Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Certified, Homebuilt or Ultralight? (merged)

Peter wrote:

Which is exactly why these comparison tables, suggesting the cheapest route, are almost useless

Not in our club. This is what you have to pay for instruction hours here. The same instructors, the same club (obviously different airplanes for micro and LAPL/PPL). It’s very useful locally here, and there is no reason why other clubs/schools cannot do the same.

As a general case it does not need to be true. You may be used to flying microlight exclusively in G, no radio, no traffiic, all alone in a super light garden chair variety microlight. Then you will have some seriously hard first lessons when getting to a crowded airport with ATC, airspaces and Boeings coming and going every minute in a modern, fast Dynon equipped microlight. But the same could also be true for many PPLs to some degree, only been flying at nice GA fields and suddenly wanting to expand the horizon. The variation here is huge, and this is without taking into account quality of instructors, which all by itself can make it or brake it.

My point is that you do not have to lose out on money, whatever you start with. It is possible to advance up to PPL with no extra (training) cost compared with taking a PPL directly.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

Going micro to LAPL to PPL is much cheaper than going micro to PPL directly.

Obviously it is not. The numbers won’t allow such a statement

Martin wrote:

But he wrote LAPL→PPL and micro→LAPL→PPL, not micro→PPL. LAPL→PPL being the cheapest.

And that is not true, either. If you go LAPL→ PPL you have to do 30h LAPL, 5h outside the ATO and then 10h further instruction opposed to 45h directly towards the PPL. Same aircraft, so there is no financial gain in flight cost. You save 5h instructor fees, but you have to account for an additional skill test and license issue fees. Going Microlight first you even need two theoretical tests and the complete LAPL/PPL ground school (because there is no theory credit from microlight towards LAPL/PPL) and even if you pay less on a microlight, you end up doing at least 15 hours more flight time (and instructors time) more than the other way round.

The cheapest way to get yourself into both “worlds” is doing the LAPL and then make the differences training for the microlight. As I have calculated above. You need to bend over backwards to make the numbers fit the other way round. (i.e. take the most expensive PPL and cheapest microlight and pay only half of the instructors).

Do it with an other data point: VAP in Nordhorn has the LAPL minimum for 5115€ and then the microlight for another round about 200 Euro. If you go Microlight first the license costs you minimum 3900€ plus at least 1680€ upgrade, plus an other theoretical knowledge test. So even with them you pay around 300 Euro more going microlight first. With MG-Flyers the route LAPL→ Microlight will cost you minimum 8287,27€ and the other way round will cost at least 10377,45€. The numbers don’t speak in favour of the route via microlight. Even IF there is any credit of non-pic (a.k.a. student pilot) flight time. (and FWIW even LeSving’s numbers don’t suggest going microlight first is a cheaper route, since only 5 hours training is necessary to get the sport pilots license in Norway.)

And there ARE several drawbacks to microlight flying. So if you are NOT SURE where to go in aviation, going microlight first is nothing but a bad advice. (Going PPL only is too, because especially as a renter you can combine best of both words, as I have always recommended. Because both aren’t exclusive, but rather complementary to each other!)

LeSving wrote:

It is possible to advance up to PPL with no extra (training) cost compared with taking a PPL directly.

Even your numbers won’t suggest that notion.

Last Edited by mh at 03 Sep 13:14
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

It would be very expensive and take very long time to do your training from day one in a TBM or Phenom. It’s certainly possible to do PPL entirely on a MEP, but you won’t find many people doing even that. SET would be at least 200 hours (but then it could include IR as well). It would have to be one really dedicated student.

That’s taking my statement to an extreme

It would anyway be virtually impossible to find a school which would take you ab initio on a MEP, let alone an SET.

Obviously I was referring to post-PPL flying i.e. SEP.

That’s like starting from the beginning.

Yes – because at such an early stage one is really struggling just holding it all together… doing the radio while keeping the sky the right way up.

LAPL sylabus is shorter so it stands to reason that you save some time.

How will you pass the skills test?

For one, you can do only GNSS for radio navigation (no need to do ADF, etc.). But then, UK doesn’t do GNSS, right.

The PPL has no ADF or DME and, in the UK, we had just a 2×VOR crosscut position fix. GPS does not require to be taught but progressive schools do teach it.

If you can use just a GPS for all nav, that might save 5hrs perhaps, plus a load of study time not having to learn the circular slide rule. In reality, dead reckoning is not a big issue in the PPL because the whole nav thing is rigged so that almost nobody can get lost, and the day you get the PPL you use GPS anyway

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

How will you pass the skills test?

Peter wrote:

The PPL has no ADF or DME and, in the UK, we had just a 2×VOR crosscut position fix.

