Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
#1325217
This has to be done as part of the 10 hour course at an rf/ATO to upgrade to an NPPL/LAPL to a PPL.

Could this requirement not be changed to show logbook evidence? I have now been involved in 4 of these conversions and in every case the pilot had got logbook evidence of the above.

One had actually done a 150nm QXC as part of his NPPL training and had even got a signed copy of this original flight.

Another chap was thinking of doing a CPL and had done a 300nm QXC. So in this case we have the situation that he has done a flight that is recognised for CPL issue but not for PPL issue.
User avatar
By Cookie
#1325223
The requirement stems from the ICAO requirement contained in Annex I - Personnel Licensing:

2.3.3.1.2 - The applicant shall have completed in aeroplanes not less than 10 hours of solo flight time appropriate to the class rating sought, under the supervision of an authorized flight instructor, including 5 hours of solo cross-country flight time with at least one cross-country flight totalling not less than 270 km (150 NM) in the course of which full-stop landings at two different aerodromes shall be made.


The requirements in FCL.210.A (b) for upgrade from LAPL to PPL bridge the gap between a sub-ICAO licence (EASA LAPL) and the ICAO requirements for issue of an ICAO compliant PPL (EASA PPL).

Cookie
User avatar
By nickwilcock
#1325393
At an EASA FCL-IF meeting, I tried to seek a consensus view that, provided the 150nm cross-country had been completed during an earlier licence course (e.g. NPPL or LAPL) under the supervision of an FI, then it could be credited for the LAPL-to-PPL conversion course. Some delegates agreed, but the 'befehl ist befehl' lot weren't prepared to see the logic.....

:roll:
By David Roberts
#1325515
Maybe one to add to Mr Ky's hit list in aid of "a lighter, more proportionate etc etc, Nick.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1325521
I can think of ways of making it much lighter
User avatar
By townleyc
#1325798
I initially had a JAR PPL, but converted to an NPPL due to medical restrictions. Does all this mean if I did manage to get a LAPL medical that I would need to do another 150+ mile supervised QXC? My JAR license has now expired.

If so how bloo#y stupid...

KE
User avatar
By nickwilcock
#1325923
No - According to the UK CAA, it doesn't apply if you've previously completed a PPL course which included the 150 nm X-C.
User avatar
By Cookie
#1325928
I agree that the UK CAA should consider submitting an AMC which allows the CAA to accept a 150nm X-country if completed during a course of training for another aeroplane licence.

There is no additional safety benefit in mandating this during the upgrade training from LAPL(A) to PPL(A) where an applicant has previously completed the 150nm X-country requirement in accordance with ICAO Annex I and Part-FCL for the issue of a EASA PPL.

Cookie
User avatar
By HASELL
#1327495
Just to throw my question into this.

I will shortly be going through the NPPL - LAPL - PPL route and wondering if I'd be able to fly a 150nm QXC for the NPPL and count it in these circumstances for the PPL issue.

My 10 hours between LAPL - PPL would be mostly Radio Nav as required but I wouldn't see any harm in another cross country it's just that the avoidance of having to do one would allow me utilise the 10 hour slot to do some more constructive training.
User avatar
By Cookie
#1327500
and wondering if I'd be able to fly a 150nm QXC for the NPPL and count it in these circumstances for the PPL issue.


At the moment, NO. If you completed a 150nm QXC as part of your NPPL, you would need to do another 150nm QXC as part of the LAPL>PPL upgrade course. That's the Red Tape which needs resolving.

Cookie
#1562264
In one of our responses to NPA 2014-29(A), IAOPA proposed the following concerning 'Specific requirements for applicants holding an LAPL(A ):
As raised at the December 2014 EASA TAG/SSCC/FCL meeting, IAOPA (Europe) considers that paragraph (b) concerning should be more clearly defined, to include any items not previously covered during LAPL(A) training. In addition, it is possible that an applicant might already have flown the supervised solo 270 km (150 NM) cross-country flight during previous flight training, hence it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to repeat the exercise as currently required.


Hence the revised text we proposed was as follows:

Applicants for a PPL(A) holding an LAPL(A) shall have completed at least 15 hours of flight time on aeroplanes after the issue of the LAPL(A), of which at least 10 shall be flight instruction completed in a training course at an ATO. This training course shall include dual flight instruction in any PPL(A) syllabus requirements not previously completed during LAPL(A) training and at least 4 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 2 hours of solo cross-country flight time with, unless previously completed during LAPL(A) training, at least 1 cross-country flight of at least 270 km (150 NM), during which full stop landings at 2 aerodromes different from the aerodrome of departure shall be made.


To which EASA replied:
Partially accepted

EASA thanks you for your comment. Whilst we consider the line you added on the content of the training course as appropriate, we do not consider the second amendment you propose. The cross-country flight of at least 270 km is an ICAO requirement for the PPL. The credit for a LAPL holder includes training for and experience gained after licence issue. A crediting of parts of the training, as you propose, therefore cannot be considered.


They clearly couldn't understand the logic behind the point I made. If a LAPL pilot chose to do the 150nm/2 away landings during the LAPL course, why should he/she be required to repeat it during LAPL>PPL training?