LAPL(H)
 

Could anyone please tell me if the new LAPL(H), which I believe is 35 hours (talent permitting) to complete, can be reduced by 6 hours for the holder of a PPL(A), as I understand is the case for the PPL(H)? :confused:

Thank you.

You are sadly misinformed. The LAPL(H) requires 40 hours of flight instruction on helicopters of which 35 hours must be on the type of helicopter used for the skill test. There is no credit for for the holder of any aeroplane licence but holders of any other helicopter licence are credited in full towards the requirements for an LAPL(H)

Thanks BillieBob. I thought it seemed too good to be true! Had my first rotary experience and was seriously turned on by it. Just seeing if it's potentially affordable! :eek:

In my view 40 hours is already a bit low, and giving people credits off that would turn out a pretty low quality pilot.

Apart from the exceptions who are good at everything, most people take 50-60 hours in my experience before they can be considered any good and suitable for test.

Personally I think the LAPL(H) is not needed and hope people will do the EASA PPL(H) it's only 5 hours more and the Qual X-C is 100nm with 2 full stop landings rather than 80nm with 1 full stop landing

I think that the LAPL will do the same for helicopter flying that the NPPL did for fixed wing. Quite apart from any reduced training requirements, it will allow existing pilots who can no longer hold a Class 2 medical to continue flying if they can pass the (as yet not fully published) requirements for the new LAPL medical. Not too relevant for the commercial and professional pilots but could be very important if you are a PPL(H) holder.

This has most certainly been by far the biggest benefit of the NPPL in the fixed wing world and has enabled many thousands of perfectly fit people to continue flying without any demonstrated increase in medically related accident rates.

I completely agree with your medical analysis, I don't see why the content of the PPL should be different though, just reduce the medical requirements for everyone if it causes no problem for the EASA PPL(H)

Now I know there will be loads of technical reasons why this can't be done, but having 2 different courses and requirements is annoying like when the WBA and WBC created 2 different boxing world champions !

Is there a weight /piston/turb. limit for LAPLH ?

2000kg max certified take off weight
No more than 3 pax (4 on board)

So I think jetranger ok as long as you don't fill it up curiously

Pom pom~

I would suggest that the airplane experience is of little use, if any. I took up rotary training after 20 years of planks, and found that the only skills that transferred were navigation and communication. The machines are much different. In fact, if you train on the R22 like I did and many others, too, airplane habits can be deadly. Instincts in airplane flying have no place in helis. If you want to save time and money, the best you can do is have all the money ready so you can fly often, 3-5 hours per week. I had to pause to replenish the bank account, and my skills atrophied while I wasn't flying. That drives up the cost as you spend extra just to return to your previous skill level.

Thanks for all your replies. Just for a mad moment I thought I may be able to get into rotary, but it looks unlikely after reading your comments. Will have to stick with the fixed wing (plank!) and spend my money on aerobatics instead. Cheers :ok:

Err, no - the certified take off weight of a 206A is always 3000 lbs no matter what you put in it.

Rotarywise. mtow for new lapl is 2000kgs- note kgs not pounds so jetranger is ok on that point. However does four seats mean - certified for a max four seats ie R44 or is a
five seat machine like the JR ok so long as only a maximum of four seats are occupied ie pilot and up to three passengers?

The LAPL(H) privileges are limited to single engine (piston or turbine), max 2000kg MTOW and max 3 passengers (not seats). See EASA FCL 105.H. You can meet these requirements with e.g. a JetRanger, LongRanger, EC120, Gazelle, R66.

So, you should be good to go then?

Jymil, Thanks for clarifying my query regarding the seats.

I'm on the left side of the pond, and haven't gathered the meaning of LAPL(H). Could someone kindly clue me in what kind of license this refers to? Thanks...

Light aircraft pilots license for helicopters

Precisely my point. I did not mention seating capacity as that is not, and never has been an issue.

OAP - Correct, even fully loaded.

rotorfan - The Light Aircraft Pilot Licence is a sub-ICAO licence (not dissimilar to the FAA recreational licence although with slightly wider privileges) that is valid only in EU airspace. Its main purpose, like the UK's NPPL, is to allow pilots who can no longer meet Class 2 medical requirements to continue to fly privately. It was going to be called the Leisure Pilot's Licence but, for some reason, this caused too many ruffled feathers in some quarters and it was renamed. It is still referred to as a leisure pilot licence in the Basic Regulation.

I meant fill it up with people not fuel, it makes no sense to me to not be able to fly a jetranger with 5 up

All the medical requirements for the LAPL have now appeared here
LAPL Home Page | Medical | Personal Licences and Training