LAPL to PPL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colchester, Essex
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAPL to PPL
Hello,
I think I may have asked this before, so sorry if it seems a bit repetitive. However, I now know a bit more about the LAPL and it seems like it's the license I want to go for initially.
Long term goal is to become a commercial pilot, but before that, I quite fancy myself as an instructor, and possibly even continue as an instructor instead of going commercial, depending on how much I enjoy it.
At the moment, money is very scarce, but I have set myself a goal to have a license by the end of the year. Having looked at the LAPL, and the cost of it, I think it may be a good idea for me to do this, then fly as PIC and build up my hours. My question to all you knowledgeable people out there is:
After obtaining an LAPL and a night rating, what would I then have to do, next year (for example, when I have more £££) to convert it to a PPL so I can add IR and FI ratings etc?
Also, I can't quite understand the license benefits of the LAPL. Can I fly an EASA aircraft registered in Europe anywhere in Europe, or, will it be like the NPPL where I can only fly in the UK and France with prior permission?
Thank you
T
I think I may have asked this before, so sorry if it seems a bit repetitive. However, I now know a bit more about the LAPL and it seems like it's the license I want to go for initially.
Long term goal is to become a commercial pilot, but before that, I quite fancy myself as an instructor, and possibly even continue as an instructor instead of going commercial, depending on how much I enjoy it.
At the moment, money is very scarce, but I have set myself a goal to have a license by the end of the year. Having looked at the LAPL, and the cost of it, I think it may be a good idea for me to do this, then fly as PIC and build up my hours. My question to all you knowledgeable people out there is:
After obtaining an LAPL and a night rating, what would I then have to do, next year (for example, when I have more £££) to convert it to a PPL so I can add IR and FI ratings etc?
Also, I can't quite understand the license benefits of the LAPL. Can I fly an EASA aircraft registered in Europe anywhere in Europe, or, will it be like the NPPL where I can only fly in the UK and France with prior permission?
Thank you
T
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is that the LAPL probably won't be any cheaper to obtain.
Anyone who thinks they can just cut 15 hours from the syllabus and still pass what is basically the same test to the same standards is kidding themselves. If you put the LAPL and the full EASA PPL syllabus next to each other, they've literally just cut 10 minutes from each lesson without actually changing the content of the lesson. There's no way that people will regularly go through this course in 30 hours and come out at a high standard, most struggle to do it in 45.
So if you have any hope of becoming an instructor in the future, I would just do the full PPL from the onset, as you are then not restricted in what aircraft you fly, and to get on the instructor course you will need at least 200 hours anyway.
Anyone who thinks they can just cut 15 hours from the syllabus and still pass what is basically the same test to the same standards is kidding themselves. If you put the LAPL and the full EASA PPL syllabus next to each other, they've literally just cut 10 minutes from each lesson without actually changing the content of the lesson. There's no way that people will regularly go through this course in 30 hours and come out at a high standard, most struggle to do it in 45.
So if you have any hope of becoming an instructor in the future, I would just do the full PPL from the onset, as you are then not restricted in what aircraft you fly, and to get on the instructor course you will need at least 200 hours anyway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colchester, Essex
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, I see your point.
However, I think that even if I could get my LAPL in 35 hours (I do have a fair amount of gliding experience etc, and am a relatively fast learner), I've still saved myself nearly £2000.
I was going to use the LAPL to get myself in the air, then just do hour building with the LAPL up to 200 ish, then see about upgrading to PPL, IR, FI etc?
However, I think that even if I could get my LAPL in 35 hours (I do have a fair amount of gliding experience etc, and am a relatively fast learner), I've still saved myself nearly £2000.
I was going to use the LAPL to get myself in the air, then just do hour building with the LAPL up to 200 ish, then see about upgrading to PPL, IR, FI etc?
The LAPL(A) to PPL(A) upgrade course comprises at least 10 hours flight instruction of which at least 4 hours is supervised solo, including at least 2 hours of solo cross country flight time with at least 1 cross-country of 150nm landing at two airfields different to the airfield of departure.
In other words, you will not save anything by doing the LAPL first and then upgrading as you will ultimately have to complete at least 45 hours flight instruction in either case.