There are considerable items not required for the LAPL, thus the skill test is slightly different. The main differences are in navigation (LAPL requires only GNSS or VOR/ADF, the use of VHF/DF (only homing), the use of en-route or terminal radar) and no basic instrument flight (straight and level at various air speeds and configurations, climbing and descending, standard rate turns, climbing and descending onto selected headings, recovery from climbing and descending turns). That plus a little less time for solo cross countries are the main differences between LAPL and PPL. According to the AMC, the PPL includes GNSS, VHR omni range, ADF (only homing), VHF/DF (only homing), en-route or terminal radar and DME. For the LAPL, a solo cross country of only 150 km with one landing is prescribed, for the PPL you need to fly 270 km with two landings.

Peter wrote:

dead reckoning is not a big issue in the PPL because the whole nav thing is rigged so that almost nobody can get lost, and the day you get the PPL you use GPS anyway

Yes, but d/r shows the basic working principles of air navigation, so it will be kept in the syllabus. It is where every GPS or other flight plan relys on and you need to have it understood at least once. Personally I teach to have, if weather get’s a problem or you rely on GPS, at least one FIS or ATC frequency loaded or noted, so you can make use of radar navigation. At least in central Europe this works fine.

Once, during d/r practice (in 3-4 km visibility) heading EDLP the controller asked us “D-HR are you on a training flight?” and my student was a bit diffident and said just “Yes?” where Tower just asked “Okay, do you want so try to find November on your own for some more time, or do you like to have a vector?”. My student just did what is sensible and took the offer. Normally this is a separate lesson (probably one flight, different means of navigation for different legs… )

Last Edited by mh at 03 Sep 14:35
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

mh wrote:

And that is not true, either. If you go LAPL→ PPL you have to do 30h LAPL, 5h outside the ATO and then 10h further instruction opposed to 45h directly towards the PPL. Same aircraft, so there is no financial gain in flight cost.

Obviously, the only saving is in those five hours which you can do on your own. LeSving didn’t account for them so the saving amounted to 5*180 (losing 5 hours TT in a logbook). If you want PPL straight away then you perhaps should do that. I wouldn’t expect this (getting lousy 5 hours) to be a problem for someone going this route (I would expect some time to pass between the two licences; IR might be the trigger). One limitation of LAPL is that you need IIRC 10 hours before you can carry passengers (similar deal to sailplanes). If you have no interest in flying alone, this route is less attractive.

And yes, there is the second skill test and actually getting two licences. Frankly, I wouldn’t consider it for the saving (and it would be close to wash). It would be a question of whether I can take advantage of those lower minimums. In the end, I think we’re in agreement. And it’s really just academic for me because I’m all for going via sailplanes which opens up the TMG route and takes care of basic flying skills.

Peter wrote:

That’s taking my statement to an extreme

I know. But not to unrealistic extreme. If someone going in knows he wants to fly his plane for business and must keep some schedule, it leads there – as long as he can afford it. Even if you take the stepping stone and go for say SR22T, PPL/IR is what, about 130 hours at the legal minimum (depending on how many solo XC hours you manage to do in your PPL training)?

Peter wrote:

It would anyway be virtually impossible to find a school which would take you ab initio on a MEP, let alone an SET.

Well, yes. Firstly, because I don’t think many schools have a manual that would allow for that. Then I can imagine some NAAs wouldn’t be happy about this. And you would need a plane which might be doable with a MEP, but SET would be harder unless you happened to buy one. I know someone who did his multi rating in a borrowed jet (why do it in some clapped out MEP).

Peter wrote:

How will you pass the skills test?

Why would that be a problem? If the flight training is different, skill test must reflect it. I haven’t compared them but AMC/GM contains a separate skill test for LAPL.

Peter wrote:

The PPL has no ADF or DME and, in the UK, we had just a 2×VOR crosscut position fix. GPS does not require to be taught but progressive schools do teach it.

Sure it has. But I know, you don’t follow the sylabus in the UK.

Exercise 18c: Radio navigation:
(A) use of GNSS,
(B) use of VHF omni range,
(C) use of ADF equipment: NDBs,
(D) use of VHF/DF,
(E) use of en-route and terminal radar,
(F) use of DME.

LAPL has GNSS or VOR/ADF plus (D) and (E) from above.

mh wrote:

Even your numbers won’t suggest that notion.

mh, the error you do is to view PPL as the final goal. What I have listed is the minimum instructor hours needed (not counting solo student hours either). The goal is to get up and flying, or even better, to get up and flying on your own airplane. Whatever route you take, it doesn’t matter in the end cost wise. It’s too little variation to say that this is more expensive than that, because other factors count more. But IF you do a apple to apple comparison, a theoretical exercise, then you find that micro-LAPL-PPL is cheaper than taking a PPL directly. It is indeed possible to do it like that, but not very likely on a real situation. So far no one in Norway has even taken the LAPL, but several PPLs have “downgraded” to LAPL (by the looks of it) due to whatever reason, medical I guess? Lots of PPLs fly micro as well.

