NPPL(SSEA) to LAPL - Training Exemption
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPPL(SSEA) to LAPL - Training Exemption
I’m stupid and don’t understand the regulation. I have a kid with an NPPL(SSEA) who wants to get a LAPL. He can fly perfectly well and is by all purposes test standard. I’m of the opinion that he is exempt the TK as he has already passed those as part of the NPPL. My question is what’s the minimum amount of training that he has to do?
Its this bit that I don't understand
(1) not exceed the total flight time as PIC;
(2) not exceed 50 % of the hours required in point (a);
(3) not include the requirements of point (a)(2).
Part-FCL easy access rules FCL.110.A.LAPL(A) states FCL.110.A LAPL(A) – Experience requirements and crediting Regulation (EU) 2018/1119
(a) Applicants for an LAPL(A) shall have completed at least 30 hours of flight instruction on aeroplanes or TMGs, including at least:
(1) 15 hours of dual flight instruction in the class in which the skill test will be taken;
(2) 6 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 3 hours of solo cross-countryflight time with at least 1 cross-country flight of at least 150 km (80 NM), during which 1 full stop landing at an aerodrome different from the aerodrome of departure shall bemade.
(b) Refers to LAPL(S) - so not relevant in this case.
(c) Crediting. Applicants with prior experience as PIC may be credited towards the requirements of point (a).
The amount of credit shall be decided by the DTO or the ATO where the pilot undergoes the training course, on the basis of a pre-entry flight test, but shall in any case:
(1) not exceed the total flight time as PIC;
(2) not exceed 50 % of the hours required in point (a);
(3) not include the requirements of point (a)(2).
Its this bit that I don't understand
(1) not exceed the total flight time as PIC;
(2) not exceed 50 % of the hours required in point (a);
(3) not include the requirements of point (a)(2).
Part-FCL easy access rules FCL.110.A.LAPL(A) states FCL.110.A LAPL(A) – Experience requirements and crediting Regulation (EU) 2018/1119
(a) Applicants for an LAPL(A) shall have completed at least 30 hours of flight instruction on aeroplanes or TMGs, including at least:
(1) 15 hours of dual flight instruction in the class in which the skill test will be taken;
(2) 6 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 3 hours of solo cross-countryflight time with at least 1 cross-country flight of at least 150 km (80 NM), during which 1 full stop landing at an aerodrome different from the aerodrome of departure shall bemade.
(b) Refers to LAPL(S) - so not relevant in this case.
(c) Crediting. Applicants with prior experience as PIC may be credited towards the requirements of point (a).
The amount of credit shall be decided by the DTO or the ATO where the pilot undergoes the training course, on the basis of a pre-entry flight test, but shall in any case:
(1) not exceed the total flight time as PIC;
(2) not exceed 50 % of the hours required in point (a);
(3) not include the requirements of point (a)(2).
Presumably you have a candidate who no longer qualifies for licence conversion as the NPPL was issued after 8th April 2018. If it was before that date, then he qualifies as per CAP 804 Part 4 Section P.
To meet the requirements for initail issue of a LAPL that does not fulfill the conversion criteria, then the following minimum training is required:
15 hours dual training
6 hours supervised solo inc the solo cross country
You can credit the rest, except that the credit must not exceed the total PIC time that he has accrued.
To meet the requirements for initail issue of a LAPL that does not fulfill the conversion criteria, then the following minimum training is required:
15 hours dual training
6 hours supervised solo inc the solo cross country
You can credit the rest, except that the credit must not exceed the total PIC time that he has accrued.
The FCL.110.A(c) credit isn't that easy to understand!
This actually means not more than 15 hours. So, for example, if an NPPL(SSEA) holder has the minimum 10hr PIC time for the NPPL to have been issued, he/she could be credited with 10hr towards the LAPL(A) course, but would still need the 15hr dual and 6 hr solo (including the solo X-C) - plus the LAPL(A) Skill Test.
(2) not exceed 50 % of the hours required in point (a);
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Beagle I can't understand your last post.
"What is the perceived benefit? Why not go straight for a PPL?"
Because if I have read it correctly they get zero credit towards a PPL.
Further question do they get any exception for the TK?
"What is the perceived benefit? Why not go straight for a PPL?"
Because if I have read it correctly they get zero credit towards a PPL.
Further question do they get any exception for the TK?