In other words, you will not save anything by doing the LAPL first and then upgrading as you will ultimately have to complete at least 45 hours flight instruction in either case.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, you could get a NPPL (microlight), add an SSEA and convert (paperwork exercise) to a LAPL.
Or, if you want to be a flying instructor, just stick with the NPPL (Microlight) and skip all that other stuff and spend your cash on your own aircraft and off you go (after your microlight instructor course etc)!
Or, if you want to be a flying instructor, just stick with the NPPL (Microlight) and skip all that other stuff and spend your cash on your own aircraft and off you go (after your microlight instructor course etc)!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colchester, Essex
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillieBob - Surely if I completed things in the minimum times (unlikely, i know, but...) I would only have to do 40 hours flying, still saving me £600+ on the cost of a PPL?
Xrayalpha - As much as I like the idea of microlighting, and would love to have a go, it isn;t something that I think I'd enjoy as much as a 'standard' fixed wing aircraft. Though, having never tried it, I could well be wrong.
Thank you
Xrayalpha - As much as I like the idea of microlighting, and would love to have a go, it isn;t something that I think I'd enjoy as much as a 'standard' fixed wing aircraft. Though, having never tried it, I could well be wrong.
Thank you
OK, slightly poor wording. LAPL is 30 hours including at least 6 hours solo and PPL is 45 hours including at least 10 hours solo. The upgrade is 10 hours including at least 4 hours solo but you have to have completed at least 15 hours after issue of the LAPL before the PPL can be issued so, in practice, you will require a total of 45 hours but 5 hours can be other than as part of an approved course. By the time you've paid for the dual check for the 5 hours SFH, I doubt there will be any significant saving.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After obtaining an LAPL and a night rating"
(for example, when I have more £££) to convert it to a PPL so I can add IR and FI ratings etc?)
Last edited by PA28181; 6th Mar 2014 at 12:02.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't quite understand the license benefits of the LAPL
If you can't afford the proper PPL now, then I wouldn't start with it. Flying is an incredibly expensive hobby to keep up, and it's such a shame to see so many people get their licence then let their rating lapse after two years as they just can't afford to stay current.
If the money is really that much of a problem right now, either fly microlights or wait until money isn't a problem before you start.
You're quibbling over £600 now, that's nothing next to the cost of an IR, even failing the test can cost over £2000 in retakes.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's because there aren't any!
Last edited by PA28181; 6th Mar 2014 at 13:13. Reason: Wrong about adding NR
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two yearly medical for the old geezers, the ability to carry three pax, the aircraft weight of 2000kg
You can add a night rating to an LAPL anyway, it's very different from the NPPL, and isn't restricted to Europe, but my main point remains that if you can get a class 2 medical, then in the grand scheme of things you're not really saving a lot of money by not doing the full PPL from the onset.
The LAPL is purely designed for people who can't get a class 2 medical, but can get a LAPL medical. People who look at it as a cheaper alternative are kidding themselves, as the savings are minimal and it's just more paperwork in the long run if you want to upgrade.
As already mentioned, you can perhaps save 5 hours training, but to upgrade would require another flight test (probably 2 hours) and a new licence issue fee, so the actual cost saving is just a couple of hundred quid for a whole lot of hassle and extra paperwork. On top of this, every hour you go over the 30 required for the LAPL is actually an extra cost which would have been saved by just doing the full PPL.
Seems like a lot of hassle for absolutely no gain to me, but I've always had a class 1 medical. If I could only get an LAPL medical, I would clearly be pursuing this route to keep flying as a hobby.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have checked and found you can add the NR to a LAPL. I agree to use the LAPL as a stepping stone to a PPL, then you would be wasting time & money. But as a stand alone licence for those who are content with the minor restrictions it has, it's a great licence, and one I will certainly revert to when the time comes and the quack says "sorry no Class II for you this time"
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, the point of this thread is purely to ask about getting an LAPL with the plan from the onset to be to eventually convert it to a full PPL, something which saves almost no money at all, and creates more paperwork for almost no reason. I really don't think it's a good idea at all.
True that it is a nice stand alone licence, and if I ever lose class 2 then it will certainly be nice to still be able to fly if I'm at least able to get LAPL medical.
