TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

Kudos Al. Well said. I was asked over a year ago by the Executive Board what I thought of proposed changes and this is what we have tried to get the Executive Board to consider. Hopefully they will put aside their personal beliefs and pay close attention finally to what is being suggested. Again thanks Al for removing any bias based on who is responding and putting this in perspective from a new flyers point of view.

I plan to vote in favor of the amendment to form an ESAP.

ahall2013 wrote: Not knowing who the Executive board are

Their info is located right here on this website where we are all reading these posts.

www.silentflight.org/index.php/about-us/contact-the-lsf

Ryan

To all concerned.
While I hold the Board responsible for not taking a stronger stand this entire travesty of a proposal lies on the shoulders of Mr Jim Deck. Jim asked for a meeting with me at Toledo last April, and told me of his new plan to incorporate ALES into the LSF program. He explained that he felt that the solution was to get a separate SAP for electric established and then in the future to incorporate the two SAP's into one. My position was that since the SAP expressly forbids motorized aircraft that there should never be any attempt to blend the two disciplines.
That is the reason that I was pushing for two distinct programs with different numbers, tasks , and decals for accomplishment. While I believe it contrary to the LSF's original mission to include powered aircraft, I could support a separate program strictly on the basis that the LSF has chosen to become the SIG for Electric Soaring.
After all the emotion and time spent on discussing an alternate program, I am of the opinion that Jim's only concern is getting ALES into the original SAP... He has not done anything to help build an interesting unique program for Electric Soarers. I am frustrated and angry that he has delivered such a poor proposal based on all of the excellent input from so many of you posting here.
By the way I am still of the opinion that this program can be challenged on the basis that the LSF numbering system is described as contiingent on ones completion of Level one of the SAP... By using consecutive numbers and not starting a new numbering system for the ESAP the two programs are not unique and truly separate.. Jim has let us down and has presented a program that only fits the purpose of his very selfish interests... LJ

LJ says "Jim has let us down and has presented a program that only fits the purpose of his very selfish interests." This type political rhetoric, presented as if it were some kind of "truth", in which the boards suggestions are rejected and Jim's character is covered in mud - helps none of us.

There is no way, despite any last minute chest pounding, that the ESAP could ever be incorporated into the SAP, and continually telling people that that's what will happen is fear mongering, pure and simple. And the amazing thing is -- this "sky is falling" drumbeat is coming from the very same person who pointed out that such a possibility is (in any real sense) impossible, a fact which has already been conceded.

So two areas of concern still remain. Different tasks and different membership numbering. A number of people suggested different tasks, many did not. Some of these, I thought had merit, many did not. Discussions were had. Opinions were exchanged. The strongest argument for adding new tasks (imho) was that they would make the new ESAP more interesting for folks, the weakest argument (imho) was that we could. But in the end I could live with the fact that the board did not include these. I was of the opinion that adding them before testing them was premature and that the original SAP tasks have served us well for quite some time.

So, it comes down to numbering. As far as I'm concerned I couldn't care less how the membership numbers are designated, BUT I understand that this is important to many, in particular, the older members (not age, but number of years a member), and with that in mind I, too, would really like to see the board change be that last part, which if amended a follows, would address these concerns and, I believe, help move things forward.

Section 7 - Amended Version

Aspirants may not display any LSF insignia, but may participate in all organizational activities, subject to such rules and regulations as may be imposed by these Bylaws, except that they may not vote or hold office.

Members may indentify their LSF status by their LSF number followed by a Roman numeral indicating their highest LSF Level achieved. Members participating in the ESAP shall add a capital “E” before their roman numeral, e.g., LSF E-IV.

As far as consecutive membership numbers go, they should continue on without interruption. If you are doing the ESAP you are first and foremost a member of the LSF but you absolutely have the possibility of doing the original SAP.

I am also of the firm belief, that if the LSF does not adopt this new program they will have missed the greatest opportunity with which they have ever been presented. For so many reasons, already discussed, electric launch is the future of soaring. To reject it means that over time the LSF will lose its relevancy for the soaring community, maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. I urge you to help keep that from happening and welcome the flood of new faces into our organization.

Preston

Preston,
You and I are never going to agree on anything, and that is OK, I have an exwife so I can live with that kind of relationship...
But, I have reported faithfully on what Jim stated at the meeting he requested.
Ask yourself..after all the discussions on designing a program uniquely aimed for Electric achievement
why was this proposal delivered...It is simple they are the same because in the future they will be merged....LJ

LarryJolly wrote: Preston,
You and I are never going to agree on anything, and that is OK, I have an exwife so I can live with that kind of relationship...
But, I have reported faithfully on what Jim stated at the meeting he requested.
Ask yourself..after all the discussions on designing a program uniquely aimed for Electric achievement
why was this proposal delivered...It is simple they are the same because in the future they will be merged....LJ

Larry, trust me, I'll take you over my ex-wife.