Sorry Beagle I can't understand your last post.
First of all, remember that this is an EASA regulation for all MS, not just for NPPL(SSEA) holders...
Let's say that an NPPL(SSEA) holder has only flown the 10 hrs PIC required for the NPPL to have been issued in the first place. The DTO does an assessment and decides that, although he/she could have been granted 10 hrs credit, his/her flying isn't all that good, so they'll only grant 7 hours of credit.
Before taking the LAPL(A) Skill Test, the applicant will need to do the 15 hrs of dual training and 6 hrs (including X-C requirements) PIC plus whatever flight time hasn't been credited by the DTO. In the case I've stated, 7(credit)+15+6 = 28 hours, so the applicant will also need to fly a further 2 hours (which can either be dual or solo), before he/she may take the Skill Test.
If the NPPL exams were passed in the 2 years before the LAPL Skill Test, then as far as I can see they will be valid for LAPL application. More than 2 years and they'll have to be retaken.
Why on earth anyone bothered with an NPPL(SSEA) course after 8 Apr 2018 is rather beyond me - they should have transferred to a LAPL course. Of course an NPPL(Microlight) holder might have added an SSEA Class Rating after 8 Apr 2018, but should have been advised that after 8 Apr 2020, the NPPL will not be valid for flying EASA aircraft under current regulations.
Mickey
The NPPL and the LAPL are simply a sham and the conversion to PPL is deliberately difficult. At the time of the announcement of the NPPL I had an angry one to one conversation with the then CAA gentleman who pioneered the NPPL with the Dept. of Transport on behalf of the CAA. Being pushed by me his explanation was this: the CAA had made a big mistake in simply taking on the JAR (at the expense of the UK/ICAO PPL) and without an alternative and was therefore left with a dilemma. The cost of producing and sponsoring legislation through parliament in both money and time is enormous. To correct the error and convince the D of T. required something different from the JAR PPL to be devised. Without a licence being something very different from the PPL the Dept. of Transport would not entertain it. So the NPPL was borne (assisted with the expertise of a pragmatic AOPA) The main benefit being more accessible to sporting pilots from other branches of flying, as intended and, as it has turned out, the benefits of the reduced medical. The NPPL restrictions though are artificial. The NPPL device quietened the gliding and other organisations which had lost the credits for its members to become a PPL. Gliding clubs for instance needed its members to become tug pilots. The CAA had got itself of the hook for the time being.
All this nonsense was then repeated by EASA who have copied it, in most part, including the reduced medical standard. The bureaucracy though could not justify a simple conversion process, for the NPPL/LAPL holder, to complete conversion to PPL by simply completing the differences training. Their paperwork was too difficult, or so they thought, and it wouldn't be politically correct to allow it.
BEagle's post above is a pathetic attempt to provide an acceptable logic where there is none.
The NPPL and the LAPL are simply a sham and the conversion to PPL is deliberately difficult. At the time of the announcement of the NPPL I had an angry one to one conversation with the then CAA gentleman who pioneered the NPPL with the Dept. of Transport on behalf of the CAA. Being pushed by me his explanation was this: the CAA had made a big mistake in simply taking on the JAR (at the expense of the UK/ICAO PPL) and without an alternative and was therefore left with a dilemma. The cost of producing and sponsoring legislation through parliament in both money and time is enormous. To correct the error and convince the D of T. required something different from the JAR PPL to be devised. Without a licence being something very different from the PPL the Dept. of Transport would not entertain it. So the NPPL was borne (assisted with the expertise of a pragmatic AOPA) The main benefit being more accessible to sporting pilots from other branches of flying, as intended and, as it has turned out, the benefits of the reduced medical. The NPPL restrictions though are artificial. The NPPL device quietened the gliding and other organisations which had lost the credits for its members to become a PPL. Gliding clubs for instance needed its members to become tug pilots. The CAA had got itself of the hook for the time being.
All this nonsense was then repeated by EASA who have copied it, in most part, including the reduced medical standard. The bureaucracy though could not justify a simple conversion process, for the NPPL/LAPL holder, to complete conversion to PPL by simply completing the differences training. Their paperwork was too difficult, or so they thought, and it wouldn't be politically correct to allow it.
BEagle's post above is a pathetic attempt to provide an acceptable logic where there is none.
Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 17th Nov 2019 at 10:43.
