TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

Clarence Ashcraft wrote:

eAnderson wrote:

Clarence Ashcraft wrote:

eAnderson wrote: What about the restart question?


* For Levels 1, 2 and 3 - the pilot can have the restart set to on. If he restarts he fails the task. Period.

* For levels 4 and 5 tasks, restart must be disabled.

* for all contests, the restart option will be according to the rules of the contest placing the LSF pilot on an equal footing with all the other pilots in the contest. It makes no sense to place an LSF 4 or 5 aspirant at a disadvantage in a contest just because he is working on eSAP 3, 4 and 5.

For level 4 and 5 tasks, once you are working on level 4 and 5 tasks you have demonstrated your skills and should be ready and confident to go out without a safety net, just like the pure glider guys.

So, that is my proposal in summary.

All this is good but I am not looking at buying another style of Cam unit as I have three of them right now, restarting is not an issue for Me because for as many years that I have been flying I know how far My limits are to get back without killing My plane.

Clarence Ashcraft
LSF # 7390 IV

I understand, but I want you to take this beyond your personal position and look at it in the larger context.

Just catching up on a past post
This is one good reason to have the restart feature is "Safety"
With the smaller fields, more buildings and roads and cars everywhere this raises the amount of hazards to the flight path.

With this day and age of runaway lawsuits and courts We cannot afford to have a person or object hit by a plane that didn't make it safely to the field due to a no restart feature.
Not everyone out there has a perfect flying field with open space around them so a opportunity to get the plane back without causing harm to people or property should be the main reason the restart feature is needed.

I do understand why some want a no restart feature but the LSF was based on Honor and Integrity, and if a aspirant has neither one them and feels they need to lie to accomplish the goals then there is no hope for that person.

Clarence Ashcraft

Clarence, I think the objections are coming from the idea that if you know you have the option to restart it gives you a psychological advantage. But the bottom line is this is going to be a completely separate ESAP, so I cannot see why that would matter to anyone, and as you say, the safety component is a very strong point in favor of allowing restarts.

Preston

This is interesting hard cold facts.

The Orland Buzzards held their Tangerine Contest last weekend.
They chose to swap DLG on Friday for ALES.
From Gordon Buckland at RCGRoups:

It was a great contest and thanks to all the pilots who showed up justifying the Buzzards decision to drop DLG in favor of ALEs for this Tangerine. Lets make next year even bigger.

28 folks posted scores for ALES on Friday and 29 on Saturday for string launch.

Curtis

Interesting. Our club is also seeing a trend of decline of HL at both the club level and the regional level with a strong rise of ALES. We are considering dropping our ESL HL contest and replacing it with an ESL ALES contest.

Curtis Suter wrote: This is interesting hard cold facts.

The Orland Buzzards held their Tangerine Contest last weekend.

Actually I bet it was pretty nice and warm. :)

I have always wanted to fly the Tangerine some year. The Orlando group is an awesome group and I know that they have a very solid ALES group going on.

I wonder if it will be a trend that regional 2 days that used to do a Friday RES or DLG contest switch to a Friday ALES.

Ryan

eAnderson wrote: We are considering dropping our ESL HL contest and replacing it with an ESL ALES contest.

Or you could do both at the same event. One of the bummer trends in my opinion of the new millennium is the rise of the 2 day single class contest.

Ryan

Folks: Let's agree to discuss the attributes of proposals not one's personal credentials.
Shall we also agree to accept the purpose of the LSF as described in the Bylaws:

ARTICLE IV - PURPOSE
Section 1 - The primary purpose of the LSF is to provide collective identification for active radio control soaring enthusiasts throughout the world and to recognize individual proficiency and accomplishment through a defined program of standard performance criteria for radio controlled (R/C) model sailplanes.
Section 2 - The secondary purpose of the LSF is to foster and support all phases of sporting and competitive activity for R/C model sailplanes; to encourage personal and collective advancement in knowledge of aerodynamics and related arts and sciences; and to promote the general interest in soaring flight.
Ok, so the primary purpose is: 1. To get a sticker, and 2. To recognize individual skill. (for example name on a plaque at AMA)
Frankly I’m not into stickers and haven’t replaced the sticker on my Paragon that I bungeed with the Rx off, perfectly trimmed in a thermal, drifting over two mi2 of trees in 1987. Camaraderie at events is what draws me, and most of us like to watch the top pilots. There are 28million golfers in the US and about 10,000 are pros. Most of the amateurs like to watch the pros. The US Golf Association includes them all.
But I would like to see the LSF: “foster and support all phases of sporting and competitive activity for R/C model sailplanes;”
I simply ask the central question: DOES THE LSF SUPPORT ALL PHASES OF SPORTING AND COMPETITIVE R/C MODEL SAILPLANES?

