The general feeling is that the LAPL is a step forward for GA by making a pilot’s license more accessible.
The flight school of my club has just begun training students toward the LAPL(A). There is concern among our instructors that it will actually be detrimental to GA. As people have observed, many new PPLs quit flying within a few years after getting their licenses. Our instructors worry that the LAPL will increase this effect. The reasoning is basically this:
- The LAPL(A) has a minimum of 30 hours, the PPL(A) a minimum of 45 hours. PPL students mature noticeably during the last 15 hour of training — which they won’t get if they do the LAPL in minimum time.
- This results in new pilots who are less confident — particularly in cross-country flying as the LAPL syllabus has fewer and shorter navigation flights that does the PPL syllabus. This means that the new pilots are less likely to make flights which make them grow in experience.
- When after 10 hours as license holders, they can take passengers, their family will see a nervous pilot who will make some obvious (even if not dangerous) mistakes and will not fly with him/her again.
Although the LAPL has not been around for very long, there should still be some experience with it – by instructors giving training for the LAPL, by people observing LAPL holders, and of course by the LAPL holders themselves.
Are our instructors overly pessimistic or do they have a point?
In Germany, a microlight license requires 30h of training and some experience on top of that to take passengers. Flying microlights is usually harder than flying simple GA aircraft. With microlights you are in a corner of aviation with no easy way to expand your license. LAPL can steer people who would go for a microlight license towards a license that can grow. A good thing.
AFAIK almost nobody is doing the LAPL in the UK. For France, one data point is here.
Same with the EIR. Failed for the same reason.
The UK NPPL was a similar failure for the same reason but eventually had a big takeup primarily because it offers a way to sidestep the EASA Class 2 medical which for many pilots is priceless. However EASA is scheduled to kill that for certified aircraft in April 2018.
I think, looking at this a bit from a business point of view, it is very hard to sell something which costs the full price but delivers less 
The way to sell something is to deliver 110% but charge 100%
These failures are a result of a lack of understanding in the regulatory apparatus of what is really limiting GA activity.
I have done quite a few LAPL tests this year and in the RAF Flying Club Association we are using it for our junior ranks scholarships. For us, it works well when you have young, capable people who can achieve a licence with good training continuity in minimum hours. They can then build a bit of experience and work towards PPL as finance and time allows. I think what kills it for ‘average’ students is the fact that average hours to get to test standard will be similar to full PPL so most people go straight for that.
Ps: I willbe amazed if the UK national licence route doesn’t get extended beyond Apr 18
When I did the PPL theory exams the local Luftfahrtbehörde invited all PPL, LAPL and SPL students from the area and had them sit the exams at the same place and time. The LAPL students were in the majority by far. Same a few weeks later at the (Germany-specific) BZF I/II RT-License test.
Of course this does not day anything about how many of these students finish their training or keep flying afterwards.
achimha wrote:
With microlights you are in a corner of aviation with no easy way to expand your license
Nonsense. You can easily get a LAPL when you have a microlight license, 15 h of training + PPL theory (which you may already have). From LAPL to PPL is only 5 h including some solo nav, and that’s only flying as usual in this respect. That very few chooses to go that route, is because they like it microlight-land, and that those who want PPL take it directly. Which also is the issue with LAPL, see below.
To this day, no one in Norway has taken LAPL though. But a substantial number has “degraded” from PPL to LAPL due to easier medical (I guess). Also a substantial number of PPL pilots also fly microlights.
What usually happens is that people either take PPL or microlight and stick with it. “Going the grades” does not seem to be a popular choice, although perfectly possible, and indeed cheaper in many ways. Then people with PPL gets LAPL when “old”. Usually people with PPL also fly microlights throughout their “career”.
Peter wrote:
I think, looking at this a bit from a business point of view, it is very hard to sell something which costs the full price but delivers less The way to sell something is to deliver 110% but charge 100%
Sure, but if the training for a particular student drags out well beyond the 30 hr point, (S)he could get the full PPL instead. So it is really a questions of paying less and getting (very slightly) less or paying more att getting more.
If I understand correctly, the difference between the LAPL and PPL syllabi is not that the LAPL specifies less flight time generally but that some stuff (instrument training and the longer cross-country flights) are taken out entirely. Thus it is very easy to switch between training for the LAPL or the PPL.
Sure, but if the training for a particular student drags out well beyond the 30 hr point, (S)he could get the full PPL instead. So it is really a questions of paying less and getting (very slightly) less or paying more att getting more.
I don’t think you get more since the cost of learning to fly is just the cost of flying the plane. The cheapest PPL will always be the one done in the minimum legally required hours (for a given school and pricing etc).
I suspect most people are smart enough to realise (or did just enough googling before starting) that the LAPL probably won’t be cheaper. Hence the low take-up.
Some schools sell hour blocks but they are all based on the minimum legal hours AFAIK. You don’t get a “fixed price PPL no matter how long you take”.
instrument training and the longer cross-country flights) are taken out entirely
I would not think that’s a good idea because the first legal-VFR flight in say 3km vis will get you… and if you can’t fly anywhere, your flying career is going to be truncated awfully quickly due to sheer boredom.
LeSving wrote:
achimha wrote:
With microlights you are in a corner of aviation with no easy way to expand your license
Nonsense. You can easily get a LAPL when you have a microlight license, 15 h of training + PPL theory (which you may already have).
Training LAPL has been relatively successful around here, but I don’t know if the first students have graduated yet and what was their actual total time at the checkride.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Are our instructors overly pessimistic or do they have a point?
They are certainly overly pessimistic and possibly biased against the new.
Having done a LAPL first (uncertain how much I will like flying), I believe most of the “observations” are a great generalization of few individual cases.
Yes sure, more training will make you better – and yes a pilot after 45hrs is different from one after 30.
But getting the confidence and experience yourself is equally rewarding.
With the same argument, you could go for a higher number of hours.
Actually, having done some flying myself after the LAPL, I found it easier to learn the instrument part when upgrading to a PPL.
The plane would not run away all the time. I could concentrate on the actual task at hand.
Nervous with passengers. Why ?
As to the XC flights. Whether you fly 100 or 150 miles straight ahead, whats the difference. Approach and landing is the key thing…..
