LAPL and NPPL Exercise 3 'air experience'
Thread Starter
LAPL and NPPL Exercise 3 'air experience'
I plan to deliver Exercise 3 'air experience' for the NPPL and LAPL in a Harvard, which has a MAUW exceeding 2000kg (2400kg to be exact). Can anybody point me at a regulation that would prohibit the use of this aircraft for this exercise?
In the case of the LAPL the flight would have to be conducted at a DTO or ATO and the aircratft would have to be notified as part of the Declaration or Approval. As its outside the weight range it would probably not be accepted.
In the case of the NPPL, there is nothing in the ANO to prohibit training in an aircraft that does not meet the definition of a SSEA but is in the same class. The cost might put a few off.
In the case of the NPPL, there is nothing in the ANO to prohibit training in an aircraft that does not meet the definition of a SSEA but is in the same class. The cost might put a few off.
Thread Starter
Thanks Whopity
All agreed. This is within an ATO and cost is not an issue. I can't find anything to prohibit it, even though it might look unusual, but am not that familair with all of the corners of the regulations.
What I want to ensure is that our CAA flight ops inspector doesn't come along and point at something that does preclude it.
All agreed. This is within an ATO and cost is not an issue. I can't find anything to prohibit it, even though it might look unusual, but am not that familair with all of the corners of the regulations.
What I want to ensure is that our CAA flight ops inspector doesn't come along and point at something that does preclude it.
If you are conducting Ex3 in an aeroplane outside the scope of LAPL/NPPL privileges, the person receiving the 'lesson' will not be able to log it towards their training time.
Presumably the reason you specify Ex3 for LAPL/NPPL is because you are a PPL/FI restricted to LAPL-only flight instruction by virtue of not having passed the CPL exams?
Presumably the reason you specify Ex3 for LAPL/NPPL is because you are a PPL/FI restricted to LAPL-only flight instruction by virtue of not having passed the CPL exams?
Last edited by BEagle; 6th Jul 2019 at 21:47.
Thread Starter
BEagle - correct. PPL/FI and CRI so can't teach in the 'gap' between LAPL and PPL. The flights are actually 'introductory lessons', which are (in regulatory terms) exercise 3.
The flight ops inspector is the next port of call but I wanted some informed views to mull over before engaging.
The flight ops inspector is the next port of call but I wanted some informed views to mull over before engaging.
There is a significant difference between 'Air Experience' lessons conducted as a precursor to Part-FCL pilot training and so-called 'Introductory Flights' - see https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviati...ctory-flights/ .
Thread Starter
BEagle, thanks and I am aware of the difference. I'm trying to keep the Harvard flights higher up the regulatory food chain.
I've not found anything that says a lesson has to be given in an aircraft that the student could later solo; so long as the lesson was teaching what it was meant to teach then why not? For example, if on an Ex 3 lesson the student wanted to experience aerobatics, as something they might like to aspire to later, and the normal LAPL trainer was a C172 then why not give that lesson in a Harvard? I don't think there is any regulation that says not.
It is very easy for a regulator to say 'no 'cos i don't think so and I've never seen that before'. Its much harder for them to say 'no' if they are asked to quote the regulation that supports that position. Just because something is out of the ordinary is not a valid reason for saying it is against 'the Regulations'.
I've not found anything that says a lesson has to be given in an aircraft that the student could later solo; so long as the lesson was teaching what it was meant to teach then why not? For example, if on an Ex 3 lesson the student wanted to experience aerobatics, as something they might like to aspire to later, and the normal LAPL trainer was a C172 then why not give that lesson in a Harvard? I don't think there is any regulation that says not.
It is very easy for a regulator to say 'no 'cos i don't think so and I've never seen that before'. Its much harder for them to say 'no' if they are asked to quote the regulation that supports that position. Just because something is out of the ordinary is not a valid reason for saying it is against 'the Regulations'.
