NPPL or LAPL?
JAFO wrote:
And if it all changes in two years time then I'll have a headset for sale.
Echo Romeo wrote:
And I'll have a Beagle Terrier for sale.
And if it all changes in two years time then I'll have a headset for sale.
Echo Romeo wrote:
And I'll have a Beagle Terrier for sale.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"One cannot help but wonder who the "Stakeholder" was that persuaded EASA that there was a need for the LAPL/LPL in the first place."
Me for one. Let me explain why.
The scope of EASA rulemaking embraces licences for gliders and balloons, as well as aeroplanes and helicopters. JAA did not cover gliding and ballooning licences. Therefore EASA would need to design licences for these as well as transfer aeroplane and helicopter licences to EU legally enforceable rules drafted by EASA. Further JAR PPL (A) medical Class 2 was seen by many as unnecessarily 'high'. Remember the debate over 10 years go and hence the development of the UK NPPL with more attainable medical standards so that pilots who could not get the Class 2 could still fly?
The UK gliding movement has used medical standards akin to the UK NPPL (DVLA standards) for a long time and a lot of pilots are still flying as a result (see my earlier post re accident stats due to medical incapacitation - it's not a problem). So when faced with the prospect of an unknown EU licence for glider pilots - and balloon pilots - which might start life as similar to the parallel JAR PPL(A) with the associated medical - we decided we needed an EU licence comparable to the the UK NPPL and UK glider 'licence', for those who might not be able to meet the 'higher' medical. The proportionality argument.
The UK was not the only country that saw the risk in the regulatory developments and therefore a need for an EU licence comparable to their own NPPLs. And also those countries without an NPPL equivalent - here was an opportunity for a sensible entry level licence.
The Commission and EU Parliament accepted the reasoning in our representations, EASA supported it, and hence the Basic Regulation 216/2008 included the (then) 'LPL' concept - now renamed LAPL after considerable lobbying from many of us for the name change.
Now if you want to ignore the LAPL and just have an ICAO compliant PPL(A), PPL(H), PPL(B) or SPL then fine. But if at any stage of your aviation career you cannot meet the medical standards for these, what will you do? Give up? Equally, for those wanting to take up private flying and they can't meet the more stringent medical standards, why should they not have a LAPL?
Not everyone with a fan on the front wants four bars on his epaulette as he progresses to an airline job. The politicians saw the sense in having licences appropriate to the activity and not just (as the JAA saw it) a stepping stone to a commerical licence.
Now of course not all the draft rules for the LAPL are perfect. Nor are certain 'interested parties' willing to contemplate GPs doing the medical assessment. But the Parliament passed 216 with a clause to the effect that GPs can do this where national rules permit. So countries without a parallel GP system to the UK (access to patient's medical records etc) are not obliged to adopt this route. But those countries that do want to, can. The corruption of the original intent, by adding extra qualifications for GPs in the latest draft, has to be seen off.
The LAPL syllabus etc is all quite sensible and acceptable, by and large. It was never going to be a word for word transcript of a UK system, because there are 26 other countries involved to greater or lesser degrees. But speaking primarily as a glider pilot I am reasonably content with it overall, apart from the tweaks needed for the medical process and the need for clear mitigating measures. But maybe that's because, with my colleagues in the European Gliding Union, we drafted the rules which by and large are adopted in FCL. Who was it who said 'Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions'? Eisenhower I think. I did not see any equivalent effort from the power flying fraternity adopting this approach.
Me for one. Let me explain why.
The scope of EASA rulemaking embraces licences for gliders and balloons, as well as aeroplanes and helicopters. JAA did not cover gliding and ballooning licences. Therefore EASA would need to design licences for these as well as transfer aeroplane and helicopter licences to EU legally enforceable rules drafted by EASA. Further JAR PPL (A) medical Class 2 was seen by many as unnecessarily 'high'. Remember the debate over 10 years go and hence the development of the UK NPPL with more attainable medical standards so that pilots who could not get the Class 2 could still fly?
