Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841558
Just wondering if anyone is aware of any recent progress in respect of the above?

Many have been hoping for some positive news on this front since 2018, when the paperwork only route to LAPL expired.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841581
Whilst easing such obviously broken progress paths are mentioned as input into the CAA survey, (the caa status report on opportunities now we have left Easa), I see no obvious hope in the potential short term wins to help you.
French national licences didn't seem to have had that same 2018 cut off issue date for getting a French Lapl, so, having been under the same Easa regime until last year, the UK must have ignored the same opportunity. Was that simply negligence or deliberate? If the former, then there is hope of "someday", if the latter, someone in an important position with contempt for grass roots GA needs to be told how wonderful they have been and promoted a long way to one side out of the way.
Bathman liked this
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841771
As a fellow sufferer I was hoping for news. This topic in the GA board is the most up to date. Genghis has summarised it quite well in his opening post.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118440#p1841465

Not great news I’m afraid. At best it will be part of the 12month minimum strategic review of the simplification of licences and pathways,

[pessimism]If you read the detailed response it goes further and, reading between the lines, tempers expectations for bad news on the simple paperwork exercise that used to exist pre 2018.[/pessimism]
PhilS, Bathman liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841777
It hardly fits with their own view of themselves does it? Just culture, safety based, etc.... so one pilot with a qualification gained one day has an easy paperwork way into the fcl ladder which can then be climbed to icao level with skill enhancement and ability demonstration, yet the next one on a different day with the same qualification is basically told to start again at zero. How can this be safety based or just?
I suspect an investigation into why, subject to the same regs, there was a loophole that a post-2018 French BdB pilot could slip through to a Lapl, but a UK pilot could not, would be enlightening and perhaps put red flags against certain names who will be involved in forming UK GA's future for the coming months.
B1engineer, Bathman liked this
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1842029
Irv Lee wrote:It hardly fits with their own view of themselves does it? Just culture, safety based, etc.... so one pilot with a qualification gained one day has an easy paperwork way into the fcl ladder which can then be climbed to icao level with skill enhancement and ability demonstration, yet the next one on a different day with the same qualification is basically told to start again at zero. How can this be safety based or just?
I suspect an investigation into why, subject to the same regs, there was a loophole that a post-2018 French BdB pilot could slip through to a Lapl, but a UK pilot could not, would be enlightening and perhaps put red flags against certain names who will be involved in forming UK GA's future for the coming months.


It is all very frustrating. I have just asked a question about revalidation which caused me to actually read all of the dates in my licence.

What is really infuriating is that I have just seen that my SSEA Rating certificate date of test is 25/3/2018. And my initial expiry was 31/3/2020. The licence was initially issued 14/5/2018. So my licence actually says that I passed my skills test prior to the 8/4/2018 cut off, my rating was already 8 days into its validity period of 2 years by the 8/4/2018 yet because the piece of paper these dates are written on wasn’t printed until the 14/5/2018 I can’t do the paperwork exercise...
Bathman liked this
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843059
Irv Lee wrote:Whilst easing such obviously broken progress paths are mentioned as input into the CAA survey, (the caa status report on opportunities now we have left Easa), I see no obvious hope in the potential short term wins to help you.
French national licences didn't seem to have had that same 2018 cut off issue date for getting a French Lapl, so, having been under the same Easa regime until last year, the UK must have ignored the same opportunity. Was that simply negligence or deliberate? If the former, then there is hope of "someday", if the latter, someone in an important position with contempt for grass roots GA needs to be told how wonderful they have been and promoted a long way to one side out of the way.


