NPPL or LAPL?

[robin]

I'm still baffled why, if I do nothing but keep it valid, my ICAO compliant PPL (the UK PPL) will be downgraded to an EASA LAPL with the associated limitations.

It is either ICAO compliant or not and we have had no notification or explanation as to why the CAA considers it a lesser qualification than the JAR-PPL.

I have been told by an instructor with ATPL and hosts of other ratings, that to move to the JAR licence would cost him megabucks to have the ratings added to it. Not sure exactly why, but if this is the case the CAA will need to have good reason to impose any additional costs.

[Miroku]

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

This is in direct contradiction of the comments of the CAA representative at the AOPA meeting at Duxford on the 18th September. We were told that the CAA were strongly of the opinion that the existing system whereby a GP could sign a medical should continue to stand.

[David Roberts]

Quote:
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

Quote:
This is in direct contradiction of the comments of the CAA representative at the AOPA meeting at Duxford on the 18th September. We were told that the CAA were strongly of the opinion that the existing system whereby a GP could sign a medical should continue to stand. [End quote]

I think the first quote was at the stage of the NPA or before (because it refers to the LPL, not LAPL which is the name change in the CRD). That was before certain gremlins got at the LAPL medical and the GP qualification during the post-NPA review stage, the results of which appeared in the CRD in June with the addition of extra GP qualifications etc. Since then there have been 'various conversations' and I know the CAA will be taking a line that very much supports our interests.

[David Roberts]

Quote: 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. [End quote]

As anyone who knows me will I trust understand, that is complete rubbish. In my roles I represent all light aviation at UK and European level. But I do happen to think the gliding community has been perhaps more organised and focused in getting its messages across where it counts. Which of course is not on forums.

[Lister Noble]

David,I do believe what you are saying and look forward to seeing the final decisions in print.
I think you said that they would appear soon,but will this be in next few weeks?
Thanks for your support of us NNPL lot,amongst others.
Lister

[Miroku]

David,

Very many thanks for the clarification. I also tend to share your view that the gliding community have got their act together rather better than other sections of GA.

I wait with interest to see what AOPA, LAA etc can come up with.

Without wanting to start a completely different thread, it seems a great pity to me that the various 'interested parties' could not get togther and speak with one, bigger voice on issues which affect us all!

[BillieBob]

I'm still baffled why, if I do nothing but keep it valid, my ICAO compliant PPL (the UK PPL) will be downgraded to an EASA LAPL with the associated limitations.

It won't be downgraded to an EASA LAPL. If you do nothing but keep it current it will remain a UK national PPL, which will not be valid for use in an aircraft with an EASA CofA. It might remain valid for use in UK-registered Annex II aircraft but AFAIK the UK CAA have made no statement to this effect.

To fly an EASA aircraft, you will, not unreasonably, need an EASA licence. This may be obtained by exchanging your UK national licence for the JAA equivalent (which is deemed to be an EASA licence) prior to the enabling Regulation coming into force or by meeting the requirements of Part FCL for the issue of an EASA licence thereafter.

[robin]

Quite

I fly own and fly a Robin - not surprisingly - and occasionally rent a C172 or PA 28

Under the new proposals I can't. Neither can those with an NPPL and limited medical.

So where is the fairness in this? What law has been passed that prevents us from maintaining our existing rights or protect those of us who have been flying within the legal requirements for MANY years from being wiped out?

Why should we have to pay to upgrade (upgrade??) and to maintain our licences?

[md 600 driver]

robin
why wont you be able to fly a 172 or a pa28 on a lpl or npp ?

[robin]

As an EASA aircraft they require will require the full medical for the LAPl which some of us can't get.

The NPPL will allow you to fly non-EASA aircraft - ie Annexe II OR Permit aircraft.

At the moment at my airfield there are around a dozen pilots who will not be able to use club aircraft in the brave new world, as they can't get (effectively) a sign-off by an AME. They fly under an NPPL with self-declaration but the LAPL does not allow that post-2012

[md 600 driver]

robin

i must have read this all wrong the but the way i read it

the proposal that easa aircraft can be flown with a reduced medical like for hgv drivers or nppl , but it will have to be carried out by a ame or trained gp this may cost more but still available

also the medical section is not yet finished so things can change if enough people sent in the crd


how do you read it ?

david roberts

can you please advise as to the latest as you do seem to be the one that knows

[robin]

MD600

the issue would seem to that NPPL drivers are currently flying off an HGV medical. The proposal would require a full medical examination rather than a straight sign-off by the GP and standards that apply today will not be accepted in our brave new world

[davydine]

Hmm, getting concerned!

Could anyone point me in the direction of the latest proposed medical requirements for the LAPL, particularly with regards to the eyesight requirements?

At the moment I know I can train for an NPPL but not a PPL as I can't get through the initial class 2 medical on the grounds of the strength of my prescription. (If I already held a PPL then i could renew the medical, it's just the initial medical that is a problem)

I am beginning to wonder if i should start training for my NPPL now, even though i can't afford it at the moment so that I get a licence which I can convert at a later date to whatever licence becomes the norm.

I really need to know what the initial requirements are. i don't want to find myself in a position where I can't pass the medical and find I have missed a window of opportunity!

[BEagle]

This is the current proposal for LAPL Medicals regarding eyesight:

7. VISUAL SYSTEM
7.1. The applicant’s visual acuity and visual fields are examined.
7.2. Acuity
The applicant’s visual acuity with or without corrective lenses should be 6/9 binocularly and 6/12 in each eye.
7.3. Amblyopia or Monocularity
An applicant with amblyopia or monocularity may be assessed as fit, subject to a satisfactory flight test, if the visual acuity in the unaffected eye is with or without correction 6/6 or better.
7.4. Visual field defects
Applicants shall have a normal binocular visual field or a normal monocular visual field.
7.5. Colour Vision
For the grant of a night rating applicants should have correctly identified 9 of the first 15 plates of the 24plate edition of Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates. A vision care specialist or a doctor may have conducted this test.

Full LAPL medical proposals can be viewed in http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_42

[BEagle]

The CAA's document 'EUROPEAN LEGISLATION - THE EXPECTED EFFECTS ON THE LICENSING OF PILOTS IN THE UK.' hasn't yet appeared on the CAA website - but the content shows just what an utterly absured Tower of Babel situation would result if this ridiculous €uro-nonsense ever sees the light of day.

There is no need for any change; this whole lunacy is being forced on pilots by a wholly unneccessary €uro-quango. There is no safety case to introduce such massive changes.

The only way to kill off this whole lunacy is by lobbying at the very highest political level to demand that this 'unreasonable legislation' is thrown out - which means lobbying you MEP at the very least.

Whoever thought that some 'European Sport Pilot Licence' would ever be simpler, cheaper or more convenient than the NPPL must also have believed in fairies!!

[neilb2nd]

BillieBob - you say "To fly an EASA aircraft, you will, not unreasonably, need an EASA licence. This may be obtained by exchanging your UK national licence for the JAA equivalent (which is deemed to be an EASA licence) prior to the enabling Regulation coming into force or by meeting the requirements of Part FCL for the issue of an EASA licence thereafter."

I currently fly a motorglider - which is an EASA aircraft - on an NPPL. Are you saying that I can (have to?) convert my NPPL to a JAR licence as a paperwork exercise?

[David Roberts]

CAA document I was referring to earlier in this thread

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_l&...s_Sept2010.pdf

[BEagle]

Yes, that's the one I've been asked to comment upon. The link from the CAA website is Licensing and Training Standards Documents | EASA | Safety Regulation ; this will be a useful page from which to keep an eye on more potential €urononsense....

Once upon a time, there was a Piper J3 Cub, a Piper Cherokee and a Supermarine Spitfire.

For many, many years, you could fly all of them on a UK PPL anywhere in the world. Every 13 months your logbook would be stamped if you'd done 5 hrs P1 and you'd be good for another 13 months.

Then the UK CAA decided it would be A Good Thing to change the rules before JAR-FCL came in, so that it wouldn't come as a complete shock. You could still fly your Cub, Cherokee and Spitfire on a PPL, but the logbook stamp became a 2-yearly licence page signature instead. And was called 'revalidation' or, if you’d run out of currency (which was now called ‘recency’), ‘renewal’.

When JAR-FCL arrived, if you wanted to you could change your lifetime UK PPL into a JAR-FCL PPL which needed to be re-issued every 5 years for which, of course, you would have to pay. The CAA said that this would make things cheaper for everyone in their Regulatory Impact Assessment. Few people were stupid enough to bother. But you couldn't obtain a lifetime UK PPL any longer....

Training for the JAR-FCL PPL was too expensive for many - and some pilots couldn't meet the medical requirements, so a new, simpler licence and medical was invented - the NPPL. Originally with 'simple SEP' privileges, later changed to SSEA because the CAA weren't man enough to stand their ground when challenged. You could, however, still fly your Cub and Cherokee, but not a Spitfire. But only in UK airspace.

Then the €urocrats sniffed real gold and invented EASA. This wholly unnecessary €uro-quango now intends to force everyone with a lifetime UK PPL to replace it with an EASA part-FCL PPL - which isn't lifetime - if they want to fly 'EASA aircraft' such as Cherokees, but not Cubs or Spitfires. Also a JAR-FCL PPL will need to become an EASA PPL. Unless, that is, you simply want to fly your Cub and Spitfire, because you will still be able to do that with a national licence such as a UK PPL or, for the Cub only, an NPPL. If you want to fly a Cherokee as well, you would need to change your NPPL into a LAPL (assuming the medical requirements are still achievable) - or your UK PPL / JAR-FCL PPL into an EASA part-FCL PPL.

So, as I understand it, when the lunacy of Brave New €uroland finally arrives:

• You'll be able to fly a Cub, but not a Cherokee, on an NPPL in UK airspace.
• You might be able to fly a Cub on a LAPL outside UK airspace; you could fly a Cherokee, but not a Spitfire.
• You'll be able to fly a Cub or a Spitfire on a UK PPL, but not a Cherokee. Certainly in UK airspace and perhaps elsewhere?
• You might be able to fly a Cub or Spitfire on an EASA PPL but probably only in UK airspace, but you would be able to fly a Cherokee inside or outside UK airspace.
• The NPPL and LAPL have different revalidation / renewal requirements and the LAPL might also have reissue requirements. None of which are the same as for the UK PPL or EASA PPL.
• The UK PPL doesn't need to be reissued whereas the EASA PPL does.
• My brain hurts.

How to fly a Spitfire outside UK airspace? You’ll probably just have to wait until €uroland starts wearing uniforms and adopting funny walks. Then, just as in 1940, you won’t need any licence at all!

Isn't the whole thing becoming more than a little ludicrous?

[BillieBob]

I currently fly a motorglider - which is an EASA aircraft - on an NPPL. Are you saying that I can (have to?) convert my NPPL to a JAR licence as a paperwork exercise?

If it is an EASA aircraft then you will need an EASA licence to fly it.

[BEagle]

I currently fly a motorglider - which is an EASA aircraft - on an NPPL. Are you saying that I can (have to?) convert my NPPL to a JAR licence as a paperwork exercise?

If it's an SLMG, you'll be able to convert to a LAPL(S).
If it's a TMG, you'll be able to convert to a LAPL(A).
If it's an Annex II 'vintage' motorglider, you'll be able to fly it on a NPPL(SLMG).

Just one small example of the barking nonsense of the whole LAPL...