In my experience there is a good chance that the total number of instruction hours (the most expensive) is lower when completing the LAPL and then upgrading to a PPL some time later.
Post LAPL I have done some 50 hrs of flying before taking the additional hours for the PPL.
Since I had flown a few hours, I needed less attention to the basic flying (keeping course, altitude, wings level) and could focus on the new tasks.
I believe it would taken more time to do it in one go.
Obviously, you never know, as you cannot take a re-run in life, but I remember how often the plane “strayed” during the final hours of LAPL training.
The hours between LAPL and PPL as well as the 10 hours before taking passengers – I wouldn’t count them, since with the LAPL, I was allowed to do the flying I wanted (initially).
And I wouldn’t have invited anyone at that stage of experience anyway. Others may see this differetnly
If it wasn’t for the additional qualifications (night / instrument – and, not for me: flying outside of EASA region), I also believe that the LAPL is all that most of the VFR pilots need.
MTOW 2000kg and max 3 passengers – what percentage of private flyers needs more?
(which is not to say that additional training and the exercises for the PPL were not useful…)
mh wrote:
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
Yes well, I disagree completely. No one knows these things for certain before they have tried it. Most people who takes the PPL end up flying only a couple of hours each year, or stop all together. They would be much better off with cheaper and simpler options, unless of course their goal was only to get that license (in a been there, done that kind of situation, who knows?) All future options are always open, no matter what you do.
ch.ess wrote:
The hours between LAPL and PPL as well as the 10 hours before taking passengers – I wouldn’t count them, since with the LAPL, I was allowed to do the flying I wanted (initially).
And I wouldn’t have invited anyone at that stage of experience anyway. Others may see this differetnly
I agree with you. Since I see those 10 hours here again, it got me thinking. Potential disadvantage of this limit is that you can’t fly with a mentor. And AFAIK even an instructor is a passenger if he isn’t in there in the capacity of an instructor (instructing or supervising). So can a mentor with an appropriate pilot licence be considered part of the crew to get around this limitation just as it’s done in simulated IMC? I think it’s desirable. What do you think, @bookworm ?
Peter wrote:
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.
Probably the syndicate you mentioned doesn’t know it, because it’s not true True is, that between most of the ECAC-memberstates you are allowed to cross borders without permission (e. g. Netherlands, France, Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, UK…….., see also here https://www.ecac-ceac.org/documents/10189/0/HomeBuiltAircraft2015-09.pdf/f6a1d257-bb36-4a89-9043-bc49387663c7).
We had this here before as I seem to remember….
And don’t mix up Microlights with Homebuilts, it’s a different kettle of fish.
It’s partly right but that’s not what I said, which was that “any border crossing permits…”
LAA Permit travel procedures
UL travel procedures
No doubt this matrix changes over time as new agreements are made but the basic issue remains. You can’t just jump in, file the FP, and go. I know in reality most do exactly that (because there is no system for monitoring) but again that’s not the point…
I note that Spain gives a clear NO
In the past the permit could be obtained but would take a few months. I guess that is then still the current situation.
Your document seems to have popped up before – I got a local copy here
Peter wrote:
It’s partly right but that’s not what I said, which was that “any border crossing permits…”
……if a permit is needed at all
Peter wrote:
but the basic issue remains. You can’t just jump in, file the FP, and go.
Oh yes, I can, do and am allowed to in most of the ECAC-countries.
Peter wrote:
I note that Spain gives a clear NO
Since I don’t fly there on a regular basis it’s no pain for me to apply for a seperate permission if need be.
Roland, Peter has it right, the permanent approval in some cases does not eliminate the basic necessity of an approval. And you not flying anywhere doesn’t count as an argument on the underlying rules, does it?
LeSving wrote:
No one knows these things for certain before they have tried it.
Exactly. This is the reason of new issued microlight licenses decline in Germany for 6 years in a row, because many people, mainly operating both “worlds”, came to their reasons and recommend the route via LAPL or PPL with an additional microlight license.
I guess you’ll just keep claiming that some 90+% of all pilots will just fly for local burger runs, and perhaps this is the case in your neighborhood, although I have found out that if everyone tells people they are suggested to do nothing more but local flying, they eventually will remain in this pattern.
mh wrote:
Exactly. This is the reason of new issued microlight licenses decline in Germany for 6 years in a row, because many people, mainly operating both “worlds”, came to their reasons and recommend the route via LAPL or PPL with an additional microlight license.
Maybe as much as 30-50% or more of microlight licenses are PPL pilots getting one (my guess based on what I see). You also have to remember that the microlight community is subdivided. You have the trike pilots, the old school (garden chair variety) pilots and the “aircraft”, new tech pilots, as well as heli and gyro. The large increase in microlight licenses seen in previous years can simply be all the PPL pilots getting licenses, and now it is stabilizing (no more PPL pilots left that have the interest). All things come and go in waves, but there is always a base of people regardless.
Also, LSA and simpler maintenance for ELA1, makes PPL more attractive than it has been. Looking at the German price to obtain a microlight license (2-3 times the cost compared with Norway), this is probably the largest explanation. That, and the fact that microlights are not “free” in Germany, as they are most other places. Renting an old Cessna at a Club is therefore much more tempting alternative in Germany, from an economical perspective, than getting a microlight license and your own little aircraft. In Norway we see a steady decline in PPL, both active pilots and new PPLs. When looking at the number of aircraft, the picture is pitch black regarding PPL.
I think it’s good that people take PPL, but if the reason is exclusively artificial restrictions and artificial cost on the alternatives, then it is a lose – lose situation. We have to lower the bar across the line to get more people into flying, not rise it artificially here and there to even out the odds for counting purposes.
@Raiz – your link is v2.08 also. The LAA has not updated the version number! I have updated my copy – thank you.
We have done this to death here many times. To all those who keep saying it doesn’t exist, just read some of the introduction e.g.
Some say I am against homebuilts. Not at all! I would buy the Evolution if it was usable in Europe (but it isn’t, without breaking the law in most places). What I am against is people wasting their time and blowing their savings on something which somebody on some forum told them is just brilliant. Some of course don’t care anyway, which is fine. So long as they know the caveats.