TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

Barbr:

I was the author of the suggestion that defined a qualifying competition as requiring over half the flight to be not under power. It IS NOT IN ANY WAY A SUGGESTION THAT PERTAINS TO FLIGHT TASKS WHICH ARE DEFINED ELSEWHERE. There certainly may be a better way to get at it, but if you will familiarize yourself with the current SAP you will find that it defines allowable events FOR THE COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS in the broadest possible terms. Look it up. A new ESAP will have to define the limits of types of comps that can count toward Flight Requirements. We already have a variety of events that, in one way or another, make this a bit of a challenge: ALES, F5B, F5J, F5F, LMR, Oldtimer, Triangle Racing. Like the current SAP, we have other tasks that may be flown and for which rules do not exist: Speed, Distance, Altitude and Aerobatics. And then there are future events which have not yet been imagined.

Whether my suggestion is optimal, I will not argue. But people familiar with some of the events that are already being flown probably understand how valuable and how difficult it will be to include events where skill is mostly determined by the gliding and soaring ability of the plane.

It is unfortunate that you chose to home in on a suggestion which is really peripheral to the discussion.

Happy Landings,

Don

The issue of whether an ESAP of any kind should be incorporated into the LSF and how members that come via that path should be integrated into the organization has been raised. These issues are a legitimate concern to both existing LSF members and to those who would enter through the ESAP.

First, to my good friends who are seeking to have a new ESAP incorporated into the LSF: it is not yet your party. This decision will be made by an election which will have very low participation by any measure. And it is safe to assume that there are still more LSF members who do not fly electric planes than there are who do. Mind your manners whether those who disagree with you do or not. More importantly, respect the traditions which have gotten the LSF where it is today. And respect the notions that many current LSF members have that they earned what they have by flying unpowered planes.

I do not have any particular special knowledge, but it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that many of the existing members will want to continue to be recognized for their singular accomplishments with unpowered planes. Disrespect that notion at your own peril.

Secondly, to my fellow current LSF members: you most assuredly have the power to prevent any incorporation or integration of electric soaring into the LSF. My own view is that if the proponents of adding an ESAP to the LSF reasonably preserve the recognition of your achievements with unpowered planes, that a decision to reject them will be very short sighted. While there are many of us that fly both powered and unpowered gliders, it would be naive to ignore the proposition that a rejection of the ESAP would be very divisive. It will be divisive in the worst way and ultimately will not inure to the benefit of unpowered soaring. The most extreme opponents among us will undoubtedly take an perverse pleasure in driving powered planes from their ranks. And it WOULD be a setback for electric soaring. But I suspect that it would be a short setback. It happens to be the nature of most ecomps that they are much simpler and require fewer people to run them.

I think the implementation of a new ESAP will be a winner for both powered and unpowered pilots. It is worth both sides taking the time to find a way to address to the greatest possible extent the needs of their alter egos.

Happy Landings,

Don

WEll, if nothing else, this proposal has generated the most talk about the LSF in a long time! This is great! I have been a LSF II for a million years, mostly because I live in an urban area, no club flying site within a 2-4 hour drive, but I do have a local city site 10 minutes from my house, E launch gives me a place to go move up, and there are other LSF members locally to witness, did I mention I am old? I feel, that the people that are so against this proposal should run for LSF office! This is a hobby, and they are giving their time, and resources to promote this hobby! Think about it!

Al

BarbR wrote: Wow! Your comments just reinforce that the real issues being proposed are not being addressed with all this dialogue. I quote from the proposal "The leadership of the League of Silent Flight would like to integrate those pilots who fly electric-powered sailplanes into the League of Silent Flight (LSF) without modifying or disturbing the existing SAP. As the By Laws of the LSF do not allow modifications to the existing LSF Soaring Achievement Program (SAP), we are proposing a parallel SAP for ALES equipped sailplanes." Obviously the current SAP cannot be amended and the so-called parallel program will be integrated into the current LSF without any differentiation between which plane you used to accomplish the levels. My reference to the threads that suggested "a majority of the flying between launch and landing be done without any motor power" is what generated my comments about the unfairness of this comment. I realize this is not in the original proposal but all these threads are being sent to try to convince the board to amend the proposal. Since there is already an existing electric soaring program, I don't see why LSF even needs to consider the "integration" of electric sailplanes into the current LSF. As to why there is so much discussion, it appears to be because some people have too much time on their hands to just address the issue proposed! Clearly you didn't even understand my comment about letting the electric sailplane pilots amend the existing program they currently have (not the current LSF) and you are missing the fact that the proposal will "integrate" the electric sailplanes into the current LSF program without any differentiation between whether you achieve your level in LSF under the original SAP or with an electric sailplane. You are wrong, I don't agree with the current proposal and you need to read it closer to see that it will be "integrated" into the current LSF program.

