L.A.P.L Information?

[tobster911]

Can anyone tell me anything about the L.A.P.L which is allegedly to be introduced in April next year in the UK to replace the NPPL? Is it just a load of BullS**t that my instructor is telling me so I spend more money to get my PPL?
Thanks

[Whopity]

One thing that is certain is that it will not be introduced next year. The projected date is probably as late as 2015. The CAA will issue EASA PPLs from 1 July next year. There is an explanatory letter on their website which includes expected dates for the LAPL

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Is it just a load of BullS**t that my instructor is telling me so I spend more money to get my PPL?

Not sure I understand that unless your instructor is also an AME - the main extra cost of the PPL is the medical isn't it?

[BillieBob]

One thing that is certain is that it will not be introduced next year. The projected date is probably as late as 2015.

That statement is not accurate - Registered Facilities may commence training for the LAPL from 8 April 2012 and the the LAPL may be issued from 1 July 2012. The significance of the 2015 date is that it marks the end of the derogation period by when a pilot must hold an EASA licence.

Considering that the course comprises a minimum of 30 hours of flight and 100 hours of theoretical knowledge training, it is conceivable (if unlikely) that someone could apply for the issue of a LAPL on 1 July.

[WestWind1950]

Is it just a load of BullS**t that my instructor is telling me so I spend more money to get my PPL?

no it is not BullS**t, it is the actual plans that the EASA has laid out to replace many national licences. But my suggestion would be to get the JAR-FCL and not mess with the NPPL to begin with.

Not all instructors want your cash, most really want you to be interested in FLYING and learn to be a safe and good pilot.

[tobster911]

@Gertrude. The main cost is the extra 13 hours I need, totalling well over a grand. That's why. Thanks everyone for your responses.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The main cost is the extra 13 hours I need

Largely myth. You will take as long to learn to fly as you will take. If you take 50 or 60 hours then whether the legal minimum is 30 or 45 doesn't make any difference to the cost.

OK so some people will have succeeded in getting the NPPL in fewer hours than the minimum for the PPL, but nobody seems to believe that it's very many. Are there any actual published figures?

[Crash one]

I took 66hrs to the NPPL, didn't save much except the medical £10 GP autograph.
Several other students at the time took similar times, either PPL or NPPL.
I agree the 45hrs is a myth.

[Whopity]

Are there any actual published figures?

The BMAA has some interesting figures for Microlights. The Minimum hours is 25 to obtain a licence and the average flown is 56! Over twice the minimum.

it is conceivable (if unlikely) that someone could apply for the issue of a LAPL on 1 July.

To say nothing of the fact that the CAA will probably have no means of issuing said licence!

[David Roberts]

I understand the CAA is at an advanced stage of producing the 'conversion report' required for holders of a NPPL (A) (SSEA) to a LAPL (A).
My reading of the likely outcome is that the holder of a NPPL (A) (SSEA) will be able to obtain a LAPL (A) providing:
(a) He holds a LAPL medical certificate in accordance with Part MED which is due to be final in legal terms in the next few weeks (this certificate can be issued by a GP but is slightly different in terms of process to the current GP counter-signed self declaration)
(b) Fulfil language proficiency requirements in Part FCL to level 4 English (unless already holding a UK Flight Radiotelephony Operator's Licence)
(c) Min 6 hours since obtaining NPPL (A)
(d) Recency requirement per EASA FCL 140.A(a)
(e) Pay the appropriate fee to the CAA

Most NPPL(A) holders should meet these without problem (money apart!).

There are variations on this theme for SLMG ratings etc for LAPL (TMG)

[md 600 driver]

David
What about the LAPL/h

[David Roberts]

There is no NPPL (H) so therefore no conversion route to a LAPL (H), as I understand it. Presumably someone with a PPL(H) would convert to the ICAO compliant EU licence for PPL (H), unless at the time of conversion their medical dictated they could only have a LAPL(H).

[IO540]

A 30hr "PPL" is a lot better than the current 45hr "PPL" if the individual has had loads of unlogged flight experience.

Many young people have had that, e.g. via a parent who flies, and by being keen sim pilots.

After all, "demonstrated competence" is the way to go.

The fact that the current PPL average is ~55-65 hrs is another story, and merely reflects the fact that a lot of people learning to fly are hardly spring chickens.

BTW, how will the 100hrs of theory be implemented? The current PPL has no mandatory ground school attendance, so any classes are done ad-hoc, and the instructor collects a tenner off everybody through the door

[S-Works]

I took 66hrs to the NPPL, didn't save much except the medical £10 GP autograph.
Several other students at the time took similar times, either PPL or NPPL.
I agree the 45hrs is a myth.

No it's not. Everyone takes a different amount of time that is certainly true.

But there are many many people who do the PPL in minimum and many who will even include a night qualification in that time as well.

It is much better to choose the licence that suits your longer term plans than a licence that appears cheap.

If you have no intention to do anything more than DAY/VFR flying in permit aircraft than the NPPL and the LAPL that will replace it could suit you. If you can't get a full Class 2 medical again the NPPL/LAPL route would be favourable. But remember these are sub ICAO licences and as such will not be valid outside of Europe.

So if you want greater options, which include night and instrument as well as a multitude of other flavours on the horizon or might want to further your career then looking at a JAA/EASA PPL is probably the best option.

It's horses for courses but choosing wisely now will save money and hassle in the long run.

[GeeWhizz]

BTW, how will the 100hrs of theory be implemented? The current PPL has no mandatory ground school attendance, so any classes are done ad-hoc, and the instructor collects a tenner off everybody through the door

£10!? I feel robbed! T'was £35 per PPL GS session Good job I learned to read

[Miroku]

David,

My reading of the likely outcome is that the holder of a NPPL (A) (SSEA) will be able to obtain a LAPL (A) providing:
(a) He holds a LAPL medical certificate in accordance with Part MED which is due to be final in legal terms in the next few weeks (this certificate can be issued by a GP but is slightly different in terms of process to the current GP counter-signed self declaration)

Do you happen to know any more details of the new medical? I fly on an NPPL because I can't get a class 2 medical.

Will the LAPL be valid outside the UK or is Bose X correct and they can't?

[David Roberts]

The LAPL medical standards are virtually the same as the NPPL (we lobbied for that!) but there may be a few minor differences - I haven't compared them for about a year when they were at the proposal stage. What I do know is that those with insulin-dependent diabetes will not be grounded as was for a while the possibility. The details on this are still being finalised I think in the AMC material with strong (favourable) input from UK CAA.

The GP system will change for the LAPL because the GP will need to sign a certificate rather than endorse your self-declaration. But providing you do not have any disqualifying conditions it should be very much like the NPPL. In terms of acceptance by GPs, I understand the UK CAA medical department will be informing the GPs on the new system in due course, presumably through the BMA. So hopefully your GP will know what is needed by the time you need to transition to the LAPL from the NPPL.

If you go to the link below:
EASA - Opinions
and scroll down to Opinion 07/2010 you will see the rules that were submitted to the EASA Committee (this is a member states forum) earlier this year; I do not recall any changes in the committee, but the Opinion does not have the very detailed AMC material which is still being worked on.

Part FCL and Part Med are due to be published in the EU Official Journal next month, which means they then become law from next April. However there is a three year transition to obtain a licence (to April 2015) with the appropriate medical.

[muffin]

The problem here is that there is a very big difference between asking a non aviation minded GP to "sign a certificate" rather than "endorse a self declaration". Liability issues spring to mind.

[Ellemeet]

i believewith lapl you willbe allowed to fly throughout easa countries inany sep uptil 2 tonnes and 4 pob.

this makes it much more interesting than a nppl?

most private pilots will never fligh an aircraft with a a mtow of >2t and incountries where there was no imc rating 95% never had an ir. this number however should drop with fcl.008 and its new ir and eir

[BillieBob]

Part FCL and Part Med are due to be published in the EU Official Journal next month, which means they then become law from next April.

Not quite. The Aircrew Regulation will become law on 8 April (not because of any publication in the EU Official Journal but because pre-existing EU law requires it to be so). However, each member state has the option to defer implementation of the Annexes (including Part-FCL and Part MED) for up to 12 months. The Annexes will not be implemented in the UK until 1 July, which means that neither an EASA medical certificate nor an LAPL will be available until that date.