Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Does flight time in Annex 2 (now called Annex 1) and UL to count towards EASA PPL currency

From this thread on the EASA GA Community (you might need to register to read it):

The EASA committee took place yesterday and the proposal made by EASA was received positively by the Member States. We expect that the voting of the new text could happen in June 2019.

Nympsfield, United Kingdom

What does it says ? Thanks.

LFDU, Switzerland

Tried to login using Facebook and then Google+. Neither worked.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

It does not state more than quoted above.

Sweden, Sweden

Was the “positive reception” for:
A) allowing Annex1 hours to count,
or
B) not allowing Annex1 hours to count?
After reading earlier posts, I’m still uncertain.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Based on reports I’ve heard coming from EFLEVA, Annex 1 hours will count. I believe some CAA’s are anticipating it and accepting hours already now. There’ll likely be some details to ensure UL time isn’t counted for PPL renewals, but time on certified normal category Annex 1 aircraft should count.

LSZK, Switzerland

All hours in Annex 1 counts towards recency and re-validation

Finally. Taking effect immediately (for what it’s worth nowadays) in Norway, and probably all over EASA land?

here

AMC1 FCL.140.A; FCL.140.S; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) Recency and revalidation requirements
All hours flown on aeroplanes or sailplanes that are subject to a decision as per Article 2(8) of the Basic
Regulation or that are specified in Annex I to the Basic Regulation should count in full towards fulfilling
the hourly requirements of points FCL.140.A, FCL.140.S, and FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) under the following
conditions:
Annex I to ED Decision 2020/005/R
Page 7 of 61
(a) the aircraft matchesthe definition and criteria of the respective Part-FCL aircraft category, class,
and type ratings; and
(b) the aircraft that is used for training flights with an instructor is an Annex-I aircraft of type (a),
(b), (c), or (d) that is subject to an authorisation specified in points ORA.ATO.135 or
DTO.GEN.240.
AMC1 FCL.140.A; FCL.140.H; FCL.140.S; FCL.140.B Recency requirements
Training flight items should be based on the exercise items of the proficiency check, as deemed
relevant by the instructor, and depending on the experience of the candidate. For aeroplanes and
helicopters, the briefing should include a discussion on TEM with special emphasis on decision-making
when encountering adverse meteorological conditions or unintentional IMC, as well as on navigation
flight capabilities. For sailplanes and balloons, the discussion should place special emphasis on
principal occurrence categories of the activity that is covered by the licence.
AMC1 FCL.140.A(b)(1) LAPL(A) Recency requirements
The proficiency check should follow the content of the skill test that is set out in AMC1 FCL.125,
point (e).
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Also valid for Sweden. More people will fly ultralights now!

The question is if that will lead to more accidents, since for PPLs ultralights can be flown after a simple checkride. A few times I was in an ultralight with another PIC you can definitely feel that they’re more sensitive and require better flying skills in my opinion.

A few times I was in an ultralight with another PIC you can definitely feel that they’re more sensitive and require better flying skills in my opinion.

There are three things:

  1. They are not certified, and therefore may behave different than what a PPL pilot might expect
  2. The wing loading is low, making them very sensitive whenever there is some wind.
  3. They usually have much more power per weight. This can be experienced different in different planes. Some have very small rudder authority at close to zero speed (on the runway). They accelerate to flying speed like a rocket in comparison to a C-172 type.

I would think those who also are CS-LSA certified and 600 kg MTOW to be very standard (and boring ) while those who are not, are completely different animals in many respects.

We have a VLA P2008 (identical to the LSA version) and it behaves very much like a C-172, while an Atec Zephyr/Faeta is very different.

The funny thing is that learning to fly in a microlight does not take longer time, even though it is more difficult to take off/land. Why? One can only speculate.

For me this is great. I’m a microlight instructor and a glider tow pilot (also microlight) and all my flying now also “counts” for my PPL license.

I think also that in the end, PPL/LAPL will be required also for all Annex 1. That is were this is heading, for better and for worse.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

The funny thing is that learning to fly in a microlight does not take longer time, even though it is more difficult to take off/land. Why? One can only speculate.

It’s always a good start to look at the political angle first

  • UL have active representative organisations
  • UL is always “sold” as a “sporting” activity and anything to do with “sport” is much easier to deregulate (look at France for example, with no medical required)
  • UL is VFR-only which avoids a huge pile of political/regulatory issues simply because ATC can always refuse entry into CAS (“the air which belongs to professional pilots”) without giving a reason
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top