TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #148

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0
I think this may answer the question.

www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26393672&postcount=13

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #149

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0
The comment at that link makes sense to me. But to be clear one might have to consider adding the phrase "for non contest tasks", and then the piece about 30 seconds or 200M. Contests are different and local rules should apply.

However if we look back to the SAP program. If I were to attend a contest where the winch lines exceed the stated limits for the task program would the contest be disqualified? Seems unlikely anyone is going to lay winch lines longer than the stated limit, but if they did, what would it mean?

Whatever the interpretation is for winch could carry over to electric.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #151

  • Ford Rollo
  • Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Thank you received: 0
I'm with Curtis on this one. Just rejoined after several years flying helicopters and now am flying ALES. I'm perfectly happy with starting over with my electric sailplane to achieve whatever level I can attain. I'm all for a separate program. Let's do it.

Ford
Montana and Arizona
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #152

  • Rick Stone
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • Thank you received: 0
Ditto! I have read thru the posts here, and there are a few legitimate concerns but I don't see any of them being showstoppers that cannot be worked out.

I was also wondering if the previously accomplished SAP tasks would transfer over, and as I understand it, they will not, but that is not a deal breaker for me either. In fact, starting again will only reinforce the skills already developed.

I think the greatest plus out of the idea is that it will probably generate more interest in the LSF and in soaring in general since it opens up the sport to so many who otherwise might not give it a second look simply because of the traditional needs of hi-start or winch equipments, and the larger fields needed to accommodate them. Hand in hand with that will be, hopefully, more contests to participate in.

I am 100% in favor of the ESAP proposal.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #153

  • Warren Avis
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • Thank you received: 0

LVSoaring wrote: .......

I am 100% in favor of the ESAP proposal.


Ditto,also,I'm in.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #154

  • Jack Iafret
  • Offline
  • Posts: 4
  • Thank you received: 0
Maybe some history is needed here. As a past officer that helped Phoenix the LSF from extinction and an avid competition winch launch and e-launch sailplane pilot I will tell you what I know and what I think. Most of you do not know me unless you are a NATS, MSL or Polecat participant so I thought posting my credentials was needed.

The LSF is the name of the organization, not the name of the Pilot Improvement Program which is the SAP so the discussion here is not changing the LSF and not changing the existing SAP, that does not seem to be clear to everyone.

Our LSF as an organization has a big responsibility as the SIG for the AMA and that may be it's primary function now as it has influence over the advancement and well being of soaring in the USA.

OK, now the history lesson about LSF:

The SIG at one time was another organization that kind of floundered and did not foster soaring to the extent it should have been and after several years of inactivity and several years of hit and miss meetings, that organization agreed to allow the LSF to take over. LSF eventually got the go-ahead form the AMA and now LSF was no longer just a database for SAP aspirants but a parent organization for all of soaring in the USA. This was a huge change and the most significant change to LSF since its founding.

The LSF as the SIG now had responsibility for running the soaring events at the NATS but that included only winch launch, cross country, and hand launch. Electric launch was not part of the LSF's responsibility at this time. Electric launch was what was called LMR and the Electric Launch SIG was a group of people that were into seeing how much power you could get from an electric motor and climb the highest in some fixed time frame. Soaring was not a big part of the game as the planes would rocket to OOS positions in under 20 seconds and making the relatively short duration's was not too demanding. The "Electric SIG" also had the responsibility for running their portion of the NATS and this is important because their numbers were very low and not very impressive to the AMA. Over several years, the 'Electric SIG" tried to make it more of a sailplane contest to get participation up to acceptable levels but that did not happen and their management group decided that the LSF may be a better at promoting electric launch sailplanes. After all they are all supposed to be sailplanes. So after several years of negotiating and several meetings, that group handed over electric launched sailplane responsibility to the LSF, once again with AMA blessings.

OK, now LSF had the responsibility (and still has) of promoting electric-launch sailplanes as well as all the other sailplane launch forms at the NATS. So you can see that in the larger scheme of things, the LSF is now a promoter of soaring and certainly not just a database manager.

In as much as I am a member and past officer of LSF and fully understand it's function in our world, I fully support the new ESAP as a way of promoting soaring. There maybe a few little items to be cleared up but the idea that LSF should not do everything in its power to promote soaring would be to say that the LSF should not do its assigned responsibility.

Sorry for the soapbox but I feel there are too many people out there that think LSF is still just a database and not a force to promote soaring.

Jack
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #155

  • David Corven
  • Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Thank you received: 0
I have to agree with every thing Jack just posted about LSF. Having been around LSF for a while (LSF 254) I can vouch for every thing Jack covered.
I was there when LSF was raised from the living dead along with Mike Stump, Cal Postuma and Jack Iafret and even then all thoughts were about how to improve things for the R/C soaring community and over the years LSF leadership has put R/C Soaring in a position to accomplish the major addition of Electric powered launching for task accomplishment in a manner that does not disrupt the current accepted launching methods. This is a BIG DEAL as it will reinforce an already rapidly growing ALES activity which in turn will feed the new LSF E-Sap. This is a win win situation for R/C Soaring and I will support the E-SAP proposal 100%.

Dave Corven, LSF 254, AMA 878.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #156

  • Tim McCann
  • Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Thank you received: 0
First, a 20 year belated public thanks to Dave Corvan and Cal Postuma for tracking me down and getting my L5 plaque to me, I didn’t know there was going to be a plaque and Dave and Cal went extra effort to make sure I got it.

I have never had objections to an LSF sanctioned eSAP.

I do object to there being no distinction between an E achiever and a traditional achiever. I don’t think anyone could argue that performing the tasks with e launch would be substantially easier considering launch equipment set up, extra launch skills and strategy, flying site availability, travel, etc, etc, that's why e launch is so popular. Those who have and will perform the more difficult traditional tasks should be recognized and identified for their extra effort.

1. There should be a distinctly different label and insignia for e launch

2. eSAP members should not be able to vote to amend the original SAP which might be easier than eSAP proponents suggest.

3. eSAP members should not be able to vote on dissolution.

Tim McCann V#79
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #157

  • Don Harban
  • Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 0
I have no problem with Tim's suggestions at all. I would add that members who come up ONLY through the traditional SAP should not be able to participate in amending the ESAP.

Don
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #158

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

dHarban wrote: I have no problem with Tim's suggestions at all. I would add that members who come up ONLY through the traditional SAP should not be able to participate in amending the ESAP.

Don

Yep
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.295 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum