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

Moderator: AndyR

User avatar
By TLRippon
#1728687
JAFO wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:A LAPL medical is also less costly than a Class 2.

The vast majority of private pilots can do the vast majority of the time all the flying they want to do with a LAPL.


I absolutely agree FD and if I was starting out now I would probably go for the LAPL precisely for those two reasons. It's just that I think that those suggesting to student pilots that the LAPL is necessarily significantly less expensive to train for up to the point where you can take family and friends flying - which is what most private pilots see as a big milestone and an enjoyable part of their hobby - are being more than a little disingenuous or at least not painting the full picture.


I’m talking from daily experience of working with students on this rating. The cost of gaining the rating is in practical terms lower. We offer both PPL and LAPL and carry out a proper assessment of needs before offering the students an informed choice. We get around a 50/50 split.
I still can’t understand how if you even go to the length of counting the post licence issue 10 solo hours before passengers into the equation, it can be seen as more expensive than passing a ppl in minimum hours which would include a mandatory 5 hours more.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1728754
TLRippon wrote:5 hours is about £900, that’s significant.


Fair enough, I don't know the figures for the actual number of hours logged at the point of application for the different licences. If you say it's 15 more for the PPL then I believe you.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1728756
Jazzer wrote:The only benefit I can see with the lapl is being able to carry more passengers.


Sorry, Jazzer, more passengers than what? Love your work in The Archers, by the way.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1728763
Jazzer wrote:Than the nppl.


Well, you learn something new every day, I thought both allowed 3 pax.

Edited to add - I've checked and both licences do appear to allow 3 pax. Are you assuming that NPPLs are only for microlights?
User avatar
By JAFO
#1728770
Ah, that explains it. NPPLs come in three flavours: SLMG, Microlight and SSEA. I've had an NPPL SSEA on and off since 2004 and it definitely allows me to fly 3 pax and definitely does not allow me to fly a Microlight.
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1728779
JAFO wrote:
TLRippon wrote:5 hours is about £900, that’s significant.


Fair enough, I don't know the figures for the actual number of hours logged at the point of application for the different licences. If you say it's 15 more for the PPL then I believe you.


PPL 45 hours.
LAPL 30 Hours
By Crash one
#1728807
TLRippon wrote:
Jazzer wrote:The only benefit I can see with the lapl is being able to carry more passengers.

NPPL UK
LAPL all EASA states.


That is the only real difference.
NPPLs are not just microlights, mine is ssea. UK only, Daytime, VFR, max 4 seats. Other ratings can be seaplane and, I think recently, night.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1728815
TLRippon wrote:
JAFO wrote:
TLRippon wrote:5 hours is about £900, that’s significant.


Fair enough, I don't know the figures for the actual number of hours logged at the point of application for the different licences. If you say it's 15 more for the PPL then I believe you.


PPL 45 hours.
LAPL 30 Hours


Nope, that's not the time people actually take, is it? That's the minimum time. Do all applicants for the LAPL have 30 hours? Of course not, any more than all applicants for the PPL have 45.

Telling students pilots that they will do a LAPL in 30 hours is misleading, surely. They will do a LAPL in the time it takes them to complete all of the exercises and be ready for test.
Crash one liked this