The point still remains though that it is almost unachievable for the average flying club student to go through this course in 30 hours and reach a high standard at test. Most really struggle with the 45 hours, and they haven't cut enough out of the syllabus for the LAPL to make it a proper 30 hour course, so although that's the legal minimum I really don't think you'll see many go though in that time. Of course a lot of flying schools will probably use it as a bit of a sales pitch, quoting prices based on minimum hours which look attractive, and I guess that's fair enough if it gets punters to do more than just a trial lesson, but from the onset I would choose the full PPL every time, as for the extra money you could do away with those restrictions. Again, if you don't have the money to keep your licence current going forward, then I wouldn't bother starting, as it's a very expensive hobby for just two years of flying.
as a stand alone licence for those who are content with the minor restrictions it has, it's a great licence, and one I will certainly revert to when the time comes and the quack says "sorry no Class II for you this time"
The point still remains though that it is almost unachievable for the average flying club student to go through this course in 30 hours and reach a high standard at test. Most really struggle with the 45 hours, and they haven't cut enough out of the syllabus for the LAPL to make it a proper 30 hour course, so although that's the legal minimum I really don't think you'll see many go though in that time. Of course a lot of flying schools will probably use it as a bit of a sales pitch, quoting prices based on minimum hours which look attractive, and I guess that's fair enough if it gets punters to do more than just a trial lesson, but from the onset I would choose the full PPL every time, as for the extra money you could do away with those restrictions. Again, if you don't have the money to keep your licence current going forward, then I wouldn't bother starting, as it's a very expensive hobby for just two years of flying.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The principle reasons for persuading EASA to draft rules for a LAPL - for each category of aircraft (aeroplanes, helicopters, sailplanes, balloons) - were:
1. for those pilots who did not plan to go beyond VFR day or night, max 2mt MTOW, 3 pax, no remuneration for instruction etc. i.e. for the enjoyment of flying as an end in itself rather than as an automatic stepping stone to 'higher' qualifications. We all knew that the JAR licence was misconceived as only a 'route to ATPL' and became a barrier for many who just wanted to fly privately. Hence the UK NPPL as developed 13-14 years ago.
2. for pilots who could not get the Class 2 medical, the LAPL was designed to allow them to keep flying, at whatever age. That applies equally to young people with certain medical issues as well as older folks who perhaps had had a Class 1 or 2 medical previously.
The LAPL was built on the principles adopted for the UK NPPL and some continental equivalents such as in Germany. I believe it will be successful in achieving the aims for which it was established.
1. for those pilots who did not plan to go beyond VFR day or night, max 2mt MTOW, 3 pax, no remuneration for instruction etc. i.e. for the enjoyment of flying as an end in itself rather than as an automatic stepping stone to 'higher' qualifications. We all knew that the JAR licence was misconceived as only a 'route to ATPL' and became a barrier for many who just wanted to fly privately. Hence the UK NPPL as developed 13-14 years ago.
2. for pilots who could not get the Class 2 medical, the LAPL was designed to allow them to keep flying, at whatever age. That applies equally to young people with certain medical issues as well as older folks who perhaps had had a Class 1 or 2 medical previously.
The LAPL was built on the principles adopted for the UK NPPL and some continental equivalents such as in Germany. I believe it will be successful in achieving the aims for which it was established.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LAPL was built on the principles adopted for the UK NPPL and some continental equivalents such as in Germany. I believe it will be successful in achieving the aims for which it was established.
For most, they will be mis-sold the course as a cheaper alternative, which I firmly believe it isn't, and the rest will be like the OP here thinking that it could be a first step to a career in flying, when the proper first step is just to do the full PPL in the first place, and if you can't afford it then not to start.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tobster if you have to talk about money and flying in the same breath then it probably isn't for you yet until you've got yourself a little more secure financially. Whatever you think it's going to cost and the time it's going to take, well take your worst estimate and double it. You won't go far wrong with that.
I renewed my IMC rating today (OK IR(R) for the pedants) and with a good thrashing from an instructor yesterday and the actual renewal today I spent £374, not counting incidentals such as fuel to get to the airfield etc. That's just to renew a rating. Talking to the examiner who did my renewal today he said it's cost him about £1500 just to renew his examiners rating.
