I think the problem the LAPL has is the same old psychological one: few people want to limit their capability, given that the training and medical-requirements difference is negligible.
To sell any product, it has to have a distinct advantage.
ivark wrote:
As a LAPL holder myself
thank you sir. It might have something to do with evolution of LAPL over time. Originally, the LAPL was to be limited to the certain distance from the airport but I believe this limitation didn´t survive the NPA stage. It might be the case for type restriction I did mention when kicking off this. Looks clear now
M.
I spoke to CAA. I was wrong (or even off as confirmed by someone). The only difference between PPL and LAPL is that the difference training LAPL holder needs to be 3 hours and 10 flights while PPL holder’s training is up to the instructor providing the training.
Michal wrote:
spoke to CAA. I was wrong (or even off as confirmed by someone). The only difference between PPL and LAPL is that the difference training LAPL holder needs to be 3 hours and 10 flights while PPL holder’s training is up to the instructor providing the training.
Where does part-FCL say that? I think that you or your CAA are still confusing training for a new class with differences training within the same class.
The LAPL does not contain an aircraft Class rating. It is a LAPL Aeroplane or a LAPL TMG, or could be endorsed for both, They are the only different Classes you can fly on the Licence. An Aeroplane (SEA) would be a variant.
For example Cessna 172. To move to Piper 28 there should be 3 hours of instruction followed by skill test with examiner (see (a) of FCL.135.A.)
No, you can fly a C172 or a PA28 subject only to familiarisation training they are both in the same class i.e. Aeroplanes. If it has a VP prop or other differences then you need differences training, an instructor sign off.
The instruction and test in FCL.135A relate to another Class i.e. adding a TMG to a LAPL Aeroplane; or an Aeroplane to a LAPL TMG; or perhaps a Aeroplane (SEA).
Don’t overcomplicate things.
Thanks for those clarifications Tumbleweed
Tumbleweed wrote:
Don’t overcomplicate things
Someone recently told me CRIs can’t teach LAPL holders as the LAPL does not contain any class rating
Perhaps don’t need to would be more appropriate however; they can do the dual training required for currency, differences training, aeros; towing etc and they can do the conversion to TMG or Aeroplane if required.
Peter wrote:
few people want to limit their capability, given that the training and medical-requirements difference is negligible.
To some, the medical-requirements difference is what keeps them flying. PPL’s with medicals downgraded from Class 2 are a significant part of the LAPL population.
Otherwise, I agree.