Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
By PhilS
#1772818
Just noticed the following article on the Flyer website:

https://www.flyer.co.uk/easa-agrees-hou ... wards-ppl/
https://www.bmaa.org/files/EASA_Allowan ... L-LAPL.pdf

Probably a huge leap, but might this pave the way for an abbreviated route from NPPL (A) SSEA to LAPL (A) again or recognition of NPPL (A) Microlight time towards a LAPL (A)?

Appreciate the issue may be the national license, just wondering if this announcement may help in some way?
#1773000
Currently, it won't.

However, I am having a WebEx with EASA next week and have formally tabled the topic of Annex 1 flight time recognition

As things now stand, the only recognition of Annex 1(e) flight time acceptable to EASA is towards revalidation of SEP/TMG class ratings or LAPL privileges.

EAS proposed further acceptance (e.g. towards LAPL initial issue), but from what I've heard, no-one else supported the case.

On behalf of IAOPA I have also proposed that the '10hr PIC before carrying passengers' restriction on LAPL holders should include Annex 1(e) flight time.
MachFlyer, kanga liked this
#1773081
nickwilcock wrote:Currently, it won't.

However, I am having a WebEx with EASA next week and have formally tabled the topic of Annex 1 flight time recognition

As things now stand, the only recognition of Annex 1(e) flight time acceptable to EASA is towards revalidation of SEP/TMG class ratings or LAPL privileges.

EAS proposed further acceptance (e.g. towards LAPL initial issue), but from what I've heard, no-one else supported the case.

On behalf of IAOPA I have also proposed that the '10hr PIC before carrying passengers' restriction on LAPL holders should include Annex 1(e) flight time.


I’ve emailed the UKCAA the following shown below. If you’re in a position to get clarification for this Nick and perhaps even better make the case to the relevant body for allowing this it would be greatly appreciated by myself and I’m sure others who currently have plenty of flying experience but are being forced to fork out for more hour building when that money could go towards furthering flying training with the mep/meir/cpl course post ATPL completion.

It seems absolutely ridiculous that this needs to even be asked considering the state of modern microlights such as the Eurostars and C42s are effectively a paperwork exercise to convert between group A and microlight despite quite obviously sharing the exact same principles of flight and handling characteristics.

“I’d like to enquire about EASA's new position highlighted in the article I have linked, published by the BMAA, regarding the allowance of 3-axis, fixed wing microlight hours to be counted towards renewal and revalidation of an EASA LAPL or EASA PPL.

https://www.bmaa.org/files/EASA_Allowan ... L-LAPL.pdf

This is a change from the previous position where these hours could only be counted towards the renewal or revalidation of an NPPL (M) or NPPL (SSEA).

The new allowance is also in line with the ICAO definition of aircraft accepted by EASA, EC Reg 1178 defines aeroplanes in compliance with ICAO as:

‘Aeroplane’ means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air which is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

As a 3-axis, fixed wing microlight is covered by this definition and the flight time now recognised by EASA for currency in regards to the EASA PPL and as falling into the ICAO definition or "aeroplanes", does this allow for microlight flight time to be counted towards the required totals for a CPL (200 hours) considering I hold an EASA PPL?”
#1773083
It seems absolutely ridiculous that this needs to even be asked considering the state of modern microlights such as the Eurostars and C42s are effectively a paperwork exercise to convert between group A and microlight despite quite obviously sharing the exact same principles of flight and handling characteristics.


Certainly aircraft such as the C42 have similar characteristics to a PA28, but other microlights do not.

Could you really envisage a regulator accepting flight time on, for example, an SSDR microlight towards CPL prerequistes?
#1773192
nickwilcock wrote:..
Certainly aircraft such as the C42 have similar characteristics to a PA28, but other microlights do not.

Could you really envisage a regulator accepting flight time on, for example, an SSDR microlight towards CPL prerequisites?


as a mere amateur Day/VFR bimbler: not sure why a regulator, in strict logic, should not. Someone who has mastered the quirky handling of some microlights may have acquired basic all-round flying skills better than someone who has progressed ab initio only through Cherokee and Seneca. Such a pilot may be particularly well suited towards the UPRT parts of the CPL syllabus :) Naively, I reckon it did me no harm that my progression to PPL involved several different types, some within current microlight MTOW limits and now Permit but then CofA, with very different handling characteristics.

But, obviously, that's a different sort of 'logic' :) Happy to hear how it is flawed.