helletp wrote: snip...
But still, this persistent problem. Restarts, or perhaps more importantly, the potential for them. I have thought about this for quite a while and I'm not sure I see any way around that but to concede to the use of limiters with the ability to prevent restarts. That caveat creates an absolutely level playing field as far as the flight tasks are concerned and I can see no valid or logical reason why their mandatory use for flight tasks would not put this issue to rest. I hope each and every one of you will consider this problem and potential solution as it appears to be one of the most important facing all of us as we move forward. Of course, the specifics of a new program still need plenty of discussion.
There is a way forward and if I have offended any of you along the way, I apologize, and sincerely hope we can work together to make this happen.
Preston
Preston,
I really like your thinking in your posts so don't take this as adversarial. Just another view.
I am looking to change the goal and the agenda of an eSAP or a STEG, as I named it above.
I don't see a need of any form for a level playing field between the two programs.
In fact the more I think of the idea of a progressive set of programs the more I like it.
My idea is not about dumbing anything down. It is about engaging pilots in a new way that encourages progression within each program rather than making the wall so tall that few even make the attempt, which is how they designed the current program.
We have a real opportunity to take LSF from an elitist organization to a growing, thriving path for pilots to follow.
Let's assume we followed some of the tasks I suggested, not that I am insisting on any of them.
The goal is to take the pilot up a progressive series of challenges with the hope that he will need to enhance his skills every step of the way. So what is wrong with more steps?
What is so sacred about 4 and 8 hour slope flights? or 2 hour thermal flights. Take them up the path, in smaller steps.
Let them have their restarts so they can take on those bigger challenges with a safety net. They will fail a the task but they will not wreck their plane. Once you do 3 hours with a safety net, 4 hours without a safety net does not seem so daunting. Once you have chased thermals out deep and low and come back without the need to turn that motor on, the idea of doing it without a motor does not seem so dangerous.
I don't know about you but I have spent too many hours in the woods hunting for pilot's planes who pushed the envelope and ended up crashing "way out there". In light of the current state of technology is seems rather foolish to insist that everyone do it that way because their grandfathers did it that way. If that was the goal then 12V winches and molded aircraft with carbon spars should not be allowed in the current SAP program.
We have a real opportunity here to fulfill the original goal of the SAP, to encourage pilots to grow and expand and to improve and to take on new challenges without the risk to their planes and to the people that surround their flying sites.
Let the SAP stand as written and be the pinnacle of soaring achievement. And let the STEG be the runway that helps you climb to that high point.
It would not surprise me if taking this approach does not eventually put more pilots into the SAP program. From what I have read, new memberships are falling and falling and falling. If that is true, we won't have to worry about equality with SAP as SAP will just fade away on its own.
Am I the only one who sees this as an opportunity for a new approach to serving all the soaring community? Having used this approach in the development of new glider pilots I know it works.