Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By kanga
#1817999
I have a 1999 CAA Medical Certificate (cardboard, to be shoelaced into my old BoT holder :) ) printed 'CLASS ....' into which the AME has written 'THREE'.

My Canadian PPL Medicals (last 1989!) say 'Cat 3'.

I'm not sure when my AME started giving me 'Cat 2's by (presumably) default for PPLs
Last edited by kanga on Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1818077
Edward Bellamy wrote:Going forward I’m also not sure whether NPPL/LAPL for aeroplanes is really worth it - if you can have PPL + PMD (including for initial issue) is there really any advantage to having NPPL/LAPL for aeroplanes larger than microlights?

Ah, you sound like others who already have obtained a full icao ppl "directly" or higher, or don't have a civvie licence! (Side thought: It's a shame we don't get the aviation CVs of the people making real decisions.)
Yes, nppl is needed, there is a well defined (18 year) path for (with measurable safety info) for both ab initio and conversion between nppl ratings, the latter being v sensible in training content, and, v important in both 2008 and now with finance, it is cost efficient enough to give pilots a viable expansion path. The trouble is a bridge on the path was deliberately destroyed just for political dogma reasons in 2018
By Peter Kelly
#1818096
patowalker wrote:Because some pilots can't get a Class2, but can get a LAPL medical, which is the minimum required to fly in the EU. I am hoping a BASA will include mutual acceptance of the LAPL.


Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Your LAPL medical is no longer valid in Europe.

I agree that if there is some mutual recognition of LAPL medicals between UK and EASA this is a sensible route, but right now your UK LAPL is barely more use to you than a PMD.
User avatar
By Smaragd
#1818161
Peter Kelly wrote:
patowalker wrote:Because some pilots can't get a Class2, but can get a LAPL medical, which is the minimum required to fly in the EU. I am hoping a BASA will include mutual acceptance of the LAPL.


Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Your LAPL medical is no longer valid in Europe.

I agree that if there is some mutual recognition of LAPL medicals between UK and EASA this is a sensible route, but right now your UK LAPL is barely more use to you than a PMD.


That may be so today, but what you proposed in your previous email was "End of". That's not consistent with "if there is some mutual recognition". I've learned (favourably) from past experience to maintain whatever licences I can! :D
JAFO, Stu B, patowalker liked this
By Crash one
#1818208
I don’t think you can just re register to the higher weight limit. The aircraft was registered as 480 or whatever, the new regs don’t permit you to just carry more weight, it has to be certified to be capable.
By patowalker
#1818296
Thank you, and a happy new year to you. :D

Now need France to add UK to this: "Ultralights originating from another European State (EU States, Island, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) can overfly the French territory for non commercial operations, provided that the aircraft "
#1818594
Irv Lee wrote:Ah, you sound like others who already have obtained a full icao ppl "directly" or higher, or don't have a civvie licence! (Side thought: It's a shame we don't get the aviation CVs of the people making real decisions.) Yes, nppl is needed, there is a well defined (18 year) path for (with measurable safety info) for both ab initio and conversion between nppl ratings, the latter being v sensible in training content, and, v important in both 2008 and now with finance, it is cost efficient enough to give pilots a viable expansion path. The trouble is a bridge on the path was deliberately destroyed just for political dogma reasons in 2018


Irv I was merely questioning (leaving aside historic privileges etc, which should be preserved) whether there is any real utility to be gained from having the LAPL(A) and NPPL(A)+SSEA as a separate licence from the PPL if it were possible to have a PPL with a PMD. The LAPL has the appearance of being a simpler/cheaper licence to get but in reality does it make any difference? Whenever someone asks whether they should do the PPL(A) or LAPL(A) the answer always seems to be there is little saving from the latter since the basic competencies required are the same and since they tend to be taught on similar aircraft the training required is likely to be similar. But perhaps not everyone would agree?
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1818619
Edward Bellamy wrote:
Irv Lee wrote:Ah, you sound like others who already have obtained a full icao ppl "directly" or higher, or don't have a civvie licence! (Side thought: It's a shame we don't get the aviation CVs of the people making real decisions.) Yes, nppl is needed, there is a well defined (18 year) path for (with measurable safety info) for both ab initio and conversion between nppl ratings, the latter being v sensible in training content, and, v important in both 2008 and now with finance, it is cost efficient enough to give pilots a viable expansion path. The trouble is a bridge on the path was deliberately destroyed just for political dogma reasons in 2018


Irv I was merely questioning (leaving aside historic privileges etc, which should be preserved) whether there is any real utility to be gained from having the LAPL(A) and NPPL(A)+SSEA as a separate licence from the PPL if it were possible to have a PPL with a PMD. The LAPL has the appearance of being a simpler/cheaper licence to get but in reality does it make any difference? Whenever someone asks whether they should do the PPL(A) or LAPL(A) the answer always seems to be there is little saving from the latter since the basic competencies required are the same and since they tend to be taught on similar aircraft the training required is likely to be similar. But perhaps not everyone would agree?


Maybe what we need is a graded PPL, in the way the FAA do with Sport Pilot, Recreational Pilot, Private Pilot + various endorsements ? I've got no first hand experience of the US system but it seems sensible. I guess only the higher level would be ICAO recognised, but I can see the need for sub-ICAO licences either on medical grounds, or reduced training cost (and reduced privileges ).

While the path has been tortuous I think the SPL (gliding) licence with it's capability to cover SLMG and TMG and the expected (to be confirmed) two level medical (PMD - (Non ICAO) and Class 2 (ICAO)) will end up as a practical solution - that is assuming we manage to avoid too much gold-plating from our friends at the CAA.