In the UK there are Certified (EASA) aircraft, and Permit to Fly (Annex 2) aircraft, which includes homebuilt, but also “Orphaned” aircraft, whose manufacturers no longer support them. The latter were once certified. P to F aircraft are FAR cheaper to maintain than EASA aircraft. Night and IFR are now legal in the UK for some Permit aircraft.
Weighing 93.4kg stripped, I fly a factory-built SAN Jodel DR 1050, empty weight with spats fitted 446.3kg, MAUW 750kg, on an LAA Permit. Max 110kg in rear seats, so a 2+2 rather than 4 seater.
An EASA LAPL allows flying Day VFR throughout EASAland with most light aircraft. The medical is less strict. It can easily be converted to a PPL.
Microlights are different. Most modern 3-axis microlights have instrument panels more like an A380 than a Jodel or Piper Cub.
Coolhand wrote:
I always see this kind of debate also on Spanish forums. It seems that we’re obliged to take one band and fight against the other. So then, everybody feels attacked by the other band. But I think that all of us should be more open-minded and try to look for the positive aspects of the ‘other band’ instead of looking for the weak point, or even worse, trying to make up some supposedly weak points.
Very true. I compiled instructional cost for micro, PPL and LPL (in another thread, but post it here as well). Going micro-LAPL-PPL and LAPL-PPL are both cheaper than going PPL directly, contrary to common myths among PPL only pilots. You are also likely to get by with (much) less instruction for these two cases compared with PPL directly in a real situation, than this theoretical minimum.
I always see this kind of debate also on Spanish forums. It seems that we’re obliged to take one band and fight against the other. So then, everybody feels attacked by the other band. But I think that all of us should be more open-minded and try to look for the positive aspects of the ‘other band’ instead of looking for the weak point, or even worse, trying to make up some supposedly weak points.
This is a European problem and is largely why the AOPAs here are almost totally ineffective, compared to the US AOPA. IMHO it is due to the pressure under which GA activity runs in Europe. Anywhere a community is under pressure, they start biting each other. Same under communism, etc, etc.
As the old joke goes: put 4 pilots on a desert island…a year later they will have set up 4 type specific user groups, 4 pilot forums, each of which has 20 members
I’ve read a lot of times here that with a ULM you cannot do any touring
I’d like to see that post, because it is obviously nonsense. As I have written before, I once shared a hangar with a UL pilot who flew UK to Nepal.
What people (myself included) often post are the various caveats. For example many non-certified owners don’t know that any border crossing permits are needed. I know of a syndicate of several people around one such and none of them knew this. They spent best part of 100k… The one I spoke to told me (IIRC) that he read somewhere that there were automatic rights all over Europe! Obviously the salesman isn’t going to tell you differently!
Why do I write about caveats, instead of just writing everything with a positive slant and leaving the negative bits out (as one has to do for e.g. a magazine article)? Because I don’t want people to waste their time and money. This is what EuroGA is largely about: an information resource for GA. And loads of people do waste their time and money. Some planes end up abandoned…
Going micro-LAPL-PPL and LAPL-PPL are both cheaper than going PPL directly, contrary to common myths among PPL only pilots.
Once you know where costs actually arise, you will know they arise mainly according to how many hours you fly. If you take 100hrs to do what you want, it’s going to be expensive. So the way to minimise cost is to fly with somebody else, learn all the stuff, and then go to a school and do the stuff in the minimum hours. AND the really crucial factor is to fly often; most people here spread it out over a year and lose a lot of currency all the time. Once these factors are appreciated, comparison tables of e.g. LAPL (30) and PPL (45) are meaningless, and I think most of the people who refused to do the LAPL (nearly everybody) were smart enough to realise this.
Secondary factors are the airfield costs e.g. a £20 landing fee is going to add some £1000 to the PPL.
If you change types part way through (as implicit in UL – something else) that alone will chuck away 10-20 hours, due to a loss of currency on type. I changed from a PA38 to a C152 and estimated that cost me 20hrs. As sometimes happens, the previous school also “lost” my exam passes… So one cannot just add up the theoretical minimum numbers to get the cost. This is why nobody (who isn’t really short of money) should do a PPL in anything less than what they want to fly afterwards for real. The old advice about trying lots of different types is useful only once you are a very good natural pilot.
You are also likely to get by with (much) less instruction for these two cases compared with PPL directly in a real situation, than this theoretical minimum
That again depends on how good the candidate is. Almost nobody will reach the standard in less than about 40hrs, unless as I say above they have some prior experience.
There is an argument that flight training should not have minimum hours and that it should be entirely according to competence. I am not sure what all the arguments are against this but we have (1) ICAO minimums and (2) it isn’t possible to test the whole width of the syllabus in one checkride so you would need a much broader theory and practical test.
LeSving wrote:
Going micro-LAPL-PPL and LAPL-PPL are both cheaper than going PPL directly, contrary to common myths among PPL only pilots.
