.... and the UK lifetime PPL(A)?

If you can't fly Annex II on an EASA licence then maybe the lifetime UK licence will survive! Perhaps we should bring back Group A and of course Group D for microlights so they don't get confused with the Eurocrap!

That is true but does not necessarily lead to an assumption that the NPPL will survive. There is no reason why individual states could not allow Annex II aircraft to be flown on a relevant EASA licence. As to the lifetime PPL, Whopity's idea aside, on the adoption of the EASA implementing rules, the UK lifetime PPL will become worthless. EASA will recognise only those existing licences that were issued in accordance with JAR-FCL. You will need to obtain a JAA PPL prior to 2012.

In theory the CAA could easily consider the UK PPL to be equivalent to the JAR-PPL and make a simple transfer. I'd guess most other countries would take that line as they've done in other areas of regulation.

But what are the odds that the CAA would actually do that?

They do, it currently costs £176, just fill in the form In return they will send you a new licence that only differs from you existing licence on the front page where it says Joint Aviation Authorities. Thats £58.69 a word.

Oh, it's more than that; unlike the UK PPL you'll have to put your hand in your (already taxed) pocket AGAIN five years later. :mad:

The best solution would be for the LAPL and any other unacceptable attempts by the €urocrats to meddle in sub-ICAO matters to wither and die. There's a reasonable chance that this might still happen, thanks to the €uropean medical bodies.....

If political pressure could be brought to bear to remove sub-ICAO pilot licensing from EASA part-FCL, the NPPL could continue without let or hindrance and be free from Colognic irritations.

The NPPL is (now) a simpler and better understood pilot licence than the chaotic nonsense of the proposed LAPL which isn't a lifetime licence, has no microlight/SLMG allowances, has a rolling validity within a fixed licence period....it really is UTTER nonsense and is a typical 'one size fits no-one' piece of €urotrash.

But it's a big IF...:hmm:

On the other hand, the NPPL would still remain (almost) worthless outside the UK, which isn't ideal either.

Nice and simple then. It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many pilots who are unhappy with the CAA / EASA and yet nothing seems to change.

So are there any lobbying bodies trying to tidy up the mess?

Another quickee. I was reading an article in this month’s Pilot magazine about a group who built a Handley Page 0/400 replica.

It mentions that,

“34 had G-registrations and one obtained the first ever Certificate of Airworthiness.”

Can I take it from this that in theory and in practice a kit aircraft can get a C of A?

Well if you're prepare to take it though the full certification process then I suppose it would be possible, but it wouild also be eye-wateringly expensive, and may well require significant modifications to fully meet the airworthiness standards.

I think in practice its a non-starter. I suspect the Pilot article was referring to something else

Brooklands

No, not an EASA C of A at any rate. Certification has already been moved to EASA and they will not issue a certificate to any Annex II aircraft.

Thanks for the info.

Greg

It appears from a note on the LAA site that we have until next Monday to put submissions to EASA regarding the medical requirements for the proposed Light Aircraft Pilots Licence.

If the new proposals are accepted it seems that the NPPL will be abolished as new requirements for the LAPL will require a class 2 medical.

Most important that EASA LAPL medical plans are scuppered. If you can figure out the (deliberately?) impenetrable comment response tool (designed by a tool) on the EASA website I urge everyone to make clear to them the importance of retaining the existing GP medical declaration arrangements which have worked very well, very safely, and which above all keep people flying.
Apparently the website software will recognise Copy and paste comments and disregard them, so if possible some original wording and thought would be preferable.

So would that apply to a PA18? I know that they are now all deemed Annex II aircraft but I thought some were on a C of A?

Where would a Vans RV-10 sit? Could that, in theory, obtain a C of A?