Let us not confuse LSF and SAP, they are two different things. You may have thought they were the same thing but they are not. LSF is an organization that promotes soaring in all forms, as per the LSF web site.

Among the things that LSF does is administers a soaring achievement program that addresses only part of the soaring community. The proposal posted on the LSF web site looks to change that so that there is a separate but equal program to address more of the soaring community, those who launch their gliders with onboard motors.

It will integrate eSAP into the LSF program, not the SAP program. That means that LSF members would have equal standing within LSF regardless of whether they are working the SAP or the eSAP program, or at least that is how I read it.

As for the program the electric sailplane pilots have, do you mean that obscure program started by someone not associated with LSF? It is irrelevant to the LSF and to this discussion.

I encourage LSF to embrace all forms of soaring. I do not endorse mixing electric SAP, eSAP and original SAP. they would be parallel programs, which is what the proposal says.

That I endorse.

eAnderson wrote:

BarbR wrote: Wow! Your comments just reinforce that the real issues being proposed are not being addressed with all this dialogue. I quote from the proposal "The leadership of the League of Silent Flight would like to integrate those pilots who fly electric-powered sailplanes into the League of Silent Flight (LSF) without modifying or disturbing the existing SAP. As the By Laws of the LSF do not allow modifications to the existing LSF Soaring Achievement Program (SAP), we are proposing a parallel SAP for ALES equipped sailplanes." Obviously the current SAP cannot be amended and the so-called parallel program will be integrated into the current LSF without any differentiation between which plane you used to accomplish the levels. My reference to the threads that suggested "a majority of the flying between launch and landing be done without any motor power" is what generated my comments about the unfairness of this comment. I realize this is not in the original proposal but all these threads are being sent to try to convince the board to amend the proposal. Since there is already an existing electric soaring program, I don't see why LSF even needs to consider the "integration" of electric sailplanes into the current LSF. As to why there is so much discussion, it appears to be because some people have too much time on their hands to just address the issue proposed! Clearly you didn't even understand my comment about letting the electric sailplane pilots amend the existing program they currently have (not the current LSF) and you are missing the fact that the proposal will "integrate" the electric sailplanes into the current LSF program without any differentiation between whether you achieve your level in LSF under the original SAP or with an electric sailplane. You are wrong, I don't agree with the current proposal and you need to read it closer to see that it will be "integrated" into the current LSF program.

Let us not confuse LSF and SAP, they are two different things. You may have thought they were the same thing but they are not. LSF is an organization that promotes soaring in all forms, as per the LSF web site.

Among the things that LSF does is administers a soaring achievement program that addresses only part of the soaring community. The proposal posted on the LSF web site looks to change that so that there is a separate but equal program to address more of the soaring community, those who launch their gliders with onboard motors.

It will integrate eSAP into the LSF program, not the SAP program. That means that LSF members would have equal standing within LSF regardless of whether they are working the SAP or the eSAP program, or at least that is how I read it.

As for the program the electric sailplane pilots have, do you mean that obscure program started by someone not associated with LSF? It is irrelevant to the LSF and to this discussion.

I encourage LSF to embrace all forms of soaring. I do not endorse mixing electric SAP, eSAP and original SAP. they would be parallel programs, which is what the proposal says.

That I endorse.

+1

Preston

eAnderson wrote:
Let us not confuse LSF and SAP, they are two different things. You may have thought they were the same thing but they are not. LSF is an organization that promotes soaring in all forms, as per the LSF web site.

Among the things that LSF does is administers a soaring achievement program that addresses only part of the soaring community. The proposal posted on the LSF web site looks to change that so that there is a separate but equal program to address more of the soaring community, those who launch their gliders with onboard motors.

It will integrate eSAP into the LSF program, not the SAP program. That means that LSF members would have equal standing within LSF regardless of whether they are working the SAP or the eSAP program, or at least that is how I read it.

As for the program the electric sailplane pilots have, do you mean that obscure program started by someone not associated with LSF? It is irrelevant to the LSF and to this discussion.

I encourage LSF to embrace all forms of soaring. I do not endorse mixing electric SAP, eSAP and original SAP. they would be parallel programs, which is what the proposal says.

That I endorse.

Mr. Anderson has hit the nail on the head here in a concise statement. I agree with all points. A new additional SAP for e-sailplanes is the way to go. Don't touch at thing otherwise. If an e-SAP is approved it should be carefully worded to allow for for future adjustment is technology or other things that do or don't pan out in practice. Don't paint the program into a corner from the get go and have to go though a bunch of stuff again to jiggle things a bit.

