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

I'm not quite sure the logic behind these licences that relax medical requirements.

I'm not sure - when all is said and done - that a 2 ton aircraft leaves any less mess than a 7 ton aircraft. Therefore isn't it logical to either bin the normal medical requirements or bin the reduced licence?

rotorfan "Instincts in airplane flying have no place in helis." I agree with most of what you wrote, but not that. Learning to fly in a fixed-wing first gives "bird sense" at a much cheaper cost than in helis. Many folk have done this, including me without confusing the different control inputs in emergency situations like engine failures.

If someone can't remember which kind of flying machine he's in and first shoves the nose down in a helicopter instead of lowering the lever when the engine quits, then perhaps he shouldn't even be in control of a shopping trolley.

Likewise, I never heard of anyone trying to hover a light airplane when coming in for a landing. Possibly the absence of whirling rotors plus the sound of reducing wind noise as a fixed-wing machine slows down would remind someone that the stall is approaching.

For most phases of flight the stick and rudder pedals in an airplane and in a helicopter are designed to be operated in the same sense, so I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. Throttle and collective are so different as to be near-impossible to confuse.

Camp Freddie stated that 50 to 60 hours are needed in reality to gain a licence and he's spot-on correct. I'm not suggesting that some flying in a fixed-wing would necessarily save time or money; only that it's useful for gaining bird-sense and it doesn't impart additional risk for careful people.

Car habits are also DEADLY;

The worst thing you can do is put a boot full of right pedal in to make a quick get away. Closely followed by yanking up the collective when you've come to a stop in order to park.

I don't think the steering wheel of a car can cause much confusion though. Unless of course you get in your car at the end of the day and think you're in a boat?

COLIBRI~

I might agree with that, but I'm not familiar with the phrase "bird sense". Of course FW costs are lower, but does that necessarily make it a better value? For those of us that like to fly both, I bet it's easier for a RW pilot to transition to airplanes than a FW pilot to learn helis.

I, too, have done this, as stated in the first post. I also stated I was referring to training in an R22. Of course, other 2-blade ships could also be susceptible to push-overs, too, but most initial civil training done in a 2-blade would have to be the R22, I would think. For a FW pilot learning to fly in a 300, the consequences would be less if airplane instincts led to a quick stick push.

Simply that the risk to a plank pilot learning to fly rotors is higher than someone that has no flying habits at all and is learning everything in the heli. A good student will learn proper control techniques and disregard ingrained techniques from FW flying. But, not everyone learns equally. I was merely trying to point out to someone who has not yet started their training, and asking about reduced training hours, that being a great airplane pilot doesn't necessarily make it easier to learn rotary, and could possibly be a hindrance early in the training program. When I think of instincts, I'm thinking of those things we learn to do with hardly a thought, usually because quick responses are necessary. There are accident reports that suggest an airplane pilot may have done something deadly wrong in the heli.

True. But, that throttle usage isn't so hard to confuse for motorcyclists.:E

I also agree with Freddie. 40 hours is already a bit on the short side. I can't imagine accepting even less for RW training.

Owl and rotarywise~

Thanks for the explanation of LAPL(H).

Rotarywise, the FAA Recreational certificate sounds far more limiting. One pax, below 10,000 ft, but 50 miles max from takeoff. There are plenty of places in the US where there wouldn't be another airport within that 50 NM radius. Probably why few have ever earned the Rec. The Sport Pilot cert is more useful, I think, but no rotary flight under either.

rotorfan A definition of "bird sense" is something which never occurred to me. Many years ago a widely-respected instructor used it and I just adopted the phrase as being something self-evident.

Looking it up on Google drew a blank, so I'll have a go at forming a definition:

Bird sense amongst aircraft pilots is having familiarity with the flight environment and appreciating the vicissitudes of the atmosphere, as well as being able to deal safely with the predictable and unpredictable actions of other users around you.

Bird sense is a level of awareness beyond knowing the rules of normal airmanship. It embraces being familiar with the physical sensations of flight including accelerations due to turbulence and gravity, as well as appreciating the significance of sounds of air flowing around an aircraft.

Bird sense becomes ingrained when a pilot feels that the aircraft is an extension of the body, rather than just a machine in which to sit as a passenger.