Not true. In fact, going microlight first and then the PPL is the most expensive choice you can make. Here are the real numbers based on no further assumptions than what you get when you chose to fly in our Club and complete with minimum hours in one year. This calculation assumes, that you can indeed get credited 15 hours microlight experience, which is doubtful in many places:
PPL SEP only | LAPL SEP only | PPL SEP w/TMG | LAPL SEP w/TMG | PPL TMG only | LAPL TMG only | Microlight only | Microlight THEN LAPL | Microlight THEN PPL | PPL THEN Microlight | LAPL THEN Microlight | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Single Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | Amount | Price | |
application fee | 800 | 1 | 800 | 1 | 800 | 1 | 800 | 1 | 800 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 800 | 1 | 800 | ||||
application fee U/TMG | 600 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 600 | 1 | 600 | 1 | 600 | 1 | 600 | 1 | 600 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
annual fee | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 | 1 | 500 |
aircraft fixed fee | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 | 1 | 480 |
Quax fonds | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 30 |
Work | 12 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 40 | 480 | 1 | 12 |
Groundschool | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 | 1 | 420 |
Flight instructor | 22,5 | 45 | 1012,5 | 30 | 675 | 45 | 1012,5 | 30 | 675 | 45 | 1012,5 | 30 | 675 | 30 | 675 | 45 | 1012,5 | 60 | 1350 | 46 | 1035 | 31 | 697,5 |
Cessna 172 | 108 | 46 | 4968 | 31 | 3348 | 31 | 3348 | 16 | 1728 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 1728 | 31 | 3348 | 46 | 4968 | 31 | 3348 | |||
SF 25 C | 54 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 810 | 15 | 810 | 46 | 2484 | 31 | 1674 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Z 602 | 78,6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 2436,6 | 31 | 2436,6 | 31 | 2436,6 | 1 | 78,6 | 1 | 78,6 | ||||||
Landing fees out | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 |
Bureocratic Fees | 300 | 1 | 300 | 1 | 300 | 1 | 300 | 1 | 300 | 1 | 300 | 1 | 300 | 0,8 | 240 | 1,8 | 540 | 1,8 | 540 | 1,8 | 540 | 1,8 | 540 |
Total | 9090,5 | 7133 | 8280,5 | 6323 | 6406,5 | 5259 | 5961,6 | 8327,1 | 10284,6 | 9431,6 | 7006,1 |
Maoraigh wrote:
In the UK there are Certified (EASA) aircraft, and Permit to Fly (Annex 2) aircraft, which includes homebuilt, but also “Orphaned” aircraft, whose manufacturers no longer support them.
Being orphaned is of no significance when it comes to Annex II. You won’t find in it any reference to that. But historic aircraft do fall under Annex II.
Is there any statistical evidence that people take less time to do the LAPL than the PPL?
Based on everything I have seen, people are ready for the test when they are ready for the test in the judgement of their school, and I recall meeting only about 3 or 4 people ever who did the PPL in the 45hrs minimum. One of these was a very motivated young guy (now flying a Lear45) who did the theory and flew with me a bit (RHS) and knew more or less everything by the time he set foot in a school. Another was a guy who had been flying with his father for many years beforehand.
mh wrote:
Not true. In fact, going microlight first and then the PPL is the most expensive choice you can make
Well, that’s what my sheet say also. But, it’s really stupid. Going micro to LAPL to PPL is much cheaper than going micro to PPL directly. It’s due to the difference between the archaic PPL regulations regarding previous experience vs the more modern LAPL regulations for the same thing. The LAPL syllabus is only a shorted version of PPL.
But your sheet is really hard to read (too large for the setup here). I can only say that microlight in Germany is vastly more expensive than in Norway, bu about a factor 2. I picket the highest price I could find (our club). Usually you can do it for 1/2 to 2/3 of the price, maybe even lower at some places. The lowest prices have no training on an international airport, which makes it somewhat difficult to convert to PPL later without lots of training. Just getting used to correct radio usage, takes lots of time, and you get that “for free” on an international airport).
mh wrote:
Not true. In fact, going microlight first and then the PPL is the most expensive choice you can make.
If you look at his table, you’ll see that he came to the same conclusion. But he wrote LAPL→PPL and micro→LAPL→PPL, not micro→PPL. LAPL→PPL being the cheapest.
I can only say that microlight in Germany is vastly more expensive than in Norway, bu about a factor 2. I picket the highest price I could find (our club). Usually you can do it for 1/2 to 2/3 of the price, maybe even lower at some places. The lowest prices have no training on an international airport, which makes it somewhat difficult to convert to PPL later without lots of training. Just getting used to correct radio usage, takes lots of time, and you get that “for free” on an international airport).
Which is exactly why these comparison tables, suggesting the cheapest route, are almost useless – because as I wrote earlier, other factors dominate.
If you could get airborne in say 15hrs then you would not be competent to share the airspace with others. Kind of exactly what is fairly evident……… Unless you had previous (unlogged) training, but how many people are fortunate enough to get that?
Peter wrote:
This is why nobody (who isn’t really short of money) should do a PPL in anything less than what they want to fly afterwards for real.
In which case you hopefully don’t have high aspirations. 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.
Peter wrote:
I changed from a PA38 to a C152 and estimated that cost me 20hrs.
Having flown neither, I wonder how is that even possible. That’s like starting from the beginning.
Peter wrote:
Is there any statistical evidence that people take less time to do the LAPL than the PPL?
LAPL sylabus is shorter so it stands to reason that you save some time. For one, you can do only GNSS for radio navigation (no need to do ADF, etc.). But then, UK doesn’t do GNSS, right.