[Irv Lee]

Validity before any flight with lapl(a)...
A lapl(a) prof check in past 2 years..
OR
12 take off and landing in past 2 years p1 or pu/t AND 12 hours p1 or pu/t as long as one at least is pu/t (all could be pu/t)
Like most changes, it's been flagged in http://www.higherplane.co.uk/bfr-ground.pdf which several syndicates pass around, and my deconfuser checklists (it has been prewarned for late 2019 in the latter for some time) - and sorry about the colour in the pdf, I might dampen that a bit when I get home

[David Wood]

Very useful one-pager, Irv. Thank you.

If I make one small politely suggested amendment it would be to the line in the Transponder section that suggests that someone wearing a listening squawk should not expect to be contacted by ATC unless they infringe.

I don't think that that's correct. I myself have been called quite a few times when wearing listening squawks, and it's always been for matters other any potential or actual infringement. It's mostly been about other traffic that I'm advised to look out for, or a request for intentions or whatever. But I think that if we tell students and pilots that they are only likely to be called in relation to infringements then we risk them 'switching off' from actually listening once they are confident that they aren't near controlled airspace.

That, it seems to me, negates some of the functionality of the FMC which isn't solely anti-infringement in purpose.

[Boxkite]

I have been called twice, I think the controller was getting a bit nervous
But it was reassuring they were keeping an eye on me and passed useful info.

[GrahamB]

@Dave W

Will you be updating your excellent one-pager accordingly?

[Dave W]

Thanks, @GrahamB. Yes, I shall.

For reference, this is the current (now out of date) table:


Before I make changes, let me confirm with the assembled company that I will get it right.

The new rule (surprisingly, to me) no longer requires any minimum P1 time, which means the structure of the table could potentially be messed up in that area.

To avoid that, I am thinking of merging (in the 'LAPL' row only) the 'P1/PIC Minimum' and 'PUT Minimum' cells, and in the new enlarged cell writing:

In the 24 months before your next flight:
12 hours P1 or PUT (as long as 1 hour at least is PUT)
(NB: All hours can be PUT: No Minimum P1 requirement.)
AND
12 take off and landing in past 2 years (P1 or PUT)

How does that sound?
Can anyone propose a pithier unambiguous way of saying it?
Is there anything else that needs updating in the table - either now or imminently?

[GrahamB]

No need to say 'in the past 2 years' for the take off and landing as its covered by the '24 months' statement at the top?

If you disagree, for tidiness it should be 24 months for both, or 2 years for both.

[T67M]

Surely you just write "Zero" in the "minimum P1" column, with 12 hours in the "minimum total time" column...?

[Dave W]

@GrahamB - you're correct. Doesn't need repeating.

@T67M - yes, that column isn't doing enough work for LAPL at the moment! I'll try again shortly.

[Talkdownman]

someone wearing a listening squawk should not expect to be contacted by ATC unless they infringe

Or should not expect to be contacted by ATC even if they do infringe...

[ak7274]

As I understand it, Microlight hours can now be counted for EASA SEP, but revalidation must be flown in an SEP?
If that is the case maybe that could be amended too Dave?

[Dave W]

If that's correct I can amend it, but I'll need chapter and verse to confirm.

[flybymike]

someone wearing a listening squawk should not expect to be contacted by ATC unless they infringe

Or should not expect to be contacted by ATC even if they do infringe...

Oh the irony.....

[Talkdownman]

should not expect to be contacted by ATC even if they do infringe...

Oh the irony.....

It is entirely possible to be totally oblivious until ‘the letter’ arrives from the CAA several weeks later!

[chevvron]

someone wearing a listening squawk should not expect to be contacted by ATC unless they infringe

Or should not expect to be contacted by ATC even if they do infringe...

Nothing to infringe around Farnborough (until February) apart from the ATZ.

[Talkdownman]

Nothing to infringe around Farnborough (until February) apart from the ATZ.

So still time to practice, then, without fear of getting 'done'...