactly the same training as any other FI and passed a FI Assessment of Competence yet have less privileges than a CRI! The regulation states that they may train for the "LAPL only" which poses further questions, can they do any training with licence holders? e.g. club checks, the hour with an FI; differences training etc; taken literally, they cannot!

A number are doing normal PPL training and until a candidate makes a licence application, nobody knows which licence they are training for?

[S-Works]

A number are doing normal PPL training and until a candidate makes a licence application, nobody knows which licence they are training for?

Interestingly the CAA are being very thorough on checking everything at the moment. I just had a PPL application rejected for a student which was entirely my fault as I signed Section 10 for the exams and then had a brain fart and forgot to sign section 9 as Head of Training. When it came back to me it was covered in ticks from the CAA for each exam paper , checks confirming my GR and even checks confirming the Instructor recommending for test.

So I would suspect that any LAPL only training is highly likely to get picked up.

[rarelyathome]

Originally Posted by Whopity

This is increasingly worrying as there is a growing number of these instructors, they have completed exactly the same training as any other FI and passed a FI Assessment of Competence yet have less privileges than a CRI! The regulation states that they may train for the "LAPL only" which poses further questions, can they do any training with licence holders? e.g. club checks, the hour with an FI; differences training etc; taken literally, they cannot!

Not sure this is quite true is it? They haven't received the same level of theory training (or at least haven't proved they have undertaken a course and passed the exams). I'm also not sure they have fewer privileges than a CRI - I don't think a CRI is able to give training for any licence are they? Also, they can do the hour with an instructor and, as long as they have FCL.945 on their licence, they can sign the renewal if the other requirements for renewal by experience are met.

[Whopity]

They haven't received the same level of theory training

In terms of the FI Course, they have received exactly the same training as an FI; it is their per-requisites that are different.

I'm also not sure they have fewer privileges than a CRI

Maybe not fewer; but there are numerous CRI privileges the FI(Limited to LAPL only) does not have. If as the regulation states

(i) met the requirements for CPL theoretical knowledge, except for an FI(A) providing training for the LAPL(A) only

Then they would not be able to exercise privileges of FCL.905.FI that do not pertain to training for the LAPL! The CRI who does not need CPL level knowledge or supervision may instruct for:

(1) the issue, revalidation or renewal of a class or type rating for single-pilot aeroplanes, except for single-pilot high performance complex aeroplanes, when the privileges sought by the applicant are to fly in single-pilot operations;
(2) a towing or aerobatic rating for the aeroplane category, provided the CRI holds the relevant rating and has demonstrated the ability to instruct for that rating to an FI qualified in accordance with FCL.905.FI(i);

If FCL.905.FI means what it says, then FCL.945 would also be limited to the revalidation of a LAPL.

[ifitaintboeing]

bose-x/BEagle,

Similar advice contained on the FAQ page of the NPPL website was updated early this year following a change in CAA policy.

Q Can I elect to change, during the course, from the NPPL SSEA course to an EASA LAPL(A) or EASA PPL(A) course?

A Following discussion with other Member States, CAA have confirmed that it is not possible to change course to an EASA LAPL or PPL and obtain credit for training from an incomplete NPPL course.

http://www.nationalprivatepilotslicence.co.uk/faq.php

ifitaint...

[S-Works]

So what are we saying here? Is the training acceptable or not?

[BEagle]

I've asked the Authority again along the following lines:

You kindly put the question of training credit towards a PPL course for a student who hasn't completed a LAPL course to EASA in Dec 2016. Despite the 2013 TAG/SSCC/FCL agreement, EASA's response to you stressed that the only credit available towards a PPL was for a pilot who holds a LAPL - no credit is available for a pilot who hasn't completed the course.

Has this policy now changed? The reason I ask is that some seem to have been told that such credit IS now available.

[Collieflyer One]

The obvious solution is to complete the training for the LAPL and take the test. Apply for the licence. Once you have it back then do the 15 hours required plus the test for the EASA PPL. I realise this means two tests and two lots of fees to the CAA. The other solution is to do at least the minimum of the 25 hours of dual required for the EASA PPL with an instructor who can teach the EASA PPL.

[S-Works]

That route adds around two grand to the cost of getting a PPL........

We only do LAPL courses now for people who can't get a full PPL.

[BEagle]

FCL.210.A(b) states:

(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 flight instruction completed in a training course at an ATO.

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.

So the extra time at a pilot training organisation is a minimum of 10 hours, plus the Skill Test. If the applicant does the maximum 6 hours dual plus the Skill Test plus the licence fee, that'd cost around (162 x 6) + (162+156) + 153 = £1443, The other 5+4 solo hours are flying the pilot would probably be doing anyway.

But of course the LAPL(A) requires 15 hours less training than the PPL. So I can't see where the extra £2000 comes from - I make it the cost of another skill test and licence issue, which is £471 in the example I've indicated. Plus whatever it costs for Class 2 medical if not already held.

As an incentive, perhaps pilot training organisations should consider offering a preferential rate for LAPL-to-PPL solo flying and market the LAPL-to-PPL course accordingly?

Still waiting to hear from the CAA - the chap who can provide the definite answer is, I understand, off sick at present.

[S-Works]

I was referring to the extra cost of doing a second skill test, which would include the aircraft hire at around £600, the cost of the test around £250, medical application to the CAA, time taken to travel and actually take the test plus all the extra stress and hassle of doing 2 tests for the same thing.

Personally I see the LAPL as a pointless exercise and only suitable for people who can't get a medical for PPL(A). The cynical part of me sees it as way of pigeon holing private pilots........

[BEagle]

However, if pilots are happy with flying in EASA MS under VFR day/night in SE aircraft of up to 2000kg with no more than 3 passengers, why do they need a PPL?

LAPL pilots have exactly the same VFR limits as PPL holders - i.e. in accordance with SERA. A LAPL can also include aerobatic and mountain flying ratings.

So unless they want to fly under IFR or become instructors, the LAPL is good enough for most private pilots. Cost of licence issue is also less.

It is the abject failure of pilot training organisations to market the LAPL which is limiting the appeal - a cynic might say that they think they'd lose business. But if they trained 3 LAPL holders for every 2 PPL holders in the minimum time, the income would be the same for the training organisation, but 33% less for each LAPL trainee.

[S-Works]

Because a LAPL traps you in EASA land....... Whats up with an ICAO licence?

[Collieflyer One]

For most people the LAPL is sufficient for the type of flying most people intend. HOWEVER if you intend to fly in the USA, add an IMC rating fly a twin or something heavier than 2000 kg then getting the full EASA PPL from the start would always be my advice. Few people qualify in the minimum time for a LAPL and when you consider the hours you have to do after passing your LAPL before you can carry passengers. Since the written exams are the same then the only real reason to do the LAPL is if you can't get a class 2 medical. The LAPL is a good thing for NPPL holders to convert to (allows them to fly EASA a/c after April 2018).