sep ppl a
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England that central part of Britian between Ecosse and Occupied France
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sep ppl a
Could any one possibly inform one, if it is possible to renew,a S.E.P. on a U.K. P.P.L. in a permit aircraft and what is involved in the GST.
Yes you can do it in a permit aircraft, so long as the training organisation / instructor and examiner are happy with the aircraft. You can't rent the aeroplane, but if you are sole owner it's no problem - I'd need to double check the current ANO / exemption provisions if you're a partial owner, but I think that's possible also and somebody might know the answer without me having to dig.
You need training as required, and the instructor to be happy for you to go forward for test.
The test will be essentially the same as your original PPL skill test, except for a bit less nav.
G
You need training as required, and the instructor to be happy for you to go forward for test.
The test will be essentially the same as your original PPL skill test, except for a bit less nav.
G
As a part owner of a Permit a/c, yes, you can. Many Permit a/c have a comprehensively kitted panel and carry much the same nav instrumentation as a certified aircraft.
With IFR enablement just around the corner, adequate instrumentation is fitted as standard on many of the newer types.
With IFR enablement just around the corner, adequate instrumentation is fitted as standard on many of the newer types.
The test will be essentially the same as your original PPL skill test, except for a bit less nav.
The content of the LPC is decided by the Examiner and depends largely on the individual's experience, currency and by how long he or she has lapsed. There is a minimum content, however certain items from the initial test can be omitted, such as the 180 instrument turn and the precautionary landing among others. The average LPC should be accomplished in around an hour to an hour and fifteen, whereas the initial invariably takes over two hours.
Pray tell, why is IFR instrument capability "essential" to training as required then a proficiency check for a lapsed PPL? For that matter why would anything more than minimum legal instrumentation and a working radio be needed?
G
G
Nope, the OP asked about whether he could renew a lapsed PPL in a permit aircraft.
He didn't mention an IR(R), whether he wanted to use the aeroplane subsequently, whether he was in fact ever interested in instrument flying. He asked whether he could renew a lapsed PPL.
Not that IFR in homebuilts is in any way a bad thing - it's an excellent thing, also I agree that many homebuilts are better equipped than many CofA aeroplanes. It's just got nothing to do with the question.
G
He didn't mention an IR(R), whether he wanted to use the aeroplane subsequently, whether he was in fact ever interested in instrument flying. He asked whether he could renew a lapsed PPL.
Not that IFR in homebuilts is in any way a bad thing - it's an excellent thing, also I agree that many homebuilts are better equipped than many CofA aeroplanes. It's just got nothing to do with the question.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 26th Apr 2016 at 19:49.
It appears from this and several other threads that Capt Kremen is exhibiting troll-like behaviour. Ignore him and he will eventually give up and annoy someone else.
Even if he isn't a troll, the same advice still applies, I would suggest.
Even if he isn't a troll, the same advice still applies, I would suggest.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Gloster,UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a PPL with VFR qualifications and access to an EASA plane with VFR capability (only), I am intrigued about this sudden requirement for everyone and every plane to be IR(R) capable.
Or have I missed something. Sorry for the thread drift.
Or have I missed something. Sorry for the thread drift.
Oh dear !
Genghis, I answered the OP and endorsed your opening statement at 4#. While still on the subject, I then extended matters slightly to include IFR enablement for Permit a/c. from the point that the OP might, at some time in the future, go down that route.
foxmoth
Is all now revealed ? If you found it obscure then, it must really have been so !
Genghis, I answered the OP and endorsed your opening statement at 4#. While still on the subject, I then extended matters slightly to include IFR enablement for Permit a/c. from the point that the OP might, at some time in the future, go down that route.
foxmoth
Is all now revealed ? If you found it obscure then, it must really have been so !