Ibra wrote:
In France, Zlins NO but Jodels are OK, same in Czechia, Zlins are OK but Jodels NO
I think all this “Annex 1 for EASA license” is really fuzzy explained in the EASA regs. It’s up to each national CAA to clarify, and of course they will do so differently
If the ULM hours can be recorded towards your hours by experience for your PPL SEPA. Which I am assured by the DGAC and EASA that they can (even FFPLUM have accepted that but are aggrieved that they were not consulted) why would it not be the case that 70 hours PIC time in a WT9 would not be acceptable in order to start MEP training? After all those 70 hours are not hours in training they are PIC on an SEP aircraft.
Incidentally you can train for PPL on many annexe 1 aircraft in France, not just Jodels. But I do believe they have to be maintained in a certified personnel. This does exclude training on ULM.
Because it’s a difference if you revalidate a rating or obtain a new license/rating?
In Germany, those hours don’t count. I know of an UL flight instructor who has 700+ hours on an UL, wanted to buy the certified version of that same aircraft and was told: you need the PPL(A) and for that you need to fly 45 hours….. even though the performance of, say, a Pipistrel Virus SW as UL and as SW 121 are negligible….
Hours in 3 axis ULM now count towards the hours needed for the revalidation of PPLA. It was something brought in by EASA a year or so ago.
In Denmark PIC hours on a 3-axis microlight count towards a LAPL(A), but not a PPL(A). For LAPL FCL.110.A(c) says “Crediting. Applicants with prior experience as PIC may be credited…” while for PPL FCL.210.A(d) says “Crediting. Applicants holding a pilot licence for another category of aircraft”. Apparently the different wording makes the difference.
The definition of aircraft regarding to FCL.010 is:
“Aircraft” means any machine which can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions
of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface.
So it makes no sense to make a difference between crediting for LAPL or PPL.
huv wrote:
In Denmark PIC hours on a 3-axis microlight count towards a LAPL(A), but not a PPL(A). For LAPL FCL.110.A(c) says “Crediting. Applicants with prior experience as PIC may be credited…” while for PPL FCL.210.A(d) says “Crediting. Applicants holding a pilot licence for another category of aircraft”. Apparently the different wording makes the difference.
Looks like some instructors trying desperately to not become redundant. Aircraft is defined above.
The definition of Aeroplane:
‘Aeroplane’ means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air that is
supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.
PIC:
‘Pilot-in-command’ means the pilot designated as being in command and charged
with the safe conduct of the flight. For the purpose of commercial air transport
operations, the ‘pilot-in-command’ shall be termed the ‘commander’.
“Category of aircraft” means a categorisation of aircraft according to specified basic characteristics,
for example aeroplane, powered-lift, helicopter, airship, sailplane, free balloon
“Class of aeroplane” means a categorisation of single-pilot aeroplanes not requiring a type rating.
IMO it is fairly obvious what the intention of the regulations are, but I’m no lawyer so
I think perhaps the key word is pilot license. A UL license isn’t a license in the same way a EASA PPL is a license. Besides, it would make no logical sense if EASA intended this to mean a UL license.
No one needs a license to fly an UL. The CAA may however require a “proof of competence” to allow you to fly in their airspace.
But this is for obtaining the PPL in the first place. It’s something else to show currency when renewing the PPL.
“I think perhaps the key word is pilot license.“
Indeed.
