TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

LarryJolly wrote: Preston,
Good argument but while I am reading a more narrowly worded intent, I propose that my reading is more inline with the founders thinking. I use as my argument that the founders created the need for a Super Majority clause to preserve the SAP as established. It is my conjecture that they intended this to be the method of entry to the LSF and that the foundation of the LSF is THE SAP... hence one could argue that the SAP is the LSF....LJ

Again Larry, that is one way of looking at it. But, on the other hand, if you argument did reflect what the founders were thinking - why didn't they also add a by law prohibiting the creation of another SAP? I put it to you that, yes, they wanted the one they created to remain as it was written, and I have zero problem with that, but purposely left out the idea of banning another SAP precisely because they foresaw the possibility that in the future, i.e., now, things would change and that for growth of the organization, additional SAPs might be needed. I'm for not interpreting the by-laws to make things harder for us to accomplish, while at the same time preserving the integrity of the LSF

Preston

Article 6 describes LSF membership. It can be changed by a simple vote of LSF members that chose to vote. If we wanted we could vote in a change that simply says "anybody that sends in $50 can be a member of the LSF".

Ryan

If the original writers of the bylaws had wanted admittance to the LSF to be accomplished solely through the current SAP then they would have locked down Article 6 as well. They didn't. If they had intended for there to be only one SAP then they would have specified that, they didn't. I said this over on the RCGroups thread, the LSF represents "ALL" soaring not just winch launch soaring. It is not unreasonable to ask them to put together a SAP for one of the most popular soaring launch forms out there.

The current proposal preserves the existing SAP as is, while adding a new and separate SAP for people to follow. Let's remember that many of the people flying ALES today are existing LSF members. ALES pilots are not the enemy, they are your fellow club members. I would say let's welcome them into the fold but many of them are already in the fold.

Wayne

waynen wrote: If the original writers of the bylaws had wanted admittance to the LSF to be accomplished solely through the current SAP then they would have locked down Article 6 as well. They didn't. If they had intended for there to be only one SAP then they would have specified that, they didn't. I said this over on the RCGroups thread, the LSF represents "ALL" soaring not just winch launch soaring. It is not unreasonable to ask them to put together a SAP for one of the most popular soaring launch forms out there.

The current proposal preserves the existing SAP as is, while adding a new and separate SAP for people to follow. Let's remember that many of the people flying ALES today are existing LSF members. ALES pilots are not the enemy, they are your fellow club members. I would say let's welcome them into the fold but many of them are already in the fold.

Wayne

Good points.

Oh, I thought only the level IV and V could vote on by-law changes.

waynen wrote: If the original writers of the bylaws had wanted admittance to the LSF to be accomplished solely through the current SAP then they would have locked down Article 6 as well. They didn't. If they had intended for there to be only one SAP then they would have specified that, they didn't. I said this over on the RCGroups thread, the LSF represents "ALL" soaring not just winch launch soaring. It is not unreasonable to ask them to put together a SAP for one of the most popular soaring launch forms out there.

The current proposal preserves the existing SAP as is, while adding a new and separate SAP for people to follow. Let's remember that many of the people flying ALES today are existing LSF members. ALES pilots are not the enemy, they are your fellow club members. I would say let's welcome them into the fold but many of them are already in the fold.

Wayne

Good point Wayne.

I fly winch most of the time. I own my own winch and retriever as well as two hi-starts and a couple of DLG. I compete in the Eastern Soaring League TD division and occasionally in HL too. I am an AMA certified CD and co-CD the club ESL TD contests. Both the monthly club TD contests and the two ESL TD contests we host are doing very well.

However I am also the co-CD for the club's ALES monthly contests. There are a lot of foam gliders but many of our competition TD pilots are adding electric fuselages for their Avas, Supras, Egidas, Xplorers and such for the ALES contests.

The Eastern Soaring League is opening up an electric soaring division in 2014. I have offered to be CD if our club wishes to participate in that division.

Ours is a glider club, and when new members join the club and ask what plane to buy we recommend the Radian over all others. The success rate has been outstanding. Many achieve senior pilot status quickly and many participate in the club ALES contests.