Anyone else want to improve on this first attempt at defining bird sense?

Habits are great when they are the correct ones which is what training is supposed to achieve, but inappropriate ones can be very difficult to change.
The two areas that I have noticed when fixed wing pilots transition to helicopters are:
1/ Pushing the nose down on simulated power failures.
2/ Pulling back on on the stick when descending from the hover to land.
3/ Marked reluctance to level the skids on EOL's. The habit of holding off with the stick is deeply ingrained in the flurry of action at the bottom of an EOL.

to extend the range of auto rotation you do push the nose forward....

Colibri~

Well done. I suspected that's what you meant by "bird sense", but I hate to assume. Plenty easy for me to be wrong. Yes, I would agree that flying a plank, even an unpowered one, would help with bird sense. There are things about being in the air, and interacting with nature and other pilots, that would be similar with little regard to the aircraft in use.

I never came close to a quick push-over when training in the R22, but I had done a lot of reading, and was acutely aware of the potential consequences of that. It took much discipline for me to always keep that in mind. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than any other FW driver transitioning to RW, but I suspect there may be others that aren't as aware.

My primary instructor was a brand new 200-hr CFI, with no time in FW. He had no idea that he had a potential problem sitting next to him in the cockpit. He was paired with me, as I knew the airspace/airports of our city, and we could learn from each other. When I look back, I recall doing turns in the pattern (circuit) and putting in pedal, a rudder input in a FW during aileron application. I can see that today as an airplane habit, but didn't recognize it at the time. He also would give me grief for "burning it in" on final. I'd fly a steady 60 knots with most of the decel near the bottom, to stay out of the "avoid" on the H/V. It was a comfortable sight picture for a FW driver, but a technique I had to relearn in the heli. That's why I say an airplane pilot can bring "bad" habits when learning RW flying.

Rotorfossil~

Good info. I'll keep that in mind.

Quote "True. But, that throttle usage isn't so hard to confuse for motorcyclists."

That old chestnut again. Obviously only ever spouted by NON Motorcyclists.

As a motorcyclist and rotory pilot I fail to see how they could be confused.

I have NEVER come across a motorbike where the throttle is used by the left hand. All motorcycles have the throttle on the right.

All Helicopters have the collective on the left (i.e. used by the left hand).

Good luck trying to ride a motorbike with your arms crossed to operate the twist grip with your left hand.
You'd probably get about as far as you would crossing your arms in a Robbo to operate the cyclic and throttle with your right hand.
Although I have heard (possibly an old wives tale) of some instructors in a Robbo sat on the left operating the centre collective with their right hand, and cyclic with the left, don't know how many have survived though. And definitely not something you would do without practise and therefore unlikely to think you are on a motorbike.

Didn't know it was an old chestnut, merely my experience. Maybe you were just a better student than I was, Eddie, so didn't make mistakes. I did it ONCE, early in my training. At that time, I had only been riding motorcycles for 27 years, versus a few hours in a helicopter. I don't think the left or right hand had anything to do with it. As you say, I've never seen the throttle on the left side of the 'bars. But, the motion of rolling the wrist is the same, I just did it the wrong way. Don't know whether the instructor or I was more shocked. It took a fraction of a second to correct, as it wasn't hard to recognize.

No turbines - LAPL is for single engine piston only

james
are you sure ?

FCL.105 LAPL(H) – Privileges and conditions

(a) General. The privileges of the holder of an LAPL (H) are to act without

remuneration as PIC in non-commercial operations on helicopters.

(b) Conditions. Applicants for the LAPL (H) shall have fulfilled the requirements for

helicopters and, when applicable, for the type of helicopter used in the skill test.

FCL.105.H LAPL(H) – Privileges and conditions

The privileges of the holder of an LAPL for helicopters are to act as PIC on singleengine

helicopters with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 2000 kg or less,

carrying a maximum of 3 passengers, such that there are never more than 4

persons on board.

Exactly. Apart from the fact that the LAPL(H) is sub ICAO and therefore only valid in Europe, it will serve the needs of the majority of non commercial pilots. The only good thing that has come out of EASA to date!