Hello and help! (PPL or LAPL or UL)

This “permit to fly” thing is almost exclusively a UK term. The rest of the world call it what it is: experimental homebuilt aircraft. They can be flown all across Europe with EASA PPL. In a very few cases you must apply for a permission, Belgium is one. Most countries issue a C of A for experimentals, and they are handled just like any other aircraft, but can also be maintained by the builder/owner. Experimental aircraft is the way to go if you ask me

LeSving wrote:

This “permit to fly” thing is almost exclusively a UK term.

Certainly not. E.g. Sweden issues CofAs only to aircraft where the design, construction and maintenance follow ICAO standards. Otherwise they get a “permit to fly”. AFAIU this means that most (all?) homebuilts get an PtF.

Hey Jamie, welcome to the flying community.

It is fun, it is challenging, and it is addicting. You will be richer and poorer at the same time.
Just know that there is a bramble of red tape over everything, and that red tape makes it worth pursuing a certificate that allows you to do whatever you want to do without having to revisit the process again. I experience red tape in many ways; old cultural norms, too many government employees (make it harder, keep your job), and the concept of pilots as being the elite of society, and therefore some kind of social status.

All these things get in the way of the simple elegance and beauty of sitting behind the yolk/stick and watching the earth pass by underneath you.
I remember my first CC solo, flying along the coast in Florida, in a Piper Warrior, watching the desolate beach below me and thinking, “no friggin’ way. I can go wherever I want, and do whatever I want up here” Later on the same flight I flew over a nuclear power plant (in long after 9/11 btw) and thought, "holy crap! this can’t be legal!‘, but it was, and only a short time later they introduced the TFR’s over Nuke plants… I had an amazingly special first CC solo.

Now I love flying at night, watching the lights from highways and cities, caught in a finite pattern, set in a web that no-one can leave, except the few of us silently (it seems quieter at night) free to roam and look down on a world that is inherently 2-Dimensional. Watching the cars crawl along a freeway, knowing it will take those poor souls 3-4x longer to reach the same destination, knowing the boredom that is driving on a road with a million others… Instead, I’m slipping through the night sky, seeing the stars, the horizon and hundreds of miles of earth slowly pass below me…

For me, the beauty of flight is flying itself.

I’m personally from the US and obtained my PPL in 40.0 hours (the minimum legal requirement). I had a great first instructor, who taught me how to fly (and didn’t worry about all the legalities) and let me do my thing. I soloed in 12 hours, but was ready in about 8. I couldn’t wait to get him out of my cockpit!!! But now I’m glad he was there…

After I passed my checkride, I stepped up to complex aircraft. I had 15 hours with one of the best CFI’s in the US for GA, who taught me how to fly Mooneys. More importantly, he taught me how to fly technically (500fpm decent, aircraft trimmed to fly itself, and let the aircraft “land itself”).

I’m telling you all this for a reason.

I moved to Europe in 2012, which was a total shock. The “fun” of flying was somehow like a faint smell I picked up from a far-away bakery… lost amongst filters of legal insanity and bureaucratic bullying. The “fun” got lost in translation. Except that pilots tend to be hearty people, and we typically find a way… legal or… less-than-legal. :)

In the US, there is the PPL and the Light Sport PL. I think the LSPL is similar to the LAPL here. Except that it takes 25 hours there and COUNTS toward the PPL. This is how it should be because at the base of it, flying is flying.
Navigating is another story. That is a mental exercise which requires years of practice to master, and many more hours of flight time, along with sage advice from experienced pilots to fully understand.

Anyway, without getting too far off the track, the PPL is the basic currency for everything in flight. Commercial pilots get it, military pilots get it, nearly everyone who flies, worldwide, gets it. That is where the value comes into play. It is typically recognized world-wide.
I may now live in Europe, but if I travel to, say, Australia, having my FAA (or EASA) PPL reciprocated there isn’t a big deal. I don’t have to get a whole new license to fly there, I just need to take some tests and get a check-ride, which is pretty typical for a lot of places world-wide.
Those extra dozen or two dozen hours with an instructor are also very helpful for learning more of what it means to be a responsible pilot. Learning radio communication protocols and navigation skills, in flight is certainly valuable.

So whether you plan to just fly Light Aircraft, or twins or jets, the basic skills are worth having and knowing about, and as Peter mentioned, there’s nothing like having a wise mentor in the right seat, helping you along the way, even if there is no “official” merit to it.

My post has turned into a book (I’m sorry man) but I hope that all the noise that comes from technicalities, money and politics doesn’t overshadow the simple beauty of flight and being as you’re an explorer and an adventurer (voluntarily moving past your home country is something done by people who are explorative and adventurous), I think it is very likely that you’ll make another move in the future. Even if that move is 20 years into the future.

Getting a full PPL establishes you at a base international level which allows you to go and fly anywhere you want (with some additional tests), but you won’t need to worry as much about the technicalities and drivel that is bureaucracy.

As someone who’s transitioned across international borders myself, I’d really recommend to get the PPL. Then you can fly however you like (light sport, GA, or move up to jets, etc. someday… Hey! you never know…)

Jamie wrote:

should I do PPL, LAPL (if I can find a school providing it) or a microlight licence?

There have been lots of talk in this thread, and very little numbers. I have compiled a list of minimum instruction hours and cost of those hours for various alternatives for PPL, LAPL and micro(UL) and how to get those licenses in different ways. For micro, I have used the Norwegian regulation, it’s the only one I know. The regulation say 25 h of instruction for a license. Then additional 25 h as PIC solo to be able to carry passengers. The cost varies massively, a factor 2-3 from the cheapest to the most expensive. I have used one among the most expensive, which is my club (1h with instructor cost 1200 NOK, which I have approximated to 120€). The cost of PPL instruction is 1800 NOK in my club, which I have approximated to 180€.

