TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #485

  • Ryan Woebkenberg
  • Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Thank you received: 0
I think the best way to avoid confusion is to have completely different names. That way we know that the SAP is the SAP and a LII is a L2 in the SAP. More than just the actual rule I think it could become confusing for people in the programs. Scenarios like "I'm a L3 in the SAP but still just a L1 in the eSAP and didn't think about that and served as a witness on a L5 SAP task". If we name the eSAP something very different that would probably help. And if we named the levels something very different, maybe primary, secondary, intermediate, advanced, expert or something, that might help too.

Ryan
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #486

  • Tim McCann
  • Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Thank you received: 0

bAndersen wrote:
Please succinctly tell me what the damage is? If it is loss of prestige for those that have achieved level V I believe that it has been established that the original SAP will not be altered, and if correctly written by-law changes will protect the original SAP from change.


Hey Barry, good to hear from you. Under Jim Deck’s proposal there will be NO DISTINCTION between eSAP V and SAP V (or I II III IV) That has been the issue for years and it seems to be chiseled in stone.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #487

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0
Well, if no distinction is a problem then let's make them distinct. That works for me. Using different names for the levels works for me.

it could be as simple as E1, E2, E3, E4 and E5. Or epilot 1 and 2, Advanced epilot 3 and 4 and Expert 5.

As to cross witness, if they could cross witness then it would make it easier for SAP pilots to do their advanced levels as it would be easier to find qualified witnesses. And vice versa. Something to consider, but for a later discussion. My attitude is that anything that even hints of a change to SAP should be avoided.

ESAP should be a new program which does not touch or impact SAP. It should not make it easier to advance in SAP, and it should not in any way promote cross over between the programs by granting credit in one toward the other.

The ONLY area where a touch will be needed is that completion of L1 eSAP would be grounds for membership in LSF. That can't be avoided unless you remove the need to complete L1 of either program as a membership requirement.

Having to qualify via a task program to join a SIG does not sit well with me but when you recognize that LSF was not envisioned to be a SIG when it was formed you understand how we got here. Maybe we change that some day or maybe not but it is not relevant to the task at hand, in my opinion.

Let's get eSAP accepted first and open up LSF to e-glider pilots.

Tuning an organization should be like tuning a glider. One thing at a time and make the smallest adjustment possible to minimize any adverse impact from the change. Test and confirm over time before changing anything else.

The more we try to change LSF based on eSAP the more likely everything will be defeated and nothing will change. So I advocate to keeping this focused and as simple as possible. I don't want to "fix" anything about LSF, I just want to open it to e-glider pilots.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #488

  • Barry Andersen
  • Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Thank you received: 0

tMcCann wrote:

bAndersen wrote:
Please succinctly tell me what the damage is? If it is loss of prestige for those that have achieved level V I believe that it has been established that the original SAP will not be altered, and if correctly written by-law changes will protect the original SAP from change.


Hey Barry, good to hear from you. Under Jim Deck’s proposal there will be NO DISTINCTION between eSAP V and SAP V (or I II III IV) That has been the issue for years and it seems to be chiseled in stone.


Hi Tim,

I'm glad to hear from you as well. I'm sure you know I hold you in high regard for your many contributions to soaring. I have many "Super Skegs" and my McCann winch and the club's winches work great.

As I understand it, Jim Deck's proposal ( I assume that you mean the current proposal listed) is a work in progress. Hence, this forum to address concerns such as the one you mention. I believe that I addressed the necessity of having a distinction between the sSAP and the SAP. If it can be made more clearly, I imagine that any way to distinguish would be widely supported. I hope and believe that the final proposal will reflect a way to distinguish the two paths. I agree that there should be clear differentiation. I also feel that LSF can readily accommodate both paths to soaring excellence.

It seems to me that those in the soaring community know who has achieved level V. There is quiet respect paid to those members. I don't really recall many, if any, displays of level V next to decals or other ways. There are few of them around, people know who they are. I don't think an eSAP will be an easy journey to work up to level V. Even if it is somehow perceived as easier, the accomplishments of people in the current SAP won't be diminished, at least in my mind.

I hope in the end we can all reach an understanding that is agreeable to all involved. Frankly, there are so few of us in the soaring community that a rift between us would serve none of us well. I'm glad you're back and contributing to the discussion.

