Will the LAPL be harmful to GA?

Peter wrote:

I suspect most people are smart enough to realise (or did just enough googling before starting) that the LAPL probably won’t be cheaper. Hence the low take-up.

The low take-up has a lot to do with schools who prefer to sell you a higher number of hours ;-)

Since you do not have to do instrument navigation (much) at a time when you have your hands (and mind) full just mastering the plane, it is certainly shorter and cheaper.
And it gets you in a plane alone faster ;-)

LAPL will definitely be cheaper, at least where I live. Setting aside the required hours ,you can do a lot of your training on TMG and after aquiring the basic skills can move on to SEP .. The price difference is significant- one can get a Dimona for 60EUR/hour (wet) vs 200on C150..

Ps one thing to be aware of is that you can FIs that have not done CPL/ATPL theory and hence are not able to teach PPL, only LAPL. I have heard of more than one individual who has started LAPL and then found himself unable to change to PPL mid course due to this.

I certainly know of one school that offers/makes all students do a lapl and I would say they are a fair sized sized (5 aircraft)

My take is there isn’t really any saving in hours as at then end of the day it’s training as required until your safe

Airborne_Again wrote:

Are our instructors overly pessimistic or do they have a point?

I think it is complete bullshit. It is like when the rock music came, or the hip hop, or the fidget spinners. Some people do not like change. This kind of attitude that your(and others) instructors are having is what is harmful to GA. We must embrace these new rules and use them to our advantage. The LAPL has several really good things that was completely impossible before it:

• Less flight time for a license(if flying regularly some can make it within the 30 hours) = cheaper = more accessible
• A lot easier transition from UL/Microlight to LAPL(A) and SEP(land)
• An extremely liberal way to get from LAPL(S)/SPL and TMG to LAPL(A) and SEP(land)
• PPL pilots can get instructor ratings and use it to squeeze out more pilots (this is great since we have a huge shortage of instructors in our country)
• Medical with longer interval which is great
• Easier to get a medical overall (depends a bit on the national CAA though)
• An LAPL and a SEP(land) or TMG does not have an expiry date, so easier to regain if you dropped it for a while
• Theoretical part is a bit more liberal according to Part-FCL
• And the best: 95% of the PPL pilots might as well have an LAPL instead since they do not have an IR, do not fly anything heavier than 2 tonnes and definitely do not go outside of Europe

LAPL will be awesome when we learn how to use it. There are way too many bad attitudes around discrediting the LAPL.

Is LAPL really only 30 hours? I recently completed my LAPL for helicopters and it was 40 versus 45 for PPL.

I started as NPPL(m) upgraded to NPPL(SSEA) in 5 hours then paperwork change to LAPL. I did all of this because of an inability to get a class 2.

I now fly an RV10 all over Europe and a certified helicopter. I think the LAPL is bloody wonderful.

Incidentally in the 4 years since my LAPL was granted the CAA flow charts for my heart valve replacement now theoretically permit me to gain a class 2 all thanks to the wonders of testing the warfarin INR of my blood at Home. I’m very close, just a few more letters back and forth….. !!

However, sticking with the LAPL, it’s not very logical is it. I’m allowed to fly all around Europe in a 150kt aircraft, fly helicopters through central London, but I’m not allowed to train for an IR nor fly a twin. Logic????

Edited to add: I AM allowed to fly a turbine helicopter too, but not a turbine fixed wing. logic??? :)

Fly310 wrote:

There are way too many bad attitudes around discrediting the LAPL.

Indeed – it has been talked down by many people and on many occasions.
Incidentally the same for CB-IR and E-IR.

Rather than looking whether it might be a good fit (needs, requirements, desire), people keep looking back…

carlmeek wrote:

Is LAPL really only 30 hours?

That’s the fixed wing minimum.
And yes, that can be sufficient – although that is sufficient for talented folks or prior experienced only, took me ~35hrs…
Still 10hrs or 1-2months earlier to “train alone”

I think it is complete bullshit. It is like when the rock music came, or the hip hop, or the fidget spinners. Some people do not like change.

I don’t see anyone saying the LAPL is a load of crap. The comments have been along why the take-up is low. For sure there is training industry inertia.

If the LAPL offered a self declaration medical like the UK NPPL has, it would be a massive success. But Brussels and the AME lobby will never allow any such thing – too much trust vested in individuals

I guess the LAPL will gain more popularity with time, but I don’t think it has a problem even now. The only negative thing I have heard about it is that it is a licence which only allows flying within EASA territory, as it is not an ICAO license. But for the larger part of those who do an LAPL as a first step, this is not an issue at all.

The only criticism I have is that PPL pilots who have only an LAPL medical can not fly within the restriction of the LAPL privileges but need to convert their PPL to a LAPL in order to do so. That was something mentioned in the GA roadmap meeting I attended yesterday. Reason: A lot of elderly pilots do no longer qualify for a class 2 medical but easily so for a LAPL one or would choose to do 2 yearly exams flying the 2nd year with LAPL privileges only. Currently that is not possible.

Self declaration medical is something a bit critical I think… even now, many people lie to the AME’s about how they are just to keep flying when they actually should not be. The LAPL medical is really very open to most people, who can not pass this really should not be flying.