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

Moderator: AndyR

By iaindings
#1609155
Hi Guys,

I know this has been asked a few times, but I'm struggling to find some concrete answers.

I'm a student at about 22 hours so need to start deciding which route to take. The school owner is pushing the LAPL route but I always felt that I may as well do things properly and go for the PPL straight away. I've done about 3 hours solo so just about to start XC etc.

One thing I cant seem to find clarity on is what I'd be entitled to fly after completion of the LAPL, some sources say that its the same *type* (eg a 152) but others say its the same *class*. Can someone confirm? That seems like a pretty big restriction if its is the same type. If I'm reading the CAA site correctly it sounds like it is the type, but you only need 3 hours instruction in a new type - you only have to do a new skills test to change classes.

Otherwise, my Pros and Cons are

LAPL
Pros - I can probably complete it and start using it by the summer. Fewer hours, cheaper skills test. Can start building hours at a cheaper rate. Could upgrade it to a PPL without too much extra dual instruction
Cons - Type restriction, extra skills test, need to do 10 hours post passing before carrying passengers

PPL
Pros - Less restrictive, by the time you do LAPL+10 hours, its similar number of hours anyway. Syllabus covers things which I'd want to learn anyway (IMC, VORs)
Cons - More hours at the higher rates so higher total cost in the near term. The extra hours might mean I miss out on the good weather and end up with delays (flying at weekends atm, I couldnt fly for nearly 2 months at the beginning of the year due to british weather combined with the highest airfield in the UK

I'm really leaning towards LAPL, my school had someone pass it with 32 hours and they reckon I'm at the same standard/track so its within reaching distance. The thought of being able to fly over the summer is awesome and it doesnt limit me to the LAPL for life.

Any thoughts or guidance?
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1609157
The LAPL doesn't have a Type restriction; if you learn on a Single Engine Piston Class, then you can fly any EASA or Annex II aircraft in the SEP Class.

The confusion is perhaps because the LAPL doesn't have Class Ratings as such - instead you have "Privileges" for SEP, TMG...

I guess you've seen this CAA page? Which licence is right for me?
By iaindings
#1609159
Thats what I was hoping, it's just not entirely clear. Someone (on another forum) specifically said if I pass in a 152 I can only fly a 152. The CAA site says

https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Pilot-licences/EASA-requirements/LAPL/LAPL-(A)-requirements/

"A LAPL for aeroplanes will allow you to act as pilot in command (PIC) on two classes of aircraft: either a single-engine piston aeroplane (land) or touring motor glider (TMG) with a maximum take-off mass of 2000 kg or less, carrying a maximum of 3 passengers, with no more than 4 persons on board.

You will only be licensed to act as PIC in the class and variant of aircraft in which you passed your skill test, unless you complete further training – see extension of privileges to another class or variant of aeroplane section of this page. Examples of different variants include additional aircraft complexities, such as a constant speed propeller or retractable undercarriage."

The wording "class and variant" does seem to suggest thats the case, but its completely clear.

Worth also mentioning that I do already have a class 2 medical, so the less onerous medical requirement for LAPL doesnt apply
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1609161
Class and variant means SEP related aircraft, type is a specific brand and model e.g. C152.

LAPL will restrict you to EASAland, but that's not likely to be much of a problem and you'll only be able to fly 4 seaters so no Cherokee 6 for you :-) I assume you trained on a fixed prop and fixed gear aeroplane, so you'll need further training to add variants like that.
By iaindings
#1609163
Aaah that makes sense, thanks :)

Ultimately I'd love to be able to fly further afield, I have dreams of doing a road sky trip across the US someday. But I'm "only" 33 and can upgrade to a PPL soon enough.

