[oldbiggincfi]

Is thread title an oxymoron ?

Flying is Simple

A lot of us do .

Capable and safe .

Legally Maybe

[shortstripper]

I have a UK PPL A issued in 1990 and an EASA PPL SEP.
Are neither now recognised by the EU?

I've lost the will to figure all this out anymore. I used to keep on top of regulations, but it's just too complicated these days!

I'll just fly the Cub when in the UK and forget any ideas of trying to fly when at our home in Bulgaria.

Happy New year? SS

[Highland Park]

Am I right in thinking that having a PPL(A) (issued July 2012) and a LAPL Medical means I can still fly abroad, or have I got that wrong and you have to have a Class 2?

You have that wrong. From the CAA microsite:

Unless with the approval of the State or Crown Dependency concerned, LAPL privileges included in a UK CAA issued Part-FCL PPL may only be exercised in UK airspace.
Why? Because a UK CAA issued Part-FCL PPL, which does not include a valid Class 2 medical certificate, does not comply with the requirements of Article 59 of Regulation 2018/1139.

Bugger...as Dick Emery’s character used to say: “I got it wrong again...”. I only renewed my medical in December...

Ian

[nickwilcock]

I have a UK PPL A issued in 1990 and an EASA PPL SEP.
Are neither now recognised by the EU?

The UK-issued Part-FCL PPL may be used to fly G-reg aircraft in Europe, including Bulgaria. International travel regulations in terms of customs clearance might require more restrictive 'ports of entry' etc.

The old CAA-issued PPL could only be used to fly non-Part 21 G-reg aircraft in Europe under current regulations, again with the same entry/exit restrictions.

(Part-21 aircraft are what used to known as 'EASA aircraft')

[Lefty]

Fundamentally, I think that there should be just one PPL and that should be ICAO compliant and allow the holder to fly any G Reg single engined aircraft - and to fly it anywhere in the world.

Clearly, it is logical to apply an upper weight limit, for example 5,700 Kg.

However I can recognise the case to provide facilities for one or more lower level licences to make it easier for people to get into flying at a lower initial cost / with fewer barriers, and to allow people that are unable to pass the medical for a full PPL to also enjoy the privileges of flying an aircraft. But, I would suggest that pilots holding these lower level licences (sub ICAO) and / or medical certificates should not expect to have exactly the same privileges and freedoms as holders of a full ICAO licence and medical certificate.

From a risk basis, it is, IMHO, quite reasonable to consider that a pilot with a lower than ICAO level of flight training, theoretical knowledge and / or medical certificate, is unlikely to demonstrate the same level of safety as a pilot with considerably higher levels of training, knowledge and medical. Otherwise why are those higher levels mandated?

[JAFO]

...it is, IMHO, quite reasonable to consider that a pilot with a lower than ICAO level of flight training, theoretical knowledge and / or medical certificate, is unlikely to demonstrate the same level of safety as a pilot with considerably higher levels of training, knowledge and medical. Otherwise why are those higher levels mandated?

I have a sub-ICAO licence and medical but I first trained in 1986 and so have completed full PPL training. I have more theoretical knowledge than someone who has simply passed a PPL course. The reason I currently have a lower medical category is because I went through surgery to correct a congenital problem, meaning I'm actually fitter now than I was in 1986.

Do I somehow demonstrate a lower level of safety?

Edited to add: I don't expect the same level of privileges on an NPPL with a PMD as the holder of a PPL with a Class 2; I just don't believe that I necessarily demonstrate a lower level of safety.

[nallen]

But, I would suggest that pilots holding these lower level licences (sub ICAO) and / or medical certificates should not expect to have exactly the same privileges and freedoms as holders of a full ICAO licence and medical certificate.

Perfectly reasonable: the LAPL (and NPPL) have certain restrictions; us holders realise the limitations as a trade-off.

From a risk basis, it is, IMHO, quite reasonable to consider that a pilot with a lower than ICAO level of flight training, theoretical knowledge and / or medical certificate, is unlikely to demonstrate the same level of safety as a pilot with considerably higher levels of training, knowledge and medical. Otherwise why are those higher levels mandated?

I instantly became even more dangerous when I switched to a LAPL…

But "it is, IMHO, quite reasonable to consider that a pilot with a lower than ICAO level of flight training, theoretical knowledge and / or medical certificate, is unlikely to demonstrate the same level of safety as a pilot with considerably higher levels of training, knowledge and medical" -- the differences aren't that great and I bet there's no meaningful data to support this supposition.

