Fly310 wrote:
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: [……..]Yes, sure, I know all about that and personally I think that the LAPL is a good idea — certainly a much better idea than the EIR. But our instructors know all about that, too. You can’t dismiss a concern as “bullshit” just by mentioning positive things that do not directly relate to the issue at hand — that of keeping people flying. It is a fact that lots of new PPL holders quit flying within a few years of getting their license. The question is — will this be different (in any direction) with the LAPL.
And my club is right now promoting the LAPL as the main entry into private flying. We do that even though it will mean less aircraft rental and instructor’s fees simply because the cost to the student is lower and it is the purpose of the club to make available affordable recreational flying.
That does not mean that in the end the LAPL will turn out better than the PPL.
who can not pass this really should not be flying.
I would strongly disagree with that, as written, because there is a great deal of detail potentially involved. See e.g. here. For example you could be basically very healthy and have some surgical procedure, and your EASA medicals will jump 10x in price, as well as requiring scans which have a nonzero change of giving you cancer. FAA medicals can be harder than EASA ones, in these situations. Most pilots give up flying when faced with that. On the NPPL + medical self dec they can continue flying, UK VFR only. There is no evidence there is an increased probability of pilot incapacitation when one doesn’t see an AME; this was proved in the USA. The requirement to see an AME is driven purely by ICAO, by the AME lobby, and by emotional arguments.
Sure you can lie to the AME and it is very easy (most pilots make damn sure their AME is not their GP, so the AME will never find out you had a heart transplant 
) but then you have no insurance coverage if there is an accident.
Self declaration works because virtually all pilots are smart enough to not fly if they feel really bad and they don’t want their family to be asset stripped if they crashed.
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.
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
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”
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…
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??? :)
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:
LAPL will be awesome when we learn how to use it. There are way too many bad attitudes around discrediting the LAPL.
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
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.