The UK gliding movement has used medical standards akin to the UK NPPL (DVLA standards) for a long time and a lot of pilots are still flying as a result (see my earlier post re accident stats due to medical incapacitation - it's not a problem). So when faced with the prospect of an unknown EU licence for glider pilots - and balloon pilots - which might start life as similar to the parallel JAR PPL(A) with the associated medical - we decided we needed an EU licence comparable to the the UK NPPL and UK glider 'licence', for those who might not be able to meet the 'higher' medical. The proportionality argument.
The UK was not the only country that saw the risk in the regulatory developments and therefore a need for an EU licence comparable to their own NPPLs. And also those countries without an NPPL equivalent - here was an opportunity for a sensible entry level licence.
The Commission and EU Parliament accepted the reasoning in our representations, EASA supported it, and hence the Basic Regulation 216/2008 included the (then) 'LPL' concept - now renamed LAPL after considerable lobbying from many of us for the name change.
Now if you want to ignore the LAPL and just have an ICAO compliant PPL(A), PPL(H), PPL(B) or SPL then fine. But if at any stage of your aviation career you cannot meet the medical standards for these, what will you do? Give up? Equally, for those wanting to take up private flying and they can't meet the more stringent medical standards, why should they not have a LAPL?
Not everyone with a fan on the front wants four bars on his epaulette as he progresses to an airline job. The politicians saw the sense in having licences appropriate to the activity and not just (as the JAA saw it) a stepping stone to a commerical licence.
Now of course not all the draft rules for the LAPL are perfect. Nor are certain 'interested parties' willing to contemplate GPs doing the medical assessment. But the Parliament passed 216 with a clause to the effect that GPs can do this where national rules permit. So countries without a parallel GP system to the UK (access to patient's medical records etc) are not obliged to adopt this route. But those countries that do want to, can. The corruption of the original intent, by adding extra qualifications for GPs in the latest draft, has to be seen off.
The LAPL syllabus etc is all quite sensible and acceptable, by and large. It was never going to be a word for word transcript of a UK system, because there are 26 other countries involved to greater or lesser degrees. But speaking primarily as a glider pilot I am reasonably content with it overall, apart from the tweaks needed for the medical process and the need for clear mitigating measures. But maybe that's because, with my colleagues in the European Gliding Union, we drafted the rules which by and large are adopted in FCL. Who was it who said 'Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions'? Eisenhower I think. I did not see any equivalent effort from the power flying fraternity adopting this approach.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now if you want to ignore the LAPL and just have an ICAO compliant PPL(A), PPL(H), PPL(B) or SPL then fine.
It would seem I may not be able to retain the rights to this and must either convert to the JAR-PPL or go for the LAPL. Advice seems to be that the downsides of converting to the JAR licence makes it not a good idea, much as the CAA would love us to do it and remove a problem.
I think one of the questions I'd like to ask is who decided that the national PPL with thousands of current holders is going to be ignored under these proposals. In most other countries I guess there would be an automatic grand-fathering, but the CAA is notable for its silence on the subject. Perhaps it needs us to have to pay for the conversion and the 5-yearly update.
we decided we needed an EU licence comparable to the the UK NPPL and UK glider 'licence', for those who might not be able to meet the 'higher' medical.
The politicians saw the sense in having licences appropriate to the activity and not just (as the JAA saw it) a stepping stone to a commerical licence.
here was an opportunity for a sensible entry level licence.
EASA-FCL contains some of the worst safety regulatuon I have ever seen. It is classic European beaurocracy, putting totally unnecessary detail into legislation which will then be almost impossible to change.
Peter272
It would seem I may not be able to retain the rights to this
Finally If I have to make a choice its A!
Last edited by Whopity; 25th Sep 2010 at 19:34.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][/Peter272
Quote:
It would seem I may not be able to retain the rights to this
You are able to maintain the rights, but it does mean getting a new piece of paper which unfortunately you will have to pay for. QUOTE]
If I read this aright, the UK PPL will still exist, its just that it won't be renewable by instructors/examiners.
Scope here I think for a judicial challenge given the number of pilots likely to be affected
Quote:
It would seem I may not be able to retain the rights to this
You are able to maintain the rights, but it does mean getting a new piece of paper which unfortunately you will have to pay for. QUOTE]
If I read this aright, the UK PPL will still exist, its just that it won't be renewable by instructors/examiners.
