[jaycee58]

So, if an ATO allowed a student to transfer from a LAPL course to a PPL course half-way through that course then there is in theory at least the possibility that some of his hours might have been taught by an FI who was qualified to teach the LAPL but not the PPL. Therefore in theory at least those hours wouldn't count towards the total required to qualify for the PPL. The logic breaks down, of course, when one remembers that the content of the early part of both syllabi is precisely the same! So, for example, if a LAPL-only FI is qualified to teach Ex 10 stalling to a LAPL student, you might well ask why in hell is he not qualified to teach precisely the same lesson to a PPL student..? Which takes us right back to the issue of why the PPL-teaching FI had to have CPL-level TK in the first place.

This "logic" breaks down completely if a LAPL holder, taught exclusively by a LAPL-only instructor, wants to upgrade to a PPL as he/she only has to complete a further 15 hours with a CPL-TK FI meaning that two-thirds of his total PPL training (including the aforementioned Ex.10) will have been carried out by a LAPL instructor. I'm tempted to say that that you really couldn't make this stuff up, though someone clearly has!