To get the “legal basis” for how to go from micro to LAPL/PPL I have used the official school handbook of NLF, and with reference to FCL.210.A and FCL.110.A When reading those regulations, the devil is very much in the details regarding hours. A good school/club today will educate to micro, LAPL, PPL and beyond, all of them, which could be important because it is the school (instructor) who ultimately decides the “quality” of the experience you have from micro or LAPL. If you can do that within one school/club, with instructors that does it all, that would be best (best micro instructions, and best possible transition upwards). Also, the PPL/LAPL theory is only “valid” for 24 months, which is something to keep in mind. Micro theory does not cost anything (except in my club where we have 32 h of class room education at NOK 4000, a little less than €400)

Here is the list with the options for minimum required instruction hours:

The “cheapest” way to get PPL is via LAPL. The most “expensive” way is going from micro and directly to PPL. It is considerably cheaper to go micro-LAPL-PPL, cheaper than getting a PPL in fact. This is not the whole truth. Micro to PPL (directly) requires that you have 100 h as PIC in a micro. LAPL to PPL requires additional 5h, unless you have flown as PIC with a LAPL for “some time”.

My point is that if you start out with micro, then you feel an urge for some larger craft and go for LAPL, and then after some years you feel it is time to fly some really heavy stuff. If you do that, you will NOT lose out on anything. You will have to do additional 5 h compared to a PPL directly (if you can do the PPL with the minimum 45 h with no previous experience), but it will cost you less. The same thing is true if you start with LAPL, only you are likely to use less instruction hours also.

Another point is that it will not only cost you less, but you will also spread the cost over larger time. Most importantly is that you will be able to fly as PIC all over Europe, (if that is what you want) and it will cost you 1/3 of a PPL. You have to remember that a microlight (UL) is an EASA construct, they are, per EASA regulations, valid in all EASA-land. It’s only the finer details that are different and may or may not require an explicit permission to enter another country. LAPL is an EASA-license, fully valid in all of EASA-land (all of Europe) with no strings attached. A PPL is “valid” in all of ICAO land, but no more so than microlight licenses within EASA-land.

My personal opinion is a PPL is best. I would never let go of my PPL, unless some medical condition should require it. But, unless you are 100% determined to fly IFR around the globe (Europe included), I see no reasons to start with a PPL, not today when EASA has made it possible to fly as PIC for much less, and much faster. And also made an easy and cheap upgrade to LAPL – PPL, if and when you find out that you want more.

Jamie wrote:

I was wondering how aircraft with an MTOW less than 2000Kg are regulated across Europe? Is it nationally via a “permit to fly” scheme similar to those in the UK and USA for LSAs? Or does it need to undergo the traditional certificate of airworthiness each year? Or is a less burdensome version applied?

All aircraft fall under EASA (and some certification regime) with the exception of those listed in Annex II of the Basic Regulation (No 216/2008). Those exceptions cover historic, military, experimental, amateur-built and ultralight (UL) aircraft. Unless you want to fly one of those, it will have to be certified.

Now, for aeroplanes, there are several certification specifications. The basic for light aeroplanes is CS-23. You have two light weight specifications (lighter than CS-23): CS-LSA and CS-VLA. For example, Diamond DA20 is VLA. They are heavier than ULs, but still very weight restricted (VLA normally up to 750 kg, Diamond has an exception; LSA up to 600 kg). Actually, VLA (not sure about LSA) might become a thing of the past after CS-23 is rewritten to be more proportional.

There used to be permit to fly option at the EASA level but I don’t think it exists anymore. I’m not that familiar with Part-21 (aircraft certification) so I can’t elaborate on the differences and I think it goes beyond the scope of this thread as there is no difference as far as pilot licensing goes and maintenance rules are structured differently.

Then you have ELA1 (up to 1200 kg; which includes LSA and VLA) and ELA2 (up to 2000 kg; that’s simplified, weight is not the only condition in either case). ELA1 have a lighter regime for maintenance (self declared maintenance programs, more privileges for you and your mechanic, nice things) and more is coming (Part-M Light) for ELA2 and probably up to 2730 kg. I’m not staying on top of the development. There were other threads about maintenance of light aeroplanes, you can look around.

I hope it at least somewhat cleared the mud.

AF wrote:

In the US, there is the PPL and the Light Sport PL. I think the LSPL is similar to the LAPL here. Except that it takes 25 hours there and COUNTS toward the PPL. This is how it should be because at the base of it, flying is flying.

LAPL also counts towards PPL. And the theory is the same if you stay within the same category (e.g. aeroplanes; there is no time limit, if you have a LAPL, you get theory credited); if not, about half the subjects are the same. Required total is the same, 45 hours, but going via LAPL(A) actually means different minimums. At least 10 hours solo is the same, but LAPL has at least 15 hours of dual instead of 25 and 5 hours can be completely outside of training.

One thing I don’t think anyone mentioned yet – you can train for LAPL(A) and PPL(A) in TMGs.

The important information to answer your question is, weather you have the time / capabilities / interest to engage in the maintenance of your aircraft, or if you’d rather drop her off at some maintenance company to do it for you. In the first case, you might have annual maintenance costs all in below 1000€, but sinking in quite some time. Depends on the condition of the airframe and engine, though. If you just drop the aircraft at some maintenance company, even a basic VFR aircraft could draw up bills of 10000€ or more, depending what needs to be done or what you want to be done. There is a huge span depending on what you want to fly and how you intend to maintain it.

Good for you Jamie, I’m sure you’ll enjoy the learning process!

PS
Once you get your PPL, let us know and we’ll organise a fly-in to your field to celebrate. Just give us some proper vectors to ECBI wherever that may be. Or is it that your employment at the EC somehow influenced your typing?