Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

By TLRippon
#1728175
This also shows a huge misunderstanding of the benefits of the LAPL in practical terms by those who are not exposed to it on a daily basis.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1728189
TLRippon wrote:This also shows a huge misunderstanding of the benefits of the LAPL in practical terms by those who are not exposed to it on a daily basis.


Genuine question, as I've got an NPPL (SSEA) which has always worked for me but know little about the LAPL, what are the benefits in practical terms?
By TLRippon
#1728243
Generally the benefits are most apparent if they suit your personal piloting ambitions.
The profile of a large proportion of PPL holders and their flying style is covered by LAPL whereas PPL coveys privileges which go far beyond their flying style.
With an LAPL you can fly an aircraft up to 2000Kg carrying a pilot and 3 passengers all over Europe. I’ve had a PPL for a long time and I’ve never flown a 2000kg+ aircraft.
The LAPL is recalibrated on a rolling two yearly cycle and once 12 hours and one additional hour with instructor has been flown there are no forms to send in or ratings pages to sign.
The medical requirements are less stringent than a Class2 and the renewal periods are longer.
You can add a night rating.
You can only fly VFR but the majority of current PPL’s don’t have an instrument qualification.
The training requirement is minimum 30hours instead of the PPL level 45 hours with a one stop QCC.
Once you have your LAPL and flown on for another 15 hours you can then do another 10 hours training and a Skill test if you want to later upgrade to a PPL should you need more privileges.
Yes, there is a requirement to fly without passengers for 10 hours after issue but this is not a big deal and is where you gain basic experience and airmanship. (Remember the old “Licence to learn” adage).

From a training point of view it saves the student around £2.5k depending one where you do it.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By T67M
#1728279
TLRippon wrote:From a training point of view [the LAPL] saves the student around £2.5k depending one where you do it.

Does it really? My experience is that most pilots don't stop flying immediately upon receipt of their licence. Whilst it's true that there is a small cost reduction if you count the cost only up to point of getting a licence in your hand, if you count the cost up to the point where you can exercise the privilege of flying with up to three passengers, I'd opine that the saving is considerably smaller, and may even be negative. Ongoing costs after the point of carrying passengers (unless going for additional ratings) are to all intents and purposes identical for LAPL and PPL.
By TLRippon
#1728297
T67M wrote:
TLRippon wrote:From a training point of view [the LAPL] saves the student around £2.5k depending one where you do it.

Does it really? My experience is that most pilots don't stop flying immediately upon receipt of their licence. Whilst it's true that there is a small cost reduction if you count the cost only up to point of getting a licence in your hand, if you count the cost up to the point where you can exercise the privilege of flying with up to three passengers, I'd opine that the saving is considerably smaller, and may even be negative. Ongoing costs after the point of carrying passengers (unless going for additional ratings) are to all intents and purposes identical for LAPL and PPL.

That is always true but that wasn’t the comparison, the training costs less because you have a lower minimum hours requirement and you will make fewer landings if charged separately. What people chose to do after licence issue is up to them, why so negative?
User avatar
By JAFO
#1728318
TLRippon wrote:From a training point of view it saves the student around £2.5k depending one where you do it.


I imagine that's only the case if you pass in or close to minimum hours. What percentage of LAPLs do that? And, of course, depending on where you fly, you'll spend close to that much flying your 10 hours before you can carry a pax.

When I first got an NPPL in 2004 it had the rolling validity and I really liked that but, apparently, others didn't.
User avatar
By David Wood
#1728340
PeterMa wrote:This throws up a question for me - can you fly with another suitable licence holder during these 10 hours on the basis they are p2 and not a simple passenger ? Or are you committed to having an empty seat next to you for 10 hours ?


Empty seat, I'm afraid. As has been said already, there is no such thing as P2 in a single-crew aircraft. So if someone is in the other seat they are either 1) a passenger which you are explicitly forbidden from carrying for these 10 hours; or they are 2) an FI or an FE acting as captain of the aircraft which means that you aren't P1 for those flights. So, empty seat please.

As to why there is this rule I've no idea. It makes no sense to me. But it is what it is.
T67M liked this
By Darijus
#1728389
Thanks for answers and opinions!
Well, it seems will fly 10 hours with empty seat.

Just in case it might be interesting for someone, the reason I went for Lapl instead of Ppl was fairly limited timescale I had to complete the course (I usually relocate every 18-24months due to nature of work) and I didn't want to change the school therefore lower minimum requirement was very tempting. Also I had some gliding experience that helped to stay close to minimum. Also requirements to stay curent seemed a little bit lower so if I struggle to fly much It will be easier to stay current.

At the end of day, always can upgrade to Ppl if decided I need IR or smtg else that is not available on lapl.
TLRippon liked this
By TLRippon
#1728405
Just to note: some LAPL students pass in minimum hours. Likewise some PPL students do also. Many don’t in either category so it’s illogical to suggest that LAPL students will end up training for as many hours as PPl students by default. There is a 50% additional training requirement from a LAPL to a PPL. Why would anyone not consider this an advantage if their flying style didn’t require it.
By Crash one
#1728881
The NPPL doesn’t require the 10 hrs solo empty seat.
I took my daughter up the day I had my licence in my hand.
As for min hours. NPPL was/is? 35. It took me 60 hrs.
Conversion to LAPL was a paper exercise.
(2007).
Reality is different to the rules.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1728952
Can you explain how that tallies with this?

Part FCL.105A LAPL(A) paragraph (b) says:

‘Holders of a LAPL(A) shall only carry passengers once they have completed 10 hours of flight time as PIC on aeroplanes or TMG after the issuance of the licence.‘


Your daughter is an instructor?

Rob P
User avatar
By flybymike
#1728958
Can you explain how that tallies with this?

Part FCL.105A LAPL(A) paragraph (b) says:

‘Holders of a LAPL(A) shall only carry passengers once they have completed 10 hours of flight time as PIC on aeroplanes or TMG after the issuance of the licence.‘


Your daughter is an instructor?

I think he had an NPPL Rob, not an LAPL.
JAFO liked this