The thing is, about 90-95 percent of everyone with a PPL today, would be better off with a microlight license,
I cannot see how anyone with a reasonably wide view of the GA scene could argue that. Ultralights address a specific market sector.
The only reason to go for a PPL today is if one wishes to go on into CPL and/or IFR and/or multi-engine
Historically speaking that would depend on the options and whether you can fly abroad on them.
The LAPL is a very recent thing.
But the LAPL is a dead end. The UK version – the NPPL – was taken up mostly by pilots who cannot get the Class 2 [anymore]. That wasn’t the plan (I read many articles with great hopes for it) but that’s how it worked out. This result and the one for the LAPL speaks for itself – see below:
There is an “aspirational” angle here. It’s true that (say) 95% of UK PPLs and perhaps 98% of non-UK PPLs never progress onto an instrument capability, but if you told them at the outset they can never do that, many more would walk away. Remember that a newcomer to GA knows absolutely bugger-all about flying, and most learn no more than what their instructors tell them.
The LAPL take-up is almost nil – according to various instructor posts here. What does this tell us? It obviously tells us most people don’t want to do it. Yet, on the face of it, it should meet the requirements of most! I don’t think most people are stupid. I do think most people have a certain degree of ambition and don’t want to cut off their options, especially as the amount of work isn’t much less.
and all of those have always been marginal.
Not in terms of total numbers, and especially not in terms of which GA pilots fly in patterns which support the GA infrastructure.
If my choice for private flying was ultralights or nothing, I wouldn’t be flying today. Same thing with LSA. For me that has no interest. I want to go places, far away, in all kinds of weather. I want a time machine, an alternative to airline flight, a sense of freedom and knowing I can jump into my plane and fly anywhere in the world. LSA, ultralights, microlights offer none of that allure or capability. But thank god we’re all different and that is a big part of aviation.
Adam, you confirm what I stated: the PPL is good as a first step towards additional ratings, such as multi-engine and instrument flying. A bare PPL would be just as useless to you as an ultralight license.
Peter wrote:
I cannot see how anyone with a reasonably wide view of the GA scene could argue that.
It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. Listen to what Jan has to say. A (bare) PPL offers no appreciable value over microlight for most pilots. You have to step UP additional steps from a bare PPL to gain the value you are seeking. The point is that VERY few do that, they get “stranded” with a bare PPL, and the consequence is they would be better of with a microlight license.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
you think people get a flying license because they want to get involved in maintenance?!?
I think they get a (private) flying license because they have a dream about flying an aircraft and owning an aircraft. Those two things are inseparable. It’s the same with boats, motorcycles and most other things. I don’t think people are into this to do maintenance per se, but a normal person wants to be fully in charge of their belongings, it’s not something the authorities should meddle into, other than at most setting a standard.
A (bare) PPL offers no appreciable value over microlight for most pilots.
On the other hand, when I did my PPL an hour on an ancient Tomahawk cost less than an hour on a shiny C42. I know this depends somewhat on where you are based, but my PPL opens out a larger range of interesting class A aircraft (such as my Turbulent) than a pure microlight license, and whilst it doesn’t offer much over an NPPL or a LAPL it will be easier to add ratings to, as Peter points out. Sure, you need fewer hours to complete a microlight or NPPL but given the higher hourly costs the savings were not substantial enough to justify the loss of potential extra utility. So a 3 axis microlight license has little advantage over a PPL for many pilots.
LeSving wrote:
A (bare) PPL offers no appreciable value over microlight for most pilots.
Weight?
I have a PPL so I can do decent trips and have some useful load. No MEP, no IR, no further ratings needed on top of the PPL. A microlight wouldn’t do the trick for me.
I’d argue the same as AdamFrisch, minus “in all kinds of weather”.
AdamFrisch wrote:
For me that has no interest. I want to go places, far away, in all kinds of weather.
LeSving wrote:
[…] flying an aircraft and owning an aircraft. Those two things are inseparable.
On the contrary! How are these two things inseparable? I dream about flying everyday (and get to do it once in a while). I rarely dream about owning, let alone maintaining an aircraft.
LeSving wrote:
but a normal person
Define “normal person”!
Patrick wrote:
Define “normal person”!
That’s tough. It would rule out all of us. 
What I meant wasn’t that I want to go in all kinds of weather, but rather that I don’t want the weather to stop me from going somewhere. Although obviously full dispatch capability in all weathers is impossible, I realize that.
LeSving wrote:
I think they get a (private) flying license because they have a dream about flying an aircraft and owning an aircraft. Those two things are inseparable. It’s the same with boats, motorcycles and most other things.
Yes, it’s very much true for me. Taking individual responsibility for myself and my possessions is an intrinsic part of any hobby I’m involved in, including flying. If that weren’t legally possible, I wouldn’t have an interest in flying. I have long believed the way to promote PPL-level GA is to promote aircraft ownership.
LeSving wrote:
I don’t think people are into this to do maintenance per se, but a normal person wants to be fully in charge of their belongings. It’s not something the authorities should meddle into, other than at most setting a standard.
Yes, again. This is (for example) why FAA Part 91 aircraft owners don’t submit maintenance plans to government or its agents. The appropriate scope for private aircraft maintenance regulation is standards and periodic inspection, not prescription.