I had an angry one to one conversation with the then CAA gentleman who pioneered the NPPL with the Dept. of Transport on behalf of the CAA
The main benefit being more accessible to sporting pilots from other branches of flying,
There has never been any point having a licence with a lower standard than the ICAO minima; in essence that is the standard set by examiners for all the sub-ICAO licences, the rest is just bureauracy and a high element of stupidity which just grows and grows.
My use of the word "pioneer" is grammatically correct and I did credit AOPA for its part. The NPPL was never to be of benefit to the PPL, only a fool would not have seen that.. There wasn't an instructor in the land who saw it reducing the hours required for a private pilot licence (the average in the UK and across the world being between 50-60 hours) and therefore to be cheaper. Experience and time has proved this. To repeat, it was simply for the CAA to get itself "off a hook" and to placate.
It did of course retain the accessibility for other sport pilots with credits, previously held with the UK ICAO licence, and for those others with certain medical issues although I don't believe they ever foresaw how widely this would be exploited . The anti US JAA was primarily concerned with commercial operations in Europe and never really resolved the PPL. Whopity, I remember well an in depth conversation with you at the old Yorkshire Aeroplane Club, around that time, when you told me that the JAA, under pressure of time they continuously shrugged off private pilot unresolved issues. They, so you said, decided to simply to leave things as they were, unresolved, and they would deal with issues as they arose at a later date. The fact that this could only lead to the private pilots cost and confusion seemed to matter little. 29 years later things still are not resolved and we are left with a patchwork of confusion. The purpose of all this being safety is long forgotten and waved away being too inconvenient..
I'm pleased that otherwise you agree with me.
It did of course retain the accessibility for other sport pilots with credits, previously held with the UK ICAO licence, and for those others with certain medical issues although I don't believe they ever foresaw how widely this would be exploited . The anti US JAA was primarily concerned with commercial operations in Europe and never really resolved the PPL. Whopity, I remember well an in depth conversation with you at the old Yorkshire Aeroplane Club, around that time, when you told me that the JAA, under pressure of time they continuously shrugged off private pilot unresolved issues. They, so you said, decided to simply to leave things as they were, unresolved, and they would deal with issues as they arose at a later date. The fact that this could only lead to the private pilots cost and confusion seemed to matter little. 29 years later things still are not resolved and we are left with a patchwork of confusion. The purpose of all this being safety is long forgotten and waved away being too inconvenient..
I'm pleased that otherwise you agree with me.
Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 17th Nov 2019 at 13:54.
BEagle, there is no one with more knowledge than you on all this legislation muddle. There is certainly no one who has worked harder than you on our behalf and mostly from your own pocket.
I cannot believe that there is a single DTO who would require an NPPL holder to do a pre-course and pointless assessment flight. As with all flying it takes as long as it takes. It would also be wrong in my view to make such an assessment from a single flight and then to reduce the pilots credits. If I was an NPPL forced to do this I would walk away and go somewhere else. Should the pilot have not flown for a number of years of course it may take longer than normal. But, this needs to be seen over a number of hours. Most I know demonstrate common sense and complete the silly form at the end of training but prior to the test. As to the pilot the tortoise and the hare comes to mind.
In my opinion you should not make excuses for the discredited bureaucratic mess we are in, you are better than that.
I cannot believe that there is a single DTO who would require an NPPL holder to do a pre-course and pointless assessment flight. As with all flying it takes as long as it takes. It would also be wrong in my view to make such an assessment from a single flight and then to reduce the pilots credits. If I was an NPPL forced to do this I would walk away and go somewhere else. Should the pilot have not flown for a number of years of course it may take longer than normal. But, this needs to be seen over a number of hours. Most I know demonstrate common sense and complete the silly form at the end of training but prior to the test. As to the pilot the tortoise and the hare comes to mind.
In my opinion you should not make excuses for the discredited bureaucratic mess we are in, you are better than that.
I still don't understand quite what your point might be... I'm only telling you what the law requires; whether or not I personally agree with it is nihil ad rem.
The requirement for DTO assessment is laid down in the 'hard law' of FCL.110.A (c):
The CAA has no powers to waive this requirement. End of.
The requirement for DTO assessment is laid down in the 'hard law' of FCL.110.A (c):
The amount of credit shall be decided by the DTO or ATO where the pilot undergoes the training course, on the basis of a pre-entry flight test […]
