90 day rule: LAPL flying microlight

[raven22]

I am flying a microlight on my LAPL licence. If I do not comply with the 90 day rule flying an EASA aircraft but do comply in the microlight, having had several flights in the microlight in the last 90 days, am I legal to carry passengers in the microlight?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I fly microlights and EASA aircraft, with gaps in one or the other from time to time.

The conclusion I reached some time ago on this is that...

(1) It's probably legal, but there's no definitive statement to prove that.

(2) It's stupid. I can think of no good reason, if I've not flown the type or class for that long to not fly a few circuits to de-rust myself before flying with pax.

G

[BEagle]

A Part-FCL licence with single-engine piston aeroplane privileges is not deemed to be rendered valid for a Microlight aeroplane unless the holder of the licence has undergone differences training in accordance with the Air Navigation Order, Section 2 of Part B of Schedule 7, appropriate for a Microlight aeroplane class rating. A LAPL(A) does not have an SEP 'rating', but does have SEP privileges endorsed, therefore may be rendered valid for Microlight aeroplanes, subject to satisfying the ANO requirement.

The ORS4 No.1087 90 day rule exemption does NOT apply to the LAPL. ipso facto, whether you fly an SEP aeroplane or a microlight, the 90 day rule still applies.

[raven22]

Thanks both. I do comply with the ANO having done the differences training. Is the implication of your post, Beagle, that the LAPL 90 day rule must be complied with first before considering the 90 days on the microlight?

[BEagle]

As I read it, provided that you have maintained 90-day recency in an aeroplane for which your Part-FCL pilot licence privileges are valid, you have met the criteria.

The document describing the exemptions is ORS4 No.1087, which may be viewed here: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...7Corrected.pdf

[raven22]

Thanks again. That seems logical - not always the case, however!