Mooney_Driver wrote:
I was told in our country that no, you can’t fly with a PPL and an expired Class 2 for PPL, but you have to convert your license back to a LAPL if you wish to use those limits.
This used to be the case. Or rather, this used to be how some interpreted the rules. The aircrew regulation has been revised to make clear that a PPL holder with an expired class 2 but valid class LAPL can exercise LAPL privileges.
FCL.205.A(a): The privileges of the holders of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilots of aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations and to exercise all privileges of holders of an LAPL(A).
MED.A.030(c): When exercising the privileges of a:
(1) light aircraft pilot licence (LAPL) […] the pilot shall hold at least a valid LAPL medical certificate;
(2) private pilot licence (PPL), the pilot shall hold at least a valid class 2 medical certificate
So part-MED does not refer to what license you actually have but what privileges you want to exercise.
There is a similar phrasing for the CPL and ATPL so as the medical certificate is downgraded the license itself can still be used but with downgraded privileges.
Why not just have a PPL which downgrades to LAPL privileges if you have an LAPL medical?
Peter wrote:
Why not just have a PPL which downgrades to LAPL privileges if you have an LAPL medical?
That’s exactly what you have.
Airborne_Again wrote:
. The aircrew regulation has been revised to make clear that a PPL holder with an expired class 2 but valid class LAPL can exercise LAPL privileges.
Perfect! Thanks for that.
Airborne_Again wrote:
So part-MED does not refer to what license you actually have but what privileges you want to exercise.
I know and I had the LAPL entry in my medical for years. But when I once wanted to use it I was told I can’t. several years ago. If that has changed great.
My class 2 medical has PPL and LAPL on the front. The LAPL medical, here, must also done at an AME. The same AME as I have now and following the same process. So I can’t see how it would make much difference to my situation.
Remember its not about whether I am fit to fly. All concerned agree I am. What is the point is all the IMO unnecessary confirmatory tests I will need in order to pass the medical each year.
Maybe I am being bloody minded but I have had tests which clear me totally as in no sign I have ever had a problem. But I am monitored every year by a specialist. My choice. The extra tests demanded by the AME and the DGAC have nothing to do with the procedure I had and do not appear in the normal list of AME tests required.
As an analogy let’s say you have a serious accident. You are rushed to hospital and doctors check you have no brain damage, no internal damage, only a broken leg. They fix the broken leg and you have some time off flying..
Some time later you go back to the doctor who reset your leg and he takes an X ray and announces you are fine, everything is back to normal. But at your next visit to your AME he demands that you bring your X rays and a blood test so that he can look at them to see if the surgeon did his job properly. These he sends off to the NAA medical department, who at their 3 monthly meeting look over your X ray and blood test and decide you need to provide these every year alongside your class 2 medical. Oh and just in case you should have a CATscan each year also. So you do that for a number of years but in your licence is written that there should be further surveillance every 3 years and the AME decides that that should be a full MRI scan to see if anything else has developed.
I figured the LAPL medical would be just the same.
I simply decided enough was enough and there was a tempting alternative which required none of this. I wonder if I could get a class 2 medical in Spain which would allow me to fly the Super Guépard there should I so wish🙂
gallois wrote:
What is the point is all the IMO unnecessary confirmatory tests I will need in order to pass the medical each year.
They might be fewer for a LAPL medical.
I figured the LAPL medical would be just the same.
Possibly, but that is not certain.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The LAPL is valid in EASA states only, of which to my knowledge Serbia is not a member.
Serbia is perfectly free to acknowledge LAPL as a valid license. It would be highly surprising if they didn’t, because they accept any UL coming from anywhere in Europe.
In practice, the way this works is that ICAO papers are automatically accepted (unless a specific rejection is filed, which is very rare) but non-ICAO papers are automatically invalid (unless explicitly accepted, which almost never happens).
Serbia, along with most countries, is unlikely to be “with it” when it comes to understanding the subtleties of EASA FCL.
Oh and just in case you should have a CATscan each year also
Does nobody consider the high x-ray dose cancer risk, or other risks if a contrast enhancer is used? This is bonkers.
Peter wrote:
Serbia, along with most countries, is unlikely to be “with it” when it comes to understanding the subtleties of EASA FCL.
You can fly a UL with a LAPL and nothing else. You can fly a UL without a LAPL also for that matter 
IMO you won’t know unless you have checked with the CAA of Serbia.
gallois wrote:
I wonder if I could get a class 2 medical in Spain which would allow me to fly the Super Guépard there should I so wish🙂
In theory you should be able to get your Class 2 in any EASA member state and be done with it. And somehow I doubt they would all behave like the French do.
Remember, I had the same garbage with one AME and even a change going to a different AME got rid of that. For good. Now as you say that in France the AME’s rely on a comittee which rules every single case, I’d think going abroad to get it may well be a consideration.
As for the LAPL, the regulations for it are less strict and moreover, you only have to do it every 2 years, not every year.