With respect

Barry
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #489

  • Tim McCann
  • Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Thank you received: 0

eAnderson wrote: Well, if no distinction is a problem then let's make them distinct. That works for me. Using different names for the levels works for me.
it could be as simple as E1, E2, E3, E4 and E5. Or epilot 1 and 2, Advanced epilot 3 and 4 and Expert 5.

Just about everyone but the executive board agrees eSAP should be distinct so for the umpteenth time in 4 years, why not just create a separate and DISTINCT eSAP program with it’s own bylaws, rules and distinct insignia. The executive board could do that without a vote. Motorglider folks could be working on the eSAP by next weekend and end this stupid debate.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #490

  • Al Clark
  • Offline
  • Posts: 6
  • Thank you received: 0
Folks,

I am a long time LSFer that has been away from contest soaring for quite some time. I finished all of my Level V tasks except the 8 hour slope flight way back in 1991. Just haven't gotten around to the slope flight (yet). I haven't done any serious glider contesting since 1991. We lost our local flying field some years ago and there is no good place near me to set up a winch or hi-start. But now I'm thinking about contests again because of ALES.

We have some guys in our local power club that are now taking up soaring because of ALES. These are guys that years ago wouldn't even consider it. But now they are finding out that soaring is fun and is a challenge, and they are seeking ways to improve their skills. My opinion has always been that the fastest way to improve one's soaring skills is to start working through the LSF achievement levels. I was going to recommend they go to the LSF web site and get started. Imagine my surprise when I found out there is NOT a SAP for electric launched gliders!

I think that LSF is really missing an opportunity here to gain new members! Due to lack of suitable/large flying sites these days, electric launch is the ONLY way for many folks to enjoy soaring. I don't understand what difference it makes whether one gets launched by hi-start, winch, or an electric motor. ALES contests are rapidly appearing on the soaring scene here in the north Alabama/southern Tennessee area, and it is bringing new flyers into the hobby. These ALES flyers should be able to participate in an LSF SAP program to build their skills, just like us old guys did when we got started way back.

I think LSF needs to catch up with modern times. My recommendation is that the LSF create a separate ALES SAP, and retain the current SAP for hi-start and winch launched gliders. Keep the two totally separate - accomplishments from one SAP would not be transferrable to the other.

I don't understand what is so hard about this, and why it is even being debated. To me, getting more soaring pilots into the LSF can only be a good thing. I will definitely be voting "yes" for the ESAP proposal!

Al Clark
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal - SECTION VI - MEMBERSHIP 4 years 2 weeks ago #491

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0
I have worked in conjunction with Barry Anderson to come up with the attached document. It primarily addresses issues regarding membership and separate achievement programs by making concrete changes to this section of our by-laws. We think this version of Section VI - MEMBERSHIP should help to move this process forward and clarify many points and concerns previously raised. We hope that members will comment, one way or the other on the content.

We understand that there are other sections of the by-laws that may need similar revision, but this section has been an immediate area of concern.

Thank you,

Preston Heller
Barry Andersen
Attachments:
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #492

  • Clarence Ashcraft
  • Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Thank you received: 0
Article VI

MEMBERSHIP

e.
LSF members
may only vote to change the soaring
program
in which they are participating and only in
accordance with the level of achievement achieved.
If they
have achievements in both they may vote in both,
according
to their accomplishments.

Great Job Barry and Preston
Right now I am just trying to digest all that you have written but I like this part because anyone that feels the Original SAP is being threatened by a take over of new eSap pilots can rest assured that it will not likely happen without a move of more pilots becoming involved in the Original SAP.

Clarence Ashcraft
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #493

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0

tMcCann wrote:

eAnderson wrote: Well, if no distinction is a problem then let's make them distinct. That works for me. Using different names for the levels works for me.
it could be as simple as E1, E2, E3, E4 and E5. Or epilot 1 and 2, Advanced epilot 3 and 4 and Expert 5.

Just about everyone but the executive board agrees eSAP should be distinct so for the umpteenth time in 4 years, why not just create a separate and DISTINCT eSAP program with it’s own bylaws, rules and distinct insignia. The executive board could do that without a vote. Motorglider folks could be working on the eSAP by next weekend and end this stupid debate.


Would you envision this as another organization or still part of LSF?
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #494

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0
There is no need for a new organization. Maybe an oil change and a tune up.
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.300 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum