Flight Training query with regards to kits & the new EASA LAPL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Frinton-on-Sea
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Training query with regards to kits & the new EASA LAPL
If a large group of students build a kit aircraft on the 'approved' LAA list, is it possible for all of the students to learn to fly the completed kit aircraft in pursuit of the soon to be EASA LAPL?
If the answer is yes, how can one then convert the LAPL to a 'full' PPL?
Many thanks in advance...
Greg
If the answer is yes, how can one then convert the LAPL to a 'full' PPL?
Many thanks in advance...
Greg
All training for a LAPL shall be conducted at an Approved Training Organisation
As I understand it all aircraft used for Approved Training will require an EASA C of A which rules out kit builds.
Re Converting LAPL to a PPL
FCL.115 LAPL — Training course
Applicants for an LAPL shall complete a training course within an approved training organisation. The course shall include theoretical knowledge and flight instruction appropriate to the privileges given.
Applicants for an LAPL shall complete a training course within an approved training organisation. The course shall include theoretical knowledge and flight instruction appropriate to the privileges given.
Re Converting LAPL to a PPL
FCL.210.A PPL(A) - Experience requirements and crediting
(b) Specific requirements for applicants holding an LAPL(A). Applicants for a PPL(A) holding an LAPL(A) shall have completed at least 15 hours of flight time on aeroplanes after the issue of the LAPL(A), of which at least 10 shall be dual flight instruction completed in a training course at an approved training organisation. This training course shall include at least 4 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 2 hours of solo cross-country flight time with at least 1 cross-country flight of at least 270 km (150 NM), during which full stop landings at 2 aerodromes different from the aerodrome of departure shall be made.
(b) Specific requirements for applicants holding an LAPL(A). Applicants for a PPL(A) holding an LAPL(A) shall have completed at least 15 hours of flight time on aeroplanes after the issue of the LAPL(A), of which at least 10 shall be dual flight instruction completed in a training course at an approved training organisation. This training course shall include at least 4 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 2 hours of solo cross-country flight time with at least 1 cross-country flight of at least 270 km (150 NM), during which full stop landings at 2 aerodromes different from the aerodrome of departure shall be made.
A kit built aircraft will fall under Annex II to the Basic Regulation and, therefore, will be regulated by the relevant NAA. Nothing in the EASA Implementing Rules relates to Annex II aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Frinton-on-Sea
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks you for your answers. Does anyone know why this is the case? It seems slightly bizarre that you can't obtain a PPL qualification on a home-build, assuming it meets all the safety spec.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon you can train from ab initio on your own permit A/C, but can't do the flight test without a dispensation from the CAA......Just a guess mind.
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_Circ_2009_W_071_en.pdf
Alan
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_Circ_2009_W_071_en.pdf
Alan
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
it is permitted to a lower standard
Who says so?
it is permitted to a lower standard
Who says so?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite
I had a very interesting discussion with the CAA over the costs of Part M over the costs of Permit aircraft maintenance.
They took exactly that line - "surely you'd be happier maintaining it it to CofA standard"
When I described the way that owners of aircraft recently moved to Permit had uncovered years of poor maintenance done by approved engineers and only discovered by LAA inspectors, they were gob-smacked.
But they still don't fully accept that Permit aircraft are safe......
I had a very interesting discussion with the CAA over the costs of Part M over the costs of Permit aircraft maintenance.
They took exactly that line - "surely you'd be happier maintaining it it to CofA standard"
When I described the way that owners of aircraft recently moved to Permit had uncovered years of poor maintenance done by approved engineers and only discovered by LAA inspectors, they were gob-smacked.
But they still don't fully accept that Permit aircraft are safe......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
owners of aircraft recently moved to Permit had uncovered years of poor maintenance done by approved engineers and only discovered by LAA inspectors
All this means is that there is a strong correlation between engineering/DIY-savvy people and homebuilders - hardly suprising!! All those who cannot / do not want to pick up a screwdriver but who still who want to own a plane go and buy a CofA one and hand it over to a company for every service, with a signed blank cheque left on the seat.... and then they wonder they often get a crap job done. The maintenance business is a Russian roulette and always will be.
Against that I see a high proportion of homebuilt accidents involving structural failure which is extremely rare on the CofA scene. One needs only to walk around any homebuilt show to see how flimsy a lot of them are. To get the weight down, something has to give somewhere...
