Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

By cadoganpier
#1611688
Hi
I went through the exact same dilemma as you earlier this year and went for the PPL. I am doing ok ( I think) and am up to about 30 hours and starting to do solo Nav stuff. I had a bit a previous experience so this maybe helped. I wouldn't want to contemplate taking my sills test in 5 hours which is what I would have been able to do in theory with the LAPL where as I hope I will be close to ready for my PPL skills in another 15 hours or so. My final conclusion was that the LAPL wouldn't really save me anything much in real terms and I would come out with a more restrictive license.
User avatar
By flybymike
#1611699
It took me 60 hours to get a PPL, and that’s how long it would have taken me to get an LAPL had such a thing existed in those days or yore.
It took that long because that’s how long I wanted it to take before I was happy to be let loose.
By Gentoo
#1611830
You say the cost of instruction is £10 difference where you are (hire vs instruction hour)

So why not spend the extra £10 (you say you need 10 hours before flying friends). That's like £100 extra

Then take the PPL.

A bit less 'freedom' for those 10 hours but some of them will be solo nav, landaway etc.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1611849
>90% of private pilots could meet 100% of their flying desires with a LAPL.

We moan a lot about over regulation and costs but few people in the UK choose the cheaper and less onerous route of the LAPL.
A le Ron, Kemble Pitts liked this
By Spooky
#1611904
If wanting to go for the CPL, go PPL straight away.

If it’s more for pleasure/hobby, look at LAPL or NPPL which will more than likely meet your needs
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
#1612056
iaindings wrote:Isn't there less content to the LAPL exam?

Upset recovery, IMC and radio nav IIRC - all things I want to learn but surely there'll be a good number of hours taken up by those bits

Basically no, upset recovery / unusual attitudes is in every syllabus from microlights to gliders to airliners, and then there's basic appreciation of instrument flying which is in all the SEP/SSEA syllabi, just not the microlight syllabus.

The different syllabi may be phrased differently, but there's not much real difference between them.

G
User avatar
By Balliol
#1612085
There is no instrument flying training or testing in the LAPL at all
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
#1612135
Balliol wrote:There is no instrument flying training or testing in the LAPL at all


Having double checked, I stand corrected, but interesting, Ex.19 "Basic Instrument Flying" (EASA PPL syllabus) or Ex.19 "Instrument Appreciation" (NPPL SSEA syllabus), but yes, you're quite right not in LAPL.

Guilty here of assuming that if it was in the NPPL(SSEA) it would also be in the LAPL, which is theoretically the higher licence.

Also, isn't it possible to add an NQ onto the LAPL but not the NPPL, yet you could make a strong argument that a basic appreciation of instrument flying is indeed essential to night flying.

G
By Bathman
#1612141
You can now add a night rating to the NPPL.

If adding a night rating to a LAPL you have to cover the instrument aspects as per the PPL
By carlapilot
#1614063
traininf for like CPL?

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
jarinawozny wrote:Hello! I also vote for PPL (i am student for it) i find it more useful if you want to keep your training on afterwards.
:)


Training for what?