AIUI the LAPL – even if issued pre-brexit i.e. under EASA – is not recognised outside the UK (except as in the two paras below) so it isn’t worth any more than the NPPL – correct?
The LAPL and NPPL are valid in France, with a Class 2 or with a PMD, but only on an uncertified aircraft.
So, bottom line, the LAPL does no more than the NPPL – regardless of which medical you have.
Is there any difference? I have the NPPL (as well as all the other stuff e.g. a CPL/IR) for in case I need to fly on the PMD (medical self declaration) one day.
I can tell you that the LAPL here requires what is basically a Class 2 medical. It is a bone of contention.
As for UK LAPL or UK NPPL it is difficult to say.
The LAPL is an EASA licence here. So it would depend on what the EASA rule on UK LAPL is.
The NPPL is not an EASA ĺicence, and experimental is done on at a National level.
So if the UK CAA says you can fly a G reg experimental on an NPPL with a self declared medical and that you can fly it across International borders it is up to the country whose border you are crossing whether or not they will allow it.
It appears AIUI that France has a bilateral agreement with the UK on this and allows it.
I will point out that to fly an F reg experimental (in this I include kit builds, orphelins, collection aircraft ) on a French licence you need a PPL (for some I believe an LAPL will do. But the LAPL doesn’t seem too popular in France so I have no experience of this) and a Class 2 medical.
Cerified aircraft come under EASA and France is a member and signed up to SERA, therefore there is no bilateral agreement that can be made on them.
With a UK LAPL you have 2 options AFAIK:
But the UK LAPL is not accepted by EASA – except as noted above, in France, and only on uncertified aircraft, and then it is same as the NPPL 
So I can’t see the value of the LAPL. Also if you look at that PDF above, IMHO most GPs won’t want to do it. Way too complicated for them.
So, bottom line, the only benefit I can see is that the LAPL medical costs a bit less than the full Class 2, but this isn’t actually relevant because you don’t need the LAPL medical, because it’s only value was pre-brexit, for flying abroad. So, end result = zero
Maybe @tumbleweed might know.
My wife is about to complete her LAPL course. Main reason LAPL not PPL is because I’m PPL instructor without CPL so it’s the only one I can offer. Seeing as the course is essentially identical, this rule is stupid beyond belief.
carlmeek wrote:
this rule is stupid beyond belief
Today, due to Corona/Putin causing an environment flooding with “FIs” (meaning commercial pilots with no job, no interest in GA at all, but hanging in there), it’s kind of stupid. This won’t last. Things will get back to normal at some point, and then LAPL will be the “new standard”, if for no other reason than availability of instructors. Still kind of stupid perhaps, but for GA it’s good not to be entirely dependent on commercial “leftovers”.
I think the point here is that LAPL is more than just a license.
carlmeek wrote:
Seeing as the course is essentially identical, this rule is stupid beyond belief.
The reason for the rule is an ICAO requirement that a flight instructor must have knowledge corresponding to a CPL. As the PPL is an ICAO standardised license, it must be taught by someone who meets ICAO requirements for flight instructors. Thus a PPL without CPL theory can’t instruct for the PPL.
However, the LAPL is not an ICAO license, so in that case the instructor does not have to be a flight instructor in the ICAO sense.
We are now well digressing from my original Q although Carlmeek does list one really good – if indirect, and probably quite rare – reason for the LAPL: more instructors (who have no airline pilot ambition) can teach it.
The total number of such FIs I have known in my whole life is just two – Carl and one other I’ve been told many times by FIs in a number of countries that practically nobody is doing the LAPL there.
Re the CPL theory stuff: I saw Eric Sivel (a one time deputy head of EASA) state, c. 2008, that the PPL will be taught by an FI with a PPL. But the flying school business complained like hell about the expected influx of “cheap” FIs without the CPL/IR exams (the 14 CPL/IR “ATPL” exams are a useful restrictive practice, and doing just CPL theory was quite a rare thing) and the CPL exam requirement was implemented as a political compromise.
Back to my Q, can anyone think of other reasons?
Peter wrote:
Back to my Q, can anyone think of other reasons?
LAPL is valid all over EASA, UK NPPL is valid in UK only. Is UK LAPL also valid in UK only? In that case perhaps it can easily be converted to EASA LAPL? more so than NPPL?
What exactly is the NPPL anyway. What restriction are there, what can you fly with it?
Is UK LAPL also valid in UK only
Yes, after 31/12/2020. Hence my question, because the NPPL was never (generally) valid outside the UK either. French acceptance is per the link below.
What exactly is the NPPL anyway
NPPL. It was hoped that the more obtainable license will arrest the decline in GA but the eventual result was, more or less, that those who could not get a Class 2 medical moved to the NPPL. That of course is a positive result, because it kept some % of people flying. This explains the French angle.
Peter wrote:
But the flying school business complained like hell about the expected influx of “cheap” FIs without the CPL/IR exams (the 14 CPL/IR “ATPL” exams are a useful restrictive practice, and doing just CPL theory was quite a rare thing) and the CPL exam requirement was implemented as a political compromise.
As if the ICAO requirement that an FI has CPL theory isn’t enough reason.
