OK… after all that, the answer appears to be NO except in cases where you have a handy FI available who doesn’t have the CPL theory.
Is the LAPL training course not a little simpler than the EASA PPL course? Wrt exams and required minimum flight time? Is currency not on a rolling basis aswell – As opposed to the 12hrs & 1hr instruction in the last 2 years of the EASA PPL?
Both the above may apppeal to some more than full EASA PPL.
skydriller wrote:
Is the LAPL training course not a little simpler than the EASA PPL course? Wrt exams and required minimum flight time?
The exams are the same as for PPL. The LAPL training course is shorter but not simpler. Some stuff has been taken out entirely (ínstrument flight and long distance navigation) but the rest is, AFAIU, the same as for PPL.
I think LAPL makes sense if you have immediate access to an LAPL FI, but not the PPL one – you get you LAPL wherever you are, and then upgrade to a PPL with no extra theory, just practice. I don’t think it is that bad to upgrade – you do another QXC, some instrument training and then the skills test.
Feedback from instructors is that the number of hours required to reach a given standard is the same for the NPPL, LAPL or PPL.
Maybe there are people just hanging in on the fringes (this is a UK context, the UK average is ~20-30hrs/year, so many must be ~5hrs/year) and then it is basically cheaper annually. Most 5hr/year pilots aren’t flying abroad, so they can equally use the NPPL, which was my point: the LAPL does exactly what?
And referring to @carlmeek ’s point: the same FI without CPL exam passes could train the NPPL too.
Maybe, if the UK does some treaty with EASA, the LAPL may become again usable for general flying abroad, whereas the NPPL is much less like to.
Thread title made clearer.
Peter wrote:
Maybe there are people just hanging in on the fringes (this is a UK context, the UK average is ~20-30hrs/year, so many must be ~5hrs/year) and then it is basically cheaper annually. Most 5hr/year pilots aren’t flying abroad, so they can equally use the NPPL, which was my point: the LAPL does exactly what?
Peter, got no idea on what is required for the NPPL vs LAPL. If they are (almost) equal then there is no point in having both LAPL and NPPL other than the pain of changing the legislation.
I disagree here.
I would say that both the NPPL(microlight) and LAPL result in license issue in less total time.The QXC for the NPPL(microlight) is two landaways with a total distance of 40nm. That doesn’t take long in the type of microlight that is used by the majority of schools. There is no Nav element on the skills test either. So endless hours on the PPL course teaching watch to map to ground which they will never, ever use again is also avoided.
Same with the LAPL one 80nm landaway and no teaching radio Nav with an ADF as you can’t pick up any VOR’s where you based. Again utter ridiculousness that a PPL student will never use again.
I agree 100% re the useless crap nav in the PPL, but " no Nav element on the skills test" is surely a total chocolate teapot, unless they are properly teaching satnav, which I know they are not, from how many people I have flown with who didn’t know how to config SD 
I also feel there is another knock on effect with the NPPL(Microlight)
As your average PPL candidate who presents for test will have done 10 hours solo, of which, lets say will be 4 hours will be in the circuit. Whereas the Microlight candidate will have done some thing like 7 hours solo in the circuit and it’s quite obvious that they handle the aircraft better.
Does Part-FCL mention NPPL anywhere? AFAIK only LAPL is mentioned and for that you need less theory, less practical flying hours and the LAPL medical for fulfilling the requirements than for PPL.