It's an expensive pastime, you've got to have flying in your veins and in the back of your mind at all times to keep it up. The first thing I do when I get up is check the local TAFs on my phone, even if I'm not flying. Then I drive to work looking at the weather. It's got to grab you that badly.
I renewed my IMC rating today (OK IR(R) for the pedants) and with a good thrashing from an instructor yesterday and the actual renewal today I spent £374, not counting incidentals such as fuel to get to the airfield etc. That's just to renew a rating. Talking to the examiner who did my renewal today he said it's cost him about £1500 just to renew his examiners rating.
It's an expensive pastime, you've got to have flying in your veins and in the back of your mind at all times to keep it up. The first thing I do when I get up is check the local TAFs on my phone, even if I'm not flying. Then I drive to work looking at the weather. It's got to grab you that badly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colchester, Essex
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading all of these comments, I wish to thank you all.
I have decided (based on your experiences etc) that going for the PPL initially will be the better option, and so I have ruled out the LAPL as an alternative.
Hopefully I'll have it by the end of the year, and even better if I can get a NR before December.
Thank you once again
Tobster
I have decided (based on your experiences etc) that going for the PPL initially will be the better option, and so I have ruled out the LAPL as an alternative.
Hopefully I'll have it by the end of the year, and even better if I can get a NR before December.
Thank you once again
Tobster
RTN11, it is more likely that avaricious ATOs will attempt to persuade prospective LAPL(A) students that the licence is of little worth and that a PPL(A) is more attractive.
Whereas, in fact the LAPL(A) is an entirely adequate part-FCL pilot licence which can include ICAO day/night VFR privileges throughout EASA Member States. It can also be maintained with a much simpler / cheaper Medical Certificate than can the PPL(A) and it can be upgraded to PPL(A) later with little additional training needed.
But we might well see such greedy ATOs falling foul of their own short-sightedness. Because a PPL/FI may teach the LAPL(A) course without the need to have passed the CPL exams. So it won't be long before part-time PPL/FIs, rather than people-tube wannabee hours builders, will find themselves in demand to deliver LAPL(A) training at lower cost than the traditional PPL course........
Whereas, in fact the LAPL(A) is an entirely adequate part-FCL pilot licence which can include ICAO day/night VFR privileges throughout EASA Member States. It can also be maintained with a much simpler / cheaper Medical Certificate than can the PPL(A) and it can be upgraded to PPL(A) later with little additional training needed.
But we might well see such greedy ATOs falling foul of their own short-sightedness. Because a PPL/FI may teach the LAPL(A) course without the need to have passed the CPL exams. So it won't be long before part-time PPL/FIs, rather than people-tube wannabee hours builders, will find themselves in demand to deliver LAPL(A) training at lower cost than the traditional PPL course........
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a class 2 medical yet have a LAPL. This was due to cost and me being a Yorkshireman, won't spend money I don't need to.
I hold a Glider pilots license which meant that I was theoretically able to convert to an NPPL in well under 15 hours(can't remember the exact numbers) yet was allowed only a few hours dispensation towards a Jar PPL.
In the end it took me 22 hours. I got my LAPL through the NPPL.
Not a waste of time or money. I now have enough instruction hours and indeed solo time to spend converting to the new EASA license, but have no inclination to do so.
I fly a permit Jodel and see no reason to why an EASA license would benefit me .I do believe however that mine is a rare case where the LAPL was the right option.
ps If any of the grammer or speling is wrong I neither care or require correction.
I hold a Glider pilots license which meant that I was theoretically able to convert to an NPPL in well under 15 hours(can't remember the exact numbers) yet was allowed only a few hours dispensation towards a Jar PPL.
In the end it took me 22 hours. I got my LAPL through the NPPL.
Not a waste of time or money. I now have enough instruction hours and indeed solo time to spend converting to the new EASA license, but have no inclination to do so.
I fly a permit Jodel and see no reason to why an EASA license would benefit me .I do believe however that mine is a rare case where the LAPL was the right option.
ps If any of the grammer or speling is wrong I neither care or require correction.