So...please explain to me, exactly, how as you say "in the future they will be merged"? Otherwise I can only take this as more "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" kind of stuff.

PH

LarryJolly wrote: To all concerned.
While I hold the Board responsible for not taking a stronger stand this entire travesty of a proposal lies on the shoulders of Mr. Jim Deck. Jim asked for a meeting with me at Toledo last April, and told me of his new plan to incorporate ALES into the LSF program. He explained that he felt that the solution was to get a separate SAP for electric established and then in the future to incorporate the two SAP's into one. My position was that since the SAP expressly forbids motorized aircraft that there should never be any attempt to blend the two disciplines.

I see nothing in the proposal that suggests that the two programs would ever be blended. You expressed your concern and I don't see anything to support that concern. If you feel you have insights into the deeper darker evil of men's souls, well I don't have that. I can only judge based on the written word.

LarryJolly wrote: That is the reason that I was pushing for two distinct programs with different numbers, tasks , and decals for accomplishment. While I believe it contrary to the LSF's original mission to include powered aircraft, I could support a separate program strictly on the basis that the LSF has chosen to become the SIG for Electric Soaring.
After all the emotion and time spent on discussing an alternate program, I am of the opinion that Jim's only concern is getting ALES into the original SAP... He has not done anything to help build an interesting unique program for Electric Soarers. I am frustrated and angry that he has delivered such a poor proposal based on all of the excellent input from so many of you posting here.

As to whether the program should be unique in its tasks for e-pilots, I would not see that has a necessary element to the proposal. The clear design is to create an equivalent and parallel program. That would be my goal. The proposal seems to accomplish that.

I do think a unique numbering system would be best but not so important as to exclude the e-soaring community from LSF and the SIG.

If your goal is different than it will not meet your goal and I see why you would not support it.

LarryJolly wrote: By the way I am still of the opinion that this program can be challenged on the basis that the LSF numbering system is described as contingent on ones completion of Level one of the SAP... By using consecutive numbers and not starting a new numbering system for the ESAP the two programs are not unique and truly separate..

The amended version clearly says Level one of either program making it clear that there are two different and separate but equal programs within LSF.

Section 1c. – Amended Version

Membership in the LSF, once Level 1 in either the SAP or ESAP is attained, is for life. Deceased members’ numbers are retained.

LarryJolly wrote:
Jim has let us down and has presented a program that only fits the purpose of his very selfish interests... LJ

I think what you mean is that Jim did not meet your personal demands and therefore you are upset that your personal goals were not made the goals of LSF. So I think the word selfish does apply but I don't think Jim is the person to whom it should be directed.

Jim has certainly not let me down. And I presume Jim has worked with the rest of the board and what is presented is a consensus of what the board wants presented. If not, then that is a failing on the board's part but I see no evidence of that. While the proposal is not exactly what I would want it is close enough to satisfy me as I feel the larger goal of getting e-soaring into LSF and the SIG is more important than the numbering system. But that is me, not you. I am certainly not going to throw a temper tantrum over it nor will I mount any personal attacks on anyone.

For those who wish to draw clear distinction to what program they are working, the LSF approves the adding of an E in front of the LSF level in any display of level achieved. See section 7, copied here.

Section 7 - Amended Version

Aspirants may not display any LSF insignia, but may participate in all organizational activities, subject to such rules and regulations as may

be imposed by these Bylaws, except that they may not vote or hold office.

Members may identify their LSF status by their LSF number followed by a Roman numeral indicating their highest LSF Level achieved. Members participating in the ESAP may add a capital “E” if they so desire.


Larry,

It is clear you will not be supporting the proposal. That is fine. You are one vote.

I do support the proposal. I am one vote. We cancel out. That leaves it for others do decide.

Question for the Executive Board:
If someone doesn’t receive an official LSF ballot and they submit their vote preference by mail (USPS), will their vote be counted?

tMcCann wrote: Question for the Executive Board:
If someone doesn’t receive an official LSF ballot and they submit their vote preference by mail (USPS), will their vote be counted?

Good question as I am sure LSF does not have a comprehensive e-mail list for 8000 supposed members or the lesser number that would be considered active.