Many thanks for your reply Irv, it's been a very long wait for a pragmatic path from NPPL. LAPL to PPL seems to be most efficient route to PPL now, or at least it was last year!
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1917253
They are finally talking about a consultation in the next few weeks. Of course if it is the style "there are 4 pre formed options, here they are" then this is a worry when you consider who they might listen to in order to arrive at 4 options. We can trust a small number of individual seniors, names well known in the grass roots world, but how many of the main herd with influence have ever flown with nppl or lapl pilots? You don't get any of them dual in airways or on instrument approaches. Nor flying airliners or military aircraft. My most recent examiner seminar showed that no-one else on it had any concept of Lapl issues and problems.
That above is a speculative worry, but you cannot deny what has been ignored for 18 months now. Small clubs are suffering, first through lockdowns, now through unexpected massive cost rises. There is a big pool of potential customers unable to queue up at the small clubs' doors and spend much needed money. The only reason is the political obstinacy or sheer ignorance that meant an ssea-lapl link (even by test if necessary) was not restored in early 2021. This is a link that existed and was broken in 2018 for no obvious reason.
Restoring the link doesn't affect any ' where do we go from here? ' consultation on licences, medicals, ratings, revalidations, validities, etc etc because there are now pilots who can jump ssea to lapl (those with pre April 2018 issued Nppl ssea). All we are doing by not restoring the link prior to consultation is simply and possibly deliberately starving small clubs of much needed income from money waiting to be spent by many post April 2018 ssea holders, plus the bigger reservoir of microlight pilots holding back from adding more on the rating or licence side since April 2018 as it led nowhere.
So WHO has been advising the DfT and CAA so badly since 2020? ...and why would we imagine the same people with clearly no concept of business problems at the grass roots end would not be the same ones advising on 'the new options'?
Bathman, Kemble Pitts liked this
#1917259
The blame for this situation lies with the UK government. When Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 was copied into UK law, the government omitted Article 4 (1)-(6). Thus the ability to convert National licences by 'conversion report' was lost.

AOPA (UK) has been calling for the NPPL(SSEA) to LAPL(A) conversion route to be restored for quite some time now and it remains one of our key demands.

Don't blame the CAA for this, the blame lies with HMG!
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1917270
Irv Lee wrote:They are finally talking about a consultation in the next few weeks. Of course if it is the style "there are 4 pre formed options, here they are" then this is a worry when you consider who they might listen to in order to arrive at 4 options. We can trust a small number of individual seniors, names well known in the grass roots world, but how many of the main herd with influence have ever flown with nppl or lapl pilots? You don't get any of them dual in airways or on instrument approaches. Nor flying airliners or military aircraft. My most recent examiner seminar showed that no-one else on it had any concept of Lapl issues and problems.
That above is a speculative worry, but you cannot deny what has been ignored for 18 months now. Small clubs are suffering, first through lockdowns, now through unexpected massive cost rises. There is a big pool of potential customers unable to queue up at the small clubs' doors and spend much needed money. The only reason is the political obstinacy or sheer ignorance that meant an ssea-lapl link (even by test if necessary) was not restored in early 2021. This is a link that existed and was broken in 2018 for no obvious reason.
Restoring the link doesn't affect any ' where do we go from here? ' consultation on licences, medicals, ratings, revalidations, validities, etc etc because there are now pilots who can jump ssea to lapl (those with pre April 2018 issued Nppl ssea). All we are doing by not restoring the link prior to consultation is simply and possibly deliberately starving small clubs of much needed income from money waiting to be spent by many post April 2018 ssea holders, plus the bigger reservoir of microlight pilots holding back from adding more on the rating or licence side since April 2018 as it led nowhere.
So WHO has been advising the DfT and CAA so badly since 2020? ...and why would we imagine the same people with clearly no concept of business problems at the grass roots end would not be the same ones advising on 'the new options'?


Many thanks for this detailed and considered response Irv - you clearly get this and are also frustrated by it.

I can think of several pilots within my own local flying community who have transitioned from NPPL (M) that would benefit if the NPPL (SSEA) to LAPL path were to be restored.

It’s staggering that the relevant authorities don’t see the illogical nature of the situation that exists. For example, an NPPL SSEA holder can:

    - fly their own aircraft to the ATO, solo, only to be sent on supervised solo again in that same aircraft as part of the LAPL or PPL upgrade training; and

    - be sent on a solo cross country when they routinely fly as PIC on trips that easily exceed the requirements for PPL using their NPPL (SSEA).

The fact that the NPPL is a National PPL suggests that we should have some pride in it and not simply leave it as a cul de sac from which no progression is possible in any sort of pragmatic or proportionate way. Some of the folks that find themselves in this situation didn’t choose NPPL as it is the lesser of the available licenses, they chose it because microlights provided a less expensive, more accessible route into flying, with the intention of progressing as and when they could afford it. Even in our small club, I know of several who started with NPPL(M) with ATPL as the end-goal.