As these pilots advance in their skills, they usually add a full house e-glider to the fleet. Some also take up pure gliders.

We have 3 club winches and retrievers and probably 7 personal winches and 4 personal retrievers in the club so there is no shortage of launch equipment. On almost any good day, you will see a winch at the field. We have a beautiful field with plenty of room for a winch. And a lot of our members have hi-starts and hand launched gliders too.

But electric launched is the club recommended path to soaring. As one of the club instructors I used to promote the LSF SAP to new glider pilots, but not any more. These new pilots don't qualify with their e-gliders. In fact many will never really hear much about LSF or become part of LSF as LSF has nothing for them and does not welcome them.

This is how it is in a club that is a strong glider club, with lots of contests both locally and regionally. The interest in LSF is likely to diminish over time if e-glider pilots are not welcomed into the organization.

eAnderson wrote: Oh, I thought only the level IV and V could vote on by-law changes.

Ed, I think you probably have already seen it but if not go have a look at post 305 in this thread.

Ed makes a good point in his comment. There are probably many current level 1 - 3 members who are under the impression that they cannot vote on adopting the new eSAP proposal. Hopefully that point can be emphasized in future discussions and public notices. All current LSF members levels 1 - 5 are eligible to vote for the upcoming eSAP proposal.

Wayne

LET ME POINT OUT SOME OBVIOUS POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ELSEWHERE IN THIS DISCUSSION.

Since it was pointed out to me that I do have voting rights I decided to go back and look at the bylaws. I do see how the bylaws have a mix of old language focused on the SAP rather than today's larger role that LSF plays. But I also see that those bylaws have been amended over the years. There was no email back when LSF was formed but sure enough email has been entered into the bylaws. So there is precedent for changes to the bylaws to keep up with society and technology.

Then I looked at the LINKS page and I see a link promoting the Radian, a glider which is not welcome in the LSF SAP.

· Horizon Hobbies (Home of the Radian) sponsors the World Masters of Soaring You can find the Radian and other information at: horizonhobby.com


I see that the LSF runs the NATs. So I decided to look at the NATS event page of 2013 contests and on the schedule for 2014. And what do I find but ALES, a contest format that does not qualify for LSF SAP contest credit.

I have already quoted this several times:

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.


So, what is my point? My point is that LSF has already recognized the electric soaring community. It has a promo link on its site for a e-glider and runs e-soaring contests.

For those who resist incorporating e-soaring into the LSF let me point out that that train has left the station. Even as you serve the e-soaring pilot you reject them as members.

LSF has already embraced e-soaring just as the soaring community has embraced e-soaring. LSF just has not welcomed the e-soaring pilot into LSF.

When you walk like a duck and quack like a duck and look like a duck, does it really make sense to claim you are not a duck?

Hopefully this can be put to bed soon.

A simple reading of the Current Bylaws and SAP reveal a document which has a number of material ambiguities. I think Larry's reading is very valid. It is the nature of ambiguities in agreements that allows different people to interpret them differently. And it is this problem which should give all of us an incentive to aim toward the objective of making whatever functional changes we may need AND cleaning the existing Bylaws up to eliminate at least the obvious ambiguities in the bylaws. Frankly, it would be useful to take care of this before simply adding more confusion with its incorporation as proposed.

The LSF has been a wonderful and durable institution. But it is reasonable to observe that its wonder and durability are not necessarily the product of well written bylaws. From someone who has been around the horn on a lot of agreements in my career, the most glaring problem is the failure to distinguish between defined terms simple expressions which may or may not be definitional.

That said, I would observe that there are a couple things that I think can be very safely assumed:

1. The original authors did not envision a program that would include powered planes. That was an option that was available and viable when it was written -- and it was rejected. At the time the LSF was formed, many contests included gliders with power pods.

2. The original authors did not envision that anyone would EVER change the SAP except those Level IV and Level V members who had fulfilled the requirements of the SAP.

I personally think that it is NOT unreasonable to add an ESAP as a different path for individuals to become LSF members.

