Plus the LAPL medical has to be done with an AME and none have suggested that the medical will be any different to that for a PPL. Some medical conditions may be allowable for an LAPL which are not for the PPL.
The training requirement savings in reality are negligible and the medical requirement savings are also in reality negligible in most cases. In some countries, going AME → GP saves money, in others it saves a bit but creates a lot more hassle.
Europe should have just gone for the UK PMD system, whose safety has been demonstrated beyond any doubt over years, and even more beyond any doubt in the US version under which vastly more pilots fly.
Instead, Europe has a committee after committee chipiing away around the edges while keeping the “political animals” happy by throwing them lots of meat, so we end up with a series of very similar pilot paper systems.
It is just crazy that someone who is safe to fly has to give up significant capability just because some level of pilot papers is harder to get, with zero effect on safety.
And the US system is no better outside the US; I have known people who had to go N to G because some quite technical factor prevented them having an FAA medical but they could get a UK CAA Class 2. Although that was equally a statement on European based FAA AMEs being generally unwilling to offer a proper level of service and perform Special Issuance medicals. A number of FAA AMEs whose names have been posted here will dump you the moment you need Special Issuance.
Peter wrote:
Europe should have just gone for the UK PMD system
Peter wrote:
And the US system is no better outside the US
Yes, this is a real hassle for Americans wanting to fly to Canada.
Instead of negotiating approval on a country by country basis, the real solution is to fix this at ICAO level so there is a common medical worldwide suitable for GA, based on the UK and/or US basic medical.
Unfortunately the chances of that are poor. The only significant concessions on either FCL or MED have been via national deviations from ICAO.
In Europe a lot could be done this way because for obvious practical/logistical reasons very few GA pilots fly outside “Europe”. It’s a bit like the US. The difference is that the US is one country whereas Europe isn’t 
EASA could do a “PMD” but they will never get agreement of the 27 or so member countries’ CAAs and AME lobbies.
Also there is a lot of BS around. I recall going to a presentation some years ago at Luton airport by an FAA lawyer and someone in the audience who worked there stood up and had a moan about some pilot flying on an FAA medical and that (paraphrasing; don’t recall the exact words) this pilot was able to fly with one eye one leg one arm one bollock, using the FAA medical and this was surely NOT RIGHT!! Since then Brussels “corrected” this terrible anomaly by forcing dual papers on every “foreign renegade” Now take this caricature and multiply it across Europe and see what you get. There are multiple countries in the EU which are barely functional due to stuff like corruption, “church” influence, etc so the chances of something sensible but revolutionary are nil.
LeSving wrote:
Still, LAPL has been (and still is) criticized by pilots (with PPL) as something utterly useless and a waste of time compared with PPL “with a PPL you can do so much more”. It’s very peculiar.
I would have gone to LAPL by now if I could operate outside the EU with it. As my trips to Bulgaria include overflying and possibly landing in Serbia, the LAPL would not be valid there. Otherwise, it is more than plenty for anyone who only flies VFR and is content to fly max 4 seaters, for which my Mooney qualifies.
The main “advantage” for me would be 2 year medical intervals. As currently my employer also asks for a yearly medical and basically pais for my Class 2 when I can do the two of them combined, I am holding on to the PPL for now, but once retired and once it’s clear I won’t fly into non-EU territory anymore, why not.
Peter wrote:
The training requirements in reality are negligible
Perhaps, but it opens up for instructors that actually are GA pilots (without having to endure tons of useless pain and pay lots of money), and not some 20 year old ATPL waiting for a job opening. That will eventually create a new generation of GA pilots that are more pro-GA. The intrinsic value of GA as, what shall I say, a spiritual expression of freedom and community, has to be nourished. That has to start when the student take the first flight. In gliding this is well understood. With ULs this is well understood. With certified GA, not so much.
Anyway, I’m no defender of senseless EASA bureaucracy. But this LAPL is not a bad thing. It is a good move from EASA. Too little, too late? Perhaps, but I also think it’s way too early to tell. IMO gallois has done a good move. I’m positively sure he will never look back and just enjoy the freedom. For me, I’m note ripe enough to cut any ties. I have a foot here and a foot there, and it will be like that for a long time yet.
Yes the FI not needing CPL theory is a big plus of the LAPL. We did that here also.
However, the CPL theory requirement is the real issue, which should have been addressed first. It is completely pointless. It comes out of ICAO. EASA (Eric Sivel; I was there) said it would not be there, but they failed to deliver on that.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The main “advantage” for me would be 2 year medical intervals.
There’s no need to go LAPL for that. What I have done for several years now is to have an ordinary medical. That medical is valid for one year PPL, but two years LAPL. The first year I fly like any ordinary PPL, but the second year I fly on my LAPL privileges which are included in the PPL.
Besides, are you sure you cannot fly to Serbia with a LAPL? There are no restrictions flying to Serbia with an UL for instance.
I don’t have a hang-up-the-headset date.
I’m 41 and it’s my firm belief that that private light GA in the UK will be priced / regulated / eco-bashed out of existence before I am ready to stop flying. I don’t want to try and predict the timeline with any accuracy, but I would be very surprised if we have more than 25 years left.
I have a PMD in parallel with my class 2 medical because I don’t want my flying to be curtailed for no logical safety-related reason by some of the AME horror stories I hear. When they start getting expensive or a pain in the backside to get, I’ll ditch the class 2 and if that keeps me this side of the channel then so be it. That may not be foolproof though because the CAA is doing one of its fake consultations in a bid to roll back or restrict the PMD because far more people are using it than they anticipated and the AME lobby (mostly ex-RAF medics) is squealing loudly about the lost revenue.
I don’t know if I’ll revalidate the IR(R) this time or ever again. Thankfully the renewal if expired is the same as the reval if not expired, so long as you’ve not been expired for some long period of time. I’m finding myself having less and less interest in flying in poor weather. The skills from the IR(R) remain though and they’re great to have.
LeSving wrote:
Besides, are you sure you cannot fly to Serbia with a LAPL?
The LAPL is valid in EASA states only, of which to my knowledge Serbia is not a member.
LeSving wrote:
There’s no need to go LAPL for that. What I have done for several years now is to have an ordinary medical. That medical is valid for one year PPL, but two years LAPL. The first year I fly like any ordinary PPL, but the second year I fly on my LAPL privileges which are included in the PPL.
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. Personally I exactly thought like yourself, but apparently not. Maybe this has changed in the mean time but I never bothered to find out as I, as mentioned earlier, also need a medical for my work and therefore can prolong my Class 2 in the same doctors visit.