Against that I see a high proportion of homebuilt accidents involving structural failure which is extremely rare on the CofA scene. One needs only to walk around any homebuilt show to see how flimsy a lot of them are. To get the weight down, something has to give somewhere...
There are a reasonable number of PtF aeroplanes - the Zenair CH601 for example, with handling qualities that would not make it too hard to pull the wings off because of the very low stick forces. Whilst there are a few, there are only very few CofA aeroplanes with those sort of handling characteristics.
However, yes, there are plenty of PtF aeroplanes that would be fine to learn to fly in - and you can so long as either you're the sole owner, it is a type-approved microlight or gyroplane, or the instructor does it for free. The rules are however unfortunately set for the minimum standard permitted of a PtF aircraft, rather than necessarily the highest or even average standard, and we aren't going to change them very easily.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Frinton-on-Sea
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone. Over the weekend, I heard several horror stories relating to C of A repairs. I had no idea there were 'rogue' outfits out there. Doesn't the CAA ever check-up?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good question
The issue is that the law states that the owner is responsible for ensuring that the maintenance is done correctly, even though they may not be able to check the quality of the work.
Personally I was stitched up by an organisation that charged me for work they failed to do correctly. They tried to invoice for the hours theyspent learning to do a simple task they said they knew how to do. I was invoiced for 37 man hours for a job that would take 10 hours max and then did it wrong.
I paid for it to be rectified later at the annual. Yet the organisation has all the approvals!!
The issue is that the law states that the owner is responsible for ensuring that the maintenance is done correctly, even though they may not be able to check the quality of the work.
Personally I was stitched up by an organisation that charged me for work they failed to do correctly. They tried to invoice for the hours theyspent learning to do a simple task they said they knew how to do. I was invoiced for 37 man hours for a job that would take 10 hours max and then did it wrong.
I paid for it to be rectified later at the annual. Yet the organisation has all the approvals!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me something new 
There are a (very) few owners out there who are lucky to have a trustworthy maintenance shop. The remainder either get proactive and keep an eye on things, or the get variously crap work done.
The "organisation" will always have the approvals. Same with that other massive scam - ISO9000
The CAA rarely prosecutes businesses which pay it license fees. Not suggesting there is any connection, of course
But if the CAA got on top of the game they would end up shutting down at least 50% of the GA maintenance business, which they obviously cannot do.
And, to be fair, maintenance companies have to put up with owners so tight you could not get a 6mm reamer up their back end. This doesn't exactly encourage good business ethics.
There are a (very) few owners out there who are lucky to have a trustworthy maintenance shop. The remainder either get proactive and keep an eye on things, or the get variously crap work done.
The "organisation" will always have the approvals. Same with that other massive scam - ISO9000
The CAA rarely prosecutes businesses which pay it license fees. Not suggesting there is any connection, of course
But if the CAA got on top of the game they would end up shutting down at least 50% of the GA maintenance business, which they obviously cannot do.And, to be fair, maintenance companies have to put up with owners so tight you could not get a 6mm reamer up their back end. This doesn't exactly encourage good business ethics.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Frinton-on-Sea
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it all aircraft used for Approved Training will require an EASA C of A which rules out kit builds.
Can you clarify whether this is also the case for the NPPL?
Many thanks
Greg
Can you clarify whether this is also the case for the NPPL?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be clear (?), the European LAPL will replace the UK NPPL for flying aircraft within the scope of EASA airworthiness rules. You will not be able to fly an EASA aircraft with an NPPL.
To continue to fly an Annex II aircraft (out of the scope of EASA rules) in the UK post-implementation of the EU LAPL we presume the UK NPPL will still survive and be the licence to have. If one has a conversion from NPPL to LAPL then one presumes one will be able to fly an Annex II aircraft with the LAPL.
Confused?
Just guessing.
DGR / Secretary, NPLG Ltd
To continue to fly an Annex II aircraft (out of the scope of EASA rules) in the UK post-implementation of the EU LAPL we presume the UK NPPL will still survive and be the licence to have. If one has a conversion from NPPL to LAPL then one presumes one will be able to fly an Annex II aircraft with the LAPL.
Confused?
Just guessing.
DGR / Secretary, NPLG Ltd