But I do not think that it is reasonable to incorporate an ESAP which would EVER allow individuals who do not become members via the existing SAP to participate in its amendment. I think that it was the clear intent of the founders that the only way the SAP could be changed was by a supermajority of members who had completed Levels IV and V of the SAP. The current proposal could eventually result in ESAP members to become a part of that supermajority. And I believe that that subverts the intent of the founders.

I understand clearly all the pros and cons of "full integration" versus any option. But in the spirit of reasonable compromise, tempered by a respect for the original intent of the program, arriving at modifications to the Bylaws which accommodate a new ESAP AND which fully preserves the rights of individuals who got their via the original SAP is not too much to ask. Let's be realistic about what great powers and privileges a Level IV or V incurs in all of this -- the right to display the emblem, the right to display certain "badges" (Red roman numerals -- silver in the case of Level V's), the regular rights of general membership and the special supermajority rights with regard to modifying the original SAP. Folks, that isn't all that much. Why not leave it at that and confer on members who come by way of the ESAP the right to display the emblem, the regular rights of general membership, the right to display certain "badges" unique to the ESAP and the exclusive right to amend in some fashion the ESAP. After all, the current bylaws could be reasonably interpreted to confer on all members the right to display the emblem and the regular voting rights of membership. I think a plain reading of the current bylaws and SAP make it clear that the right to display certain "badges" and the supermajority vote on amending the SAP attach solely to members who have completed the appropriate levels of the SAP.

As much as I sincerely (desperately) want to see the ESAP come about, I cannot, in good conscious, accept something that will diminish in any way the rights that I think were clearly intended to belong to members who come in via the original SAP. Rather than turn this into a peeing match about who is better than whom, how about we enter into a compromise which preserves as much as possible for the guys who came in through the SAP and opens the as much of the value of a new ESAP as possible for our new members.

Happy Landings,

Don

BarbR wrote: ... I believe this action dilutes the original concept of the League of Silent Flight (hence silent flight) by adding a motor into the concept. In addition, the threads that are proposing “a majority of the flying between launch and landing be done without any motor power” are in complete contrast to the silent flight concept. With this proposal a pilot going for a 10 minute flight could use a motor for 4 min. and 59 seconds and soar for 5 min. and 1 second and call it a ten minute flight. Absolutely no way should this be allowed! Apparently there is a current electric soaring achievement program so I propose that one be kept and/or amended as needed but leave it out of the current LSF achievement program! ....

Wow...checked my email and it showed 32 new comments! Maybe I should turn off the email alert thing.... Anyway, with such a large number of responses in the last day, I figured it was worth a look to see how the discussion was going.

The above partially quoted post was the first new one I saw, and the part I parsed out got the wheels in the head turning.... and I think the concern is a valid one based on the language proposed. The argument over semantics on the "silent flight" thing not withstanding, common sense tell us that the intent of an electric motor is to allow the sailplane to get its initial launch altitude, just like a winch or hi-start, or your 10-year old pulling a long line. I'm quite sure there was never an intent to allow flying around under power for 4:59 of a 10 minute task. So, perhaps the focus should be on ensuring the motor is used for its intended purpose. ALES devices or LMR are obvious ways to do this, but I'm sure there are more.

Another word I saw a lot was "integrating". I'm not seeing how an eSAP is "integrating" into the existing SAP. Is it not an entirely new (albeit very very similar) skills development program just like the existing SAP, but geared toward and allowing the use of electric motors? One comment/concern regarding the proposed eSAP are the tasks. As I understand it, changing the requirements of the SAP requires a supermajority of living 4's and 5's. But, since this proposes a new, and (for lack of a better word) parallel SAP, there are no 4's or 5's in the eSAP (or 1's, 2's or 3's for that matter) So, how would the eSAP requirements come into being, and how would they (or would they at all?) need to be voted on?

WRT comments on changing the bylaws, LJ brought up a very good point, but subsequent posters pointed out that the bylaws have been changed over time since inception, and it's not such an ordeal as it might seem. I am hopeful that the majority of those who do vote on the issue do not see an eSAP as a threat to the original SAP or the LSF, and vote to add the eSAP to the LSF as both a way to attract new people to the hobby and, as the original SAP is intended, to develop skills and proficiency.