It’s hard to believe that anyone in authority would agree with this situation if they were aware of it.

In my own situation I intend to progress to PPL and IR(R), but the current process, if it can be called that, certainly doesn’t encourage or otherwise facilitate that in a manner that considers the impact on the student in terms of time, money and efficiency.
Last edited by PhilS on Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1917272
nickwilcock wrote:The blame for this situation lies with the UK government. When Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 was copied into UK law, the government omitted Article 4 (1)-(6). Thus the ability to convert National licences by 'conversion report' was lost.

AOPA (UK) has been calling for the NPPL(SSEA) to LAPL(A) conversion route to be restored for quite some time now and it remains one of our key demands.

Don't blame the CAA for this, the blame lies with HMG!


Many thanks for your response Nick and to AOPA (UK) for continually lobbying for this change.

Is there any way that individual pilots can have a voice on this and generally increase awareness of the issues with the decision makers?
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1917274
So after 1.5 years of being constantly told we have to obey all of fcl rules, as, to make things so easy, everything was copied over en masse, we now find small specific bits were isolated and left out.... So who did this, why, and are they involved inthe coming consultation. ? I can probably guess the 3rd bit.
[usermention=21105]@PhilS[/usermention] if they follow what they have learned, the 'useful' bit is forming the options/questions before exposing them to you and me for 'consultation'. So you will probably be able to comment on THEIR decisions of what will happen. Milk before pouring tea, or milk after tea poured? No, coffee lover, you are getting white tea, tough!
Kemble Pitts liked this
#1917295
'They' are the DfT. The reasoning behind the omission of Art.4 (1)-(6) was that the DfT assumed that all national licence holders would have converted over the years.... But the 2018 date of the EASA Art.4 (1) only EVER applied to 'JAR-compliant' licences anyway:
JAR-compliant licences issued or recognised by a Member State before this Regulation applies shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation. Member States shall replace these licences with licences complying with the format laid down in Part-ARA by 8 April 2018 at the latest.


Whereas the conversion of non JAR-compliant licences (such as the NPPL) was covered under Art.4 (2)-(5) which covered 'conversion reports', unfortunately lost when the DfT failed to adopt these paras.

Why the CAA imposed the 8 April 2018 deadline on non-JAR licences is something which seems somewhat illogical, to say the least.
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1917311
@nickwilcock thanks for explaining what happened. That’s the first time I recall the steps being pointed out. I’ve just looked at the three relevant bits of legislation and it is quite clear what happened, but I’d by intrigued to find out why it happened and who did it.

I’m not sure this can necessarily be pinned on the government, but DfT civil servants presumably have their sticky mitts all over it, probably advised by CAA. And ultimately a minister has approved the change even if they were completely unaware the change happened.

What really confuses me is why those words can be erased with a strike of a pen, but they can’t seemingly be reinstated with a swipe of a pen. Surely the DfT and CAA are now aware of the simple mistake/decision and how simple it would be to fix. Why has it taken 18 months and counting?

The question was rhetorical… I’ll save you telling me COVId/plenty of other clusterfugs/no interest on their part…

Please understand my swipes and frustration are with the mandarins, not yourself or AOPA, or LAA or BMAA or @Irv Lee
B1engineer, PhilS liked this
#1917358
Irv Lee wrote:That above is a speculative worry, but you cannot deny what has been ignored for 18 months now. Small clubs are suffering, first through lockdowns, now through unexpected massive cost rises. There is a big pool of potential customers unable to queue up at the small clubs' doors and spend much needed money. The only reason is the political obstinacy or sheer ignorance that meant an ssea-lapl link (even by test if necessary) was not restored in early 2021. This is a link that existed and was broken in 2018 for no obvious reason.


I'm an NPPL(A) with M priveliges who has been waiting for ages for this upgrade route to emerge, so will keep my fingers crossed.

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment though on your comment: do you think there might be some unintended consequences of the SSEA>LAPL route now being unblocked?

Potentially direct PPL will be less attractive financially, as you can achieve a 'modular PPL' at lower cost by starting NPPL? Might the microlight fraternity lose members to the heavier end of the spectrum?