[Kemble Pitts]

Can anybody provide me with a regulatory reason why Exercise 3 for the LAPL or NPPL could not be given in an aircraft with a MAUW exceeding 2000kg.

[Balliol]

I think it would come down to your DTO/ATO approval - exactly what kind of aircraft would actually be in that bracket? Could it really be justifiable as performing Ex 3 for a LAPL or is it really introductory flight regime?

[Irv Lee]

An2?

[Kemble Pitts]

I know it is a little unusual but this is within an ATO using the Harvard on the existing fleet.

Whether it is an introdcutory lesson or not (it is) shouldn't affect the legality of it. In regulatory terms introdcutory lessons are Exercise 3 of the PPL or LAPL or NPPL.

The reason for the question is that I am an FI(A) and CRI with a PPL and no commercial exams, so I can teach for NPPL and LAPL (and post-PPL).

What I want to avoid is the CAA Flight Ops inspector being able to point to a regulation that says this shouldn't happen after the event.
I can't find anything that says 'no' but the regulations are pretty convoluted (both LAPL and NPPL) in this particular 'corner'.

[Balliol]

You are restricted to teaching for LAPL and that aircraft couldn’t be approved for LAPL training in the ATOs fleet approvals so I think I’d want something from the Inspector if I was the head of training.

[Kemble Pitts]

Thanks for the feedback.

The Inspector is the next port of call, I wanted to get some informed views first.

[Bathman]

Can't you do them as "introductory flights"

[Kemble Pitts]

Bathman, that is an angle I'm exploring but was looking to see if I could keep things higher up the regulatory food chain if possible.

If nobody can find a regulation that says it cannot be done then why not give LAPL dual in an aircraft that the student cannot solo? Especially Ex 3 which is all about the expereince of flying.