W.L.Avis LSF 1832

eAnderson wrote: As for the program the electric sailplane pilots have, do you mean that obscure program started by someone not associated with LSF? It is irrelevant to the LSF and to this discussion.

If you are talking about the SSP A) it isn't really obscure as it has about the same amount of participation over the past 5 years as the SAP and 2) It isn't completely irrelevent to the LSF because in the past when the LSF did informal surveys of membership about changing the SAP or adding a new program they have endorsed the SSP:

groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rcse/...XzsVum4/5sTHf2ncPnoJ

Ryan

While I am in favor of a separate ESAP, I have now concluded the suggested action of establishing a separate ESAP as a method of joining the LSF is against the bylaws of the LSF.
I reread the bylaws several times last night and have concluded that the Bylaws are specific. A person becomes and Apirint
by requesting an SAP application.
After he completes level one of the SAP, and it is accepted, he then becomes a member of the LSF and is given his number.
The wording is very clear and concise.. The only method of joining the LSF is to complete Level one of THE SAP.
Because it does not say A SAP then it is not open for interpretation. The proposed action is not consistant with the LSF Bylaws.
The meanig is clear the only method of becoming a member of the LSF is via the established SAP.
Now that I understand the proposal and have studied the bylaws, it is obvious to me that what the Board is proposing can only be accomplished by a Bylaws change as established in the bylaws. Thats right the same issue as allowing powered aircraft be used in the SAP.
The action we are discussing is not a viable means of joining the LSF..
I am now going to request that Jim Deck withdraw this proposal as it is in direct conflict with the LSF Bylaws.
While I am not a Lawyer..my daughter is, and her specialty is contract law.. I will have her review our Bylaws and ask her for her opinion. However from what I have read since the wording is clear that entry to the organiztion is via completion of THE SAP and no other options are suggestion then it is a closed issue. For this to be a legal action the founders would have had to establish other equivalent SAPS or other actions warranting membership in the LSF...
Larry Jolly

LarryJolly wrote: While I am in favor of a separate ESAP, I have now concluded the suggested action of establishing a separate ESAP as a method of joining the LSF is against the bylaws of the LSF.
I reread the bylaws several times last night and have concluded that the Bylaws are specific. A person becomes and Apirint
by requesting an SAP application.
After he completes level one of the SAP, and it is accepted, he then becomes a member of the LSF and is given his number.
The wording is very clear and concise..

That is correct. For the proposal as written to be amended it will require a 2/3 in favor vote of the board an a majority vote of the members who chose to vote. It doesn't require a super majority of L4s/5s. Only changes to the SAP require that. Changes to the bylaws can be made by a regular vote. This proposal is proposing changing the requirements for LSF membership.

Ryan

ryanw wrote:

eAnderson wrote: As for the program the electric sailplane pilots have, do you mean that obscure program started by someone not associated with LSF? It is irrelevant to the LSF and to this discussion.

If you are talking about the SSP A) it isn't really obscure as it has about the same amount of participation over the past 5 years as the SAP and 2) It isn't completely irrelevent to the LSF because in the past when the LSF did informal surveys of membership about changing the SAP or adding a new program they have endorsed the SSP:

groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rcse/...XzsVum4/5sTHf2ncPnoJ

Ryan

Thanks for the question Ryan and providing an opportunity to clarify what I was saying. No I was not talking about the SSP. Someone highlighted what a failure an electric soaring program, not associated with LSF, had been. I don't recall the name but I had never even heard of it. That was what I referred to.

Again to clarify my position, as I see it, this discussion is not about what others may or may not have been doing but what LSF should be doing as the AMA SIG and to fulfill its self proclaimed role in the soaring community. "The non-profit LSF fosters and supports all phases of both sporting and competition activity for model sailplanes and encourages the advancement of model aeronautics and related aspects of RC soaring. "

It doesn't say some phases, or some kinds or only the kinds that were popular 40 years ago, it says ALL PHASES.

So, if LSF is the SIG and runs the soaring NATs for all forms of soaring, why would it only have an accomplishments program for a subset of soaring? Just because eSoaring was not popular 40 years ago is no justification to ignore it now. eSoaring is exploding.

LSF may have started out as an administrator of the SAP, but the role of LSF has grown beyond those humble roots. I see this as a discussion about LSF and what LSF means to the soaring community and what LSF should do to fulfill its mission within the limited resources available. The eSAP is a good step and, as I understand it, within the resource limitations of LSF.