Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
I can’t help wondering why the LAPL was ever introduced.
I guess that EASA realised that lots of recreational pilots could do with a simplified PPL (particularly the class 2 medical bit), but it wouldn’t be possible to relax the requirements because the PPL is an ICAO license. Instead the LAPL was introduced.
mdoerr wrote:
Probably half of the PPL population there has converted to a LAPL.
Why? If you already have a PPL, the only reason I can see for “downgrading” to the LAPL is if you can’t get a class 2 medical. Otherwise, what would be the point?
The higher medical renewal intervals, mostly.
Also, as Markus said, in Germany, it wasn’t possible to convert a plain vanilla ICAO PPL into an EASA PPL, since the EASA PPL requires radionav skills and many old time german PPL holders never received such training.
And the rolling currency means no examiner input is required
I don’t see a lot of difference between the two however. Both need a AME, the criteria are pretty much the same, at least how the AME’s gold plate them, so the only advantage is the 2 year period (after 50). There are some minor relaxations as in comparison with the Class 2 but it also means a lot of restrictions in the way you can use your license.
Also, you can not e.g. fly with a LAPL medical and a PPL, even if the rights you exercise are not beyond the LAPL (1200 kg max,3 pax), but you need to change your PPL into an LAPL. A step which, as I understand it, is irreversible.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I don’t see a lot of difference between the two however. Both need a AME,
No, the LAPL does not need an AME. Or to be precise, EASA doesn’t require the medical check to be done by an AME, but unfortunately they’ve given the NAAs the option of making that requirement!
You can get a Swedish LAPL without being checked by an AME.
boscomantico wrote:
the EASA PPL requires radionav skills and many old time german PPL holders never received such training.
That’s interesting. Is that the reason why Germany had a separate CVFR rating?
Does that mean that the ICAO standards did not require radio nav for PPLs at the time or was the German PPL actually substandard? I know that when I got my Swedish PPL in 1984, radio nav training was compulsory.
Yes, that’s what the infamous CVFR rating was all about.
Don’t know what exactly the rules were pre-JAR. But german PPLs were definitely ICAo compliant.
@Urs: no 1200kg restriction on the LAPL.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Or to be precise, EASA doesn’t require the medical check to be done by an AME, but unfortunately they’ve given the NAAs the option of making that requirement!
Yes and they have done so in Switzerland as I understand. From what I hear, it is not much easier to get a LAPL medical than a class 2, as all the AME’s are very much in Class 2 mode and sometimes seem not to be too eager to forego their limits. Even some other stuff which EASA got rid of in the Class 1 and 2 medicals sometimes need the law text printed out to convince them.
boscomantico wrote:
@Urs: no 1200kg restriction on the LAPL
Oh? So what is the restriction? 2000 kg? There seem to be national differences again…. I remember seeing 1200 kg in a presentation about it when it was introduced in Switzerland.
What is really stupid is that you can’t fly with a PPL and a LAPL medical (as you can with a CPL and a Class 2 provided you don’t exercise the rights of the CPL but only the PPL. If you want to fly with a LAPL Medical, you need to forego your PPL and convert it into a LAPL.
It is 2000 kgs and that should obviously be EASA-wide.