[ls8pilot]

But "it is, IMHO, quite reasonable to consider that a pilot with a lower than ICAO level of flight training, theoretical knowledge and / or medical certificate, is unlikely to demonstrate the same level of safety as a pilot with considerably higher levels of training, knowledge and medical" -- the differences aren't that great and I bet there's no meaningful data to support this supposition.

I would think pilot experience level - not just hours, but types flow, weather experienced, different airfields etc etc have much more impact. I would guess the natural variation in ability between pilots with the same training is probably much more a factor than a few hours extra ground school or on the training syllabus.

As for medicals - AFAIK there is very little evidence that the difference between DVLA Class 1 (= PMD) and Class 2 has any effect on GA safety.

[tailbob]

It is indeed the medical certificate that is the crux of the problem with flight to Europe, as LAPL holders are now finding. The NPPL came about because of the elevation of the standard of the Class 2 medical certificate which was required by EASA. Unlike the FAA where tight Class 3 medical standards are balanced by a flexible waiver regime, no such system could be agreed in EASA. Thus tight standards were written to which all MS must abide, the only leniency being the development of the openly sub ICAO LAPL with limited privileges.
Now we have departed EASA we should be lobbying the CAA to provide maximum flexibility of the Class 2 within ICAO SARPs to permit foreign flight while continuing to accumulate statistical verification of the equivalent level of safety provided by the PMD.

[Peter Kelly]

It could all be so simple.

One PPL. One training course. One set of exams. One set of revalidation requirements. All ICAO compliant. Your initial licence covers you for whatever class of aeroplane you took your test in. Choose what variety of aircraft you want to move on to and get them added to your initial licence by means of differences training signed-off by an instructor, no examiner input required.

Two levels of medical. An ICAO compliant Class 2 or a simple medical declaration as per PMD.

If you have an ICAO medical, you are good to go anywhere in the world in a G-reg. If you have a PMD then it's effectively sub-ICAO and UK only.

Maybe make the licence a small plastic card and have the data all stored on a database with appropriate access for pilots, instructors and examiners.

It might be that when everything settles down, and LAPL medical could be added if we can agree on this for flying in Europe.

The current hundreds of pages of FCL could be reduced to less than 100 at stroke. Might not be good for these forums though as the endless questions about licences, revalidation, etc. would slow to a trickle.

Just saying.

P

[shortstripper]

Funny thing is, when I started flying in the early 80's there was only one licence (for private flying) ... the PPL

It was all so simple. Gliders didn't need a licence, microlights were basically powered hand gliders and were covered by the PPL and that was that ........ Why did it all get to be so complicated?

SS

[oldbiggincfi]

. Why did it all get to be so complicated?

'cause pilots like to think as air line pilots and so the system got geared to that pretence.

Operating an Air Bus is a totally diferent skill / discipline .

[skydriller]

. Why did it all get to be so complicated?

'cause pilots like to think as air line pilots and so the system got geared to that pretence.

I disagree.
This all started with JAR.
The intention was good, the result was the usual Euro-mess.

[Edward Bellamy]

FWIW pretty much all of this is back to the way the Withdrawal Act 2018 is formed - all the former EU law is now UK, albeit no longer recognised by the EU. Nothing to do with the CAA, this is mirrored across all areas in which EU law applied in the UK. So everything is carried across - Part-21 was just a name thought up to replace 'EASA' in the regulation, but otherwise nothing changes. I don't think any Jan 1st 'big bang' of changes was ever really on the cards and I think anyone has been following the Brexit saga would probably realise that.

As GrahamB said a few posts back, its early January still. I can't imagine the CAA like any other of the multitude of Qangos faced with the same issues across Government has had much time yet to argue the toss with their sponsoring department as to why their desired set of legislative changes should be prioritised to the top of what is likely a mountain of other secondary legislation waiting in the wings post Brexit.

Having said all that - I think the future is looking up regulation wise, the parallel legal systems I hope will remain a temporary thing and we can finally (if we want to) cut the cord with the story that started with JAR all those years ago.

[oldbiggincfi]

I disagree.

You might but you don't join a yatch club to become a cross channel ferry captain !