Would we agree that ALES launched sailplanes is a PHASE of R/C model sailplanes? And it certainly qualifies as competitive.

I know we all agree on sloping and string launch as a phase since it is defined in the SAP task.
(BTW handlaunch is also referred to in the task but I’m curious to know if anyone been able to achieve level V by only using a handlaunch sailplane? Seems like the 8 hour slope and/or 2 hour thermal would not be achievable with a single design HL sailplane given current battery technology. Just a side note.)

So the current task covers sloping, string, and handlaunch sailplanes? Yes? – No?

Aerotow launch is certainly a phase of R/C model sailplanes. But I’m not sure there are enough competitions to qualify it for a separate SAP task, since it is currently specifically excluded. The LSF effectively says we do not recognize skill level for aerotow pilots. I’m fine with that. But I wouldn’t want the LSF to say or infer we don’t’ support aerotow soaring. But let’s leave that one for a future discussion.

OK so we are back to ALES launch. And the central question. …DOES the LSF SUPPORT ALL PHASES?
There are two separate items on the table as I see it. And before we endorse an eSAP we need to answer the larger
question as above.
The only way the LSF currently supports “Competitive” activity is that it runs the AMA Nats. Are we all in or not?
If we support competitions it seems like we should have an eSAP. After all, our current SAP supports “precision aerobatic slope soaring” contests. When was the last time the LSF put that on their calendar? eSAP doesn’t seem like that big a stretch for our organization.

Separate item #1. If so: Be the SIG for all soaring events (ALES) at AMA. If not: Don’t be the SIG
Separate item #2. If so: Develop an eSAP. If not: do nothing

My preference: I’d like the LSF to continue to be the SIG for ALL sailplane activities at the AMA.
I support Ed’s eSAP with Ashton’s & Preston’s modified (safety) rules.

Maybe we should take the SIG issue off the table since this is an ESAP forum.

On a personal note, I would suggest Ed Anderson is one of the leading advocates and ambassadors for R/C soaring on the East coast. (sorry I couldn’t help it)

On a practical note, we need 2/3 of all the living level IV & V’s to approve the eSAP . Does anyone know if that is reasonable?
From Bylaws:
“That vote must also contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living Level IV’s and Level V’s.”

John Jenks

jwjenks wrote: On a practical note, we need 2/3 of all the living level IV & V’s to approve the eSAP . Does anyone know if that is reasonable?
From Bylaws:
“That vote must also contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living Level IV’s and Level V’s.”

John,

If the eSAP proposal is going to make changes to the existing SAP or the voting rules for the SAP then in addition to a successful vote by the membership and the board then it will need a 2/3 in favor vote form the living l4s and l5s.

But if the item won't change the existing SAP then if it is added to the bylaws it just needs a regular vote. And if it won't be in the bylawas at all it doesn't even need to be voted on. The LSF president could implement an eSAP for the existing LSF members tomorrow.

Ryan

[quote="jwjenks" post=449
On a practical note, we need 2/3 of all the living level IV & V’s to approve the eSAP . Does anyone know if that is reasonable?
From Bylaws:
“That vote must also contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living Level IV’s and Level V’s.”
John Jenks[/quote]
We don’t know what the final proposal if any will be but anything that results in equal membership, recognition or voting rights is in fact a change to the SAP and would require the 2/3rds thing. A poorly crafted change contrary to the bylaws would be subject to reversal by a future executive board.

The bylaws are pretty clear about which parts require the super majority and which don't.

Interestingly the part of the bylaws about membership requirements don't require a super majority. A bylaw change proposal could be submitted that simply changes LSF membership requirements from completing L1 to filling out a form and requesting to join.

Ryan

Just wondering what the limiting language is that prevents ALES.
Is it only:
"Towing by means of aircraft or other airborne devices is expressly forbidden."
Does "Airborne device" require definition or do we all understand that to be an onboard motor?
Is "Towing" the same as self-launch?

John