When looking at what actually is happening, the “final goal” seems to be to eventually end up with a LAPL or (PPL and micro or LAPL and micro). IMO the “final goal” is to get as many people flying as possible, and to get as many aircraft owners as possible. If it is a SR22 to cruise around Europe, or a Kitfox for island jumping, it makes no difference. The difference is that it goes 25 Kitfoxes in one SR22 price wise.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

No. The final goal is to fly everything if you don’t know that you will be okay with one license only, and to have most options if you are not sure if you will be happy in the confinement of the microlight license.

Of course you can always alter the task if the numbers don’t fit to your preferred solution … but how does that help anybody if your claims only hold up because of plenty additional claims and constraints that would not fit the original intention?

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

the “final goal” seems to be to eventually end up with a LAPL or …

We are now miles away from what the OP was after (which was probably the UL route) but actually the final goal is to achieve whatever the person likes to do.

The license level is secondary. For example the example given by Coolhand of a lot of ULs flying a few k nm across Europe merely shows that there are some very experienced pilots in that community, just as there are in the PPL/ certified aircraft community. Maybe 1-2% of the general GA pilot community would do such a trip – for all the reasons discussed already on various threads (lack of confidence, aircraft availability, mentor availability, and the cost is high since fuel cost always dominates long trips, etc, etc).

The advice given of going for the full PPL is simply that this preserves all the options for the future.

To argue that one should e.g. go the UL route “because it is the cheapest”, is saying that the person should expect to be short of money for the rest of their life! Also it ignores all the other factors, which makes comparisons insignificant (because most people take far longer than the minima, training costs differ, etc).

Also consider that most new pilots don’t get any value out of flying until they have become confident. Let’s say you do a PPL in 50hrs and it takes another 50hrs to become confident to go somewhere. Your license has then “cost” you 100hrs. The only difference between a 100hr PPL course on which they teach you the required stuff (such a course doesn’t exist in Europe) is that a lot of the extra 50hrs will involve a payment to an instructor, which is usually not much!

I got my TB20 in May 2002 and did not do my first long trip (Biarritz) till April 2003, some 150hrs later. What did I do those 150hrs? 10-20hrs conversion, finished the IMC Rating, did a load of little flights taking some GF to Deauville, Scilly Isles etc etc. (she then started pressing me for a marriage so I implemented the GA activity preservation option )

So for the purpose of advising somebody costings are largely meaningless no matter which way you look at it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

We are now miles away from what the OP was after

That point was a joke, but true nonetheless. We will all end up with LAPL in the end According to the statistics of LT, not a single person has “taken” the LAPL, ever, but there are 46 active pilots with LAPL (in 2015), probably twice as many in 2016, twice of that again in 2017 and so on.

mh wrote:

but how does that help anybody if your claims only hold up because of plenty additional claims and constraints that would not fit the original intention?

Just stop looking at PPL as the one and single only goal for everybody involved with GA mh, and it will all be clear to you. A person could be flying microlight for several thousand hours before going to LAPL and PPL for instance. That doesn’t mean he has used hundreds of thousands of € to get the PPL. The goal is to fly, and to get involved in owning and maintaining planes, airfields, hangars and so on. That is what gets the industry going. More people need to use money on “hardware”. You should have been at our local EAA fly in the other weekend: Everything from old Cherokees to brand new Cirruses to F-16s, gliders, microlights and of course experimentals. At our mountain trip we all flew together ( sans the F-16s but they fly there regularly while training).

Peter wrote:

The advice given of going for the full PPL is simply that this preserves all the options for the future.

I understand what you are saying, but it is wrong. No matter what you start with, you will “preserve” every single future option. The only important thing is to fly. It is much better for everyone involved in GA, that a person starts at 14 with gliders, then microlight at 16-30, PPL at 30-40-50 – than for everybody to wait until 30-50 until they feel “ready” in their lives, and have the money and time to “invest” in license and airplane.

If you read what I have been saying, I’m not advising anything in particular. What I am saying is don’t listen to people saying you will loose out if you don’t get a PPL You most certainly will not. The numbers speak for themselves. What I am advising is to do whatever makes you fly as much as possible. You will never make up all the lost hours of flying from 14-40 if you start flying at 40.

Last Edited by LeSving at 04 Sep 14:33
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Perhaps you should start to read what I write instead of what you want me to write, before I again explain that if you KNOW you will be satisfied within the microlight license you should do just that and in ANY other case going LAPL / PPL first saves time, money and effort to open all options for your future flying. If you KNOW you will be fine with just a microlight within “the next several thousand hours”, of course you should go for a microlight. If you think you might want more than what a microlight has to offer within a couple of years my described path to flying is the most sensible. And frankly I don’t know how you can constantly misread my posts unless on purpose.

Last Edited by mh at 04 Sep 15:07
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top