Indeed; some previous threads on the LAPL limitation e.g. here. Some people in France got the rule change during their FI training and scandalously came out with LAPL-only.
So an FI with no CPL-TK can do an ab-initio LAPL, then upgrade them to a PPL? surely not?
This was covered here recently. Yes the above is OK. The LAPL is good and can be upgraded as per the upgrade route. What is “possibly not OK depending on who checks” 
is for a “non-CPL-theory FI” to start a student on a PPL with everyone including the school pretending to be an LAPL, and then a “CPL-theory FI” takes over for the last bit.
The argument is somewhat similar to using an IMCR as a step towards the CBIR (or even the FAA IR), if the IMCR instruction was done by an FI who didn’t have the full (ICAO) IR. This debate took up gigabytes of bandwidth on forums many years ago and was never settled to everyone’s satisfaction especially those who benefited from selling additional training. The FAA confirmed in writing that an IMCR was a valid step and I believe an IMCR is also a valid step towards the CB IR no matter how taught.
I recently read that course flipping LAPL to PPL has been specifically disallowed?
Its gets dafter than that.
I know of one kid who started doing a PPL with a FI that could teach for the PPL eg held ATPL TK. The chap was getting close to solo so went for his medical but wasn’t able to get a class 2 medical so came back with a LAPL medical. He then rang the CAA explained his situation who then told him that NONE of the hours that he had allready flown could be counted towards a LAPL as they had been part of a “PPL Course” so he would have to start all over again.
It really is a regulatory mess.
Bathman wrote:
He then rang the CAA explained his situation who then told him that NONE of the hours that he had allready flown could be counted towards a LAPL as they had been part of a “PPL Course” so he would have to start all over again
IMO this is clearly illegal. The CAA is in no position to just nullify perfectly OK training. This is a case for a lawyer.
Ive also pulled the following paragraph from another forum because it just sums up how bonkers the lot is. The instructor/examiner in questions doesn’t hold CPL TK but teaches for everything else including the IR
The whole licensing piece is, frankly, a bit of a dog’s dinner. Nicely illustrated by Instructor E ‘s point. He will, once he’s done his FE ticket, be able to examine LAPL candidates and be authorised to conduct a flight test that is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as the test for a PPL candidate (whom he cannot either teach or examine because he hasn’t passed the CPL TK). The only difference between the LAPL and PPL syllabus and tests is the inclusion in the latter of Instrument Flying and Radio Navigation which, mirabile dictu, he’s already qualified to teach by virtue of his IRI. :roll:
You have to laugh. Because you just couldn’t make this up…
Bonkers. And infuriating.
Any rumours about this getting “fixed”?
I am sure I wrote this before but I was at a conference where the then deputy director of EASA, Eric Sivel, said that a PPL (FI) will be allowed to teach a PPL. Then there was a massive stink kicked up by the flight training business (under the table of course, since nobody likes to look totally obviously self-serving 
) because they didn’t want lots of “cheap” instructors flooding the system. EASA had to backtrack on that, presumably citing the ever so convenient ICAO requirement for CPL theory. I guess Sivel either didn’t about about this or planned to file a difference to ICAO.
It is indeed hilarious that a PPL/FI/IRI can teach the IR but not the PPL
He then rang the CAA explained his situation who then told him that NONE of the hours that he had allready flown could be counted towards a LAPL as they had been part of a “PPL Course” so he would have to start all over again.
I would instruct a solicitor on that. Most people don’t want to get on the CAA sh1tlist but that’s potentially relevant only with infringements which are a one-man department; their licensing department has such a staff throughput that it won’t matter. Actually, initially, send a letter to their chief exec, Mr Moriarty, and he will kick a few butts. He did that for me, finally getting them to issue the IR after 9 months!
I would like to become an instructor. It fits into my retirement planning. The cost doesn’t worry my so much as the potential for brain damage in dealing with the written exams.
It’s not much of an issue if you’re dedicated (!) and have a dark, cold winter to study. Honestly. Having understanding spouses helps too. It’s not a joyride though.
Splitting up the exams into three parts enables you to concentrate on fewer subjects,a good part of it will already be known anyway. Give yourself a year, four subjects at a time, and you should be ok.
Yesterday I received physically the IRI licence. So now I’m a qualified instructor, but what next? I never made up my mind what to do with the licence up to now, it was just a way to refresh and brush up my personal IR skills. But maybe for someone not to know where to use the instructor qualification afterwards might be a real reason not to go this step. There are not many clubs offering IR qualification. Mostly the more airline orientated flying schools do this, and they get their instructors out of the pool of former students or active airline pilots. So why, beside a personal motivation, should someone invest in the qualification if it will never pay of?