Scope here I think for a judicial challenge given the number of pilots likely to be affected
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A
I live, and mostly fly, in Scotland. That's the big country at the top of the M6.
If I had wanted to be able to fly to France or Spain, I would have gone for a PPL but the NPPL is all I need. I only bob about Scotland vfr, and that's all I wanted to do. The current NPPL is just fine for me and lots of pilots in the same position.
If I was going to fly in mainland europe, I would get a PPL and expect to pay the additional medical costs, although it seems madness that I can fly (with my history of heart malfunctions) in the UK and a similarly afflicted German can fly over Germany but we can't fly in each others national airspace.
Are they saying that safety is different over there or that our doctors are different to theirs?
Anyway, for what little it is worth, I vote to leave things alone.
If I read this aright, the UK PPL will still exist, its just that it won't be renewable by instructors/examiners.
If you want to fly EASA certified aircraft you will need to SWAP your National PPL for a JAA PPL. The JAA PPL will be accepted as an EASA Part FCL licence. Its a paperwork and money exercise if you do it early i.e. before April 2012. If you wait, there may be additional conversion requirtements.
UK Instructors/Examiners will be able to perform all the usual functions on either licence.
Another vote for A.
I have a JAR PPL issued by the CAA but fly in France. Should say "have flown in France"! In the past the CAA have accepted (reluctantly) my French AME Class 2 medical certificate, but am now informed that these French Class 2 medical exams no longer meet the CAA requirements.
I am not able to get to the UK just yet and do not want to pay the extortionate English AME fees, so my licence has expired.
Now if I convert to NPPL I get my GP (who also happens to be a French AME) to countersign my self declaration, et voila.
With the recent changes it perhaps means that I can also fly in France on my NPPL as I have a French Class 2 medical certificate.
I wonder????
I have a JAR PPL issued by the CAA but fly in France. Should say "have flown in France"! In the past the CAA have accepted (reluctantly) my French AME Class 2 medical certificate, but am now informed that these French Class 2 medical exams no longer meet the CAA requirements.
I am not able to get to the UK just yet and do not want to pay the extortionate English AME fees, so my licence has expired.
Now if I convert to NPPL I get my GP (who also happens to be a French AME) to countersign my self declaration, et voila.
With the recent changes it perhaps means that I can also fly in France on my NPPL as I have a French Class 2 medical certificate.
I wonder????
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA will be publishing on its website in the next few days a document, the purpose of which is to provide an overview of the expected effects on pilot licensing in the UK of the impending EU legislation.
I have seen an advance copy and it is as clear as it can be given that the proposed FCL rules are still in the process of finalisation at the Commission.
I have seen an advance copy and it is as clear as it can be given that the proposed FCL rules are still in the process of finalisation at the Commission.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 81
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the CAA website.
"Proposals for the Leisure Pilot Licence and associated Medical Certification (Part FCL, Subpart B and Part Medical Subpart C)
The UK CAA strongly supports the proposed LPL and associated medical provisions as proposed by the Agency and considers it is essential that they go forward substantially as drafted. CAA believes fully in the objectives of the proposed licence as it is provided for in Regulation 216/2008; it is critical to the continuous flying of any UK National Private Pilots Licence holder who currently safely flies an EASA type"
My bold type.
Sorry maybe I'm just thick ,but does this mean that the CAA are fighting for us to continue as we are,or supporting us but with the new upgraded medical?
If the later is the case, it's not doing us a lot of favours
Lister
The UK CAA strongly supports the proposed LPL and associated medical provisions as proposed by the Agency and considers it is essential that they go forward substantially as drafted. CAA believes fully in the objectives of the proposed licence as it is provided for in Regulation 216/2008; it is critical to the continuous flying of any UK National Private Pilots Licence holder who currently safely flies an EASA type"
My bold type.
Sorry maybe I'm just thick ,but does this mean that the CAA are fighting for us to continue as we are,or supporting us but with the new upgraded medical?
If the later is the case, it's not doing us a lot of favours
Lister
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm increasingly beginning to think we've been sold down the river by people with a hidden agenda to protect the gliding community. A cynic might even say that the EIR was designed to protect glider pilot cloud flying rights and get rid of IMCR pilots.