There's definitely confusion around the subject - this is when I asked elsewhere
https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comment ... l/dxw46gs/

Reddit is quite US focussed so thought I'd try somewhere with a few more brits :)

Off to the school this evening to do some lessons on steep turns and a bit more solo practice, they've been pushing me to make a decision as it will start to have a bearing my lessons soon - very much leaning towards LAPL now that confusion is cleared up
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1609168
There's a lot of misinformation around on the internet! ;-)

I think the reason the flying schools may be pushing the LAPL is the availability of instructors to teach the full PPL. LAPL instructors may be easier to find.

I'd say go for the full PPL at the outset if you can, it'll save you money and effort in the long term.
User avatar
By T67M
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1609171
Presuming you can get a class 2 medical, I would always suggest that the EASA PPL should be taken rather than the more restrictive LAPL - as you've started, with the +10 hour restriction on the LAPL, the cost difference is small.

I am surprised that you've reached 22 hours before having to decide which licence to go for. Whilst the syllabus is similar, especially the early lessons, my understanding was that you weren't allowed to defer the choice. This is partly due to the reduced instructor qualification required to teach the LAPL.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1609173
I should have added that notwithstanding the definitions I'd go for the PPL first as last. The simplest scenario, which is valid world wide, is an EASA PPL with an EASA Class 2 Medical in an EASA aeroplane. Moreover if you want your licence validated to fly in foreign parts in foreign aeroplanes having an EASA PPL is the place to start. I've flown in New Zealand with minimal formalities and got an FAA ticket on the back of my EASA PPL though that was harder because of American bureaucracy, which makes the French look like amateurs. :roll:
By iaindings
#1609174
Paul_Sengupta wrote:There's a lot of misinformation around on the internet! ;-)

I think the reason the flying schools may be pushing the LAPL is the availability of instructors to teach the full PPL. LAPL instructors may be easier to find.

I'd say go for the full PPL at the outset if you can, it'll save you money and effort in the long term.


My instructor can teach PPL (think he can instruct CPL too) so it's not that. I do suspect its to do with the rental rate only being £10 p/h cheaper than the instructed rate, so guessing they make a lot more on rentals! I do see some of the logic behind it though
By iaindings
#1609175
T67M wrote:Presuming you can get a class 2 medical, I would always suggest that the EASA PPL should be taken rather than the more restrictive LAPL - as you've started, with the +10 hour restriction on the LAPL, the cost difference is small.

I am surprised that you've reached 22 hours before having to decide which licence to go for. Whilst the syllabus is similar, especially the early lessons, my understanding was that you weren't allowed to defer the choice. This is partly due to the reduced instructor qualification required to teach the LAPL.


Already have the Class 2 :)

Bearing in mind, those 10 hours could be much cheaper if I can find a cheap syndicate or buy an hours building package.

It's never really come up until now, but like I said my instructor can instruct PPL and the syllabus doesnt really seem to deviate until about now. I'm just building some more solo hours, practicing circuit joins solo, that sort of stuff
By iaindings
#1609182
My plans are entirely recreational, so CPL wouldnt be on the horizon or quite a few years if at all. If I did do LAPL now, I'd convert it in a year or so anyway - so I'll end up with a PPL regardless
User avatar
By A le Ron
#1609219
The vast majority of PPLs only ever exercise privileges that would be covered by the LAPL, so it may be a perfectly reasonable starting point. A kind of “instant freedom”.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1609647
By the way, "fewer hours" is almost certainly a fallacy. Unless you have a particularly unusual level of natural skill in flying, and learn exceptionally quickly, you will not get your PPL in minimum hours, whether that's a PPL, NPPL or LAPL. It will take as long as it takes, because - for absolutely good reasons - the skill test pass standard for all three is about the same. To whit, you need to be a safe pilot, and that will take as long as it takes.

Don't be sidetracked by flying school publicity claiming you'll need less hours for a LAPL. Whilst legally correct, in practice it probably isn't.

G
T67M liked this
By iaindings
#1609657
Isn't there less content to the LAPL exam?

Upset recovery, IMC and radio nav IIRC - all things I want to learn but surely there'll be a good number of hours taken up by those bits