TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #583

  • Scott Gifford
  • Offline
  • Posts: 4
  • Thank you received: 0
I find it interesting that people want LSF membership numbers to be unique to the discipline (SAP or ESAP) that the member flies. What if they fly both? Does that mean that I will now have to have two LSF numbers?

I look at the member number as a simple way to identify the member of the ENTIRE organization. I am a member of the AMA. I have a membership number. Am I upset that the people before and after me are flying differently than I am? No. The guy before me may be flying indoor free flight while the person after me is into giant scale aerobatics. The AMA is for promoting and propagating model aviation, of all kinds. The LSF is for model soaring flight as the bylaws clearly state:

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.

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.

All a membership number shows is two things: 1) you have achieved membership, and 2) it may show how long you have been a member. To me, having different LSF numbers depending on discipline just inflates membership numbers and adds additional work on a volunteer officer.



On a different note, I'm looking at paragraph 2 of Article IV. Let's study and dissect that a little closer. The bylaws clearly state that the LSF must (by stated purpose) support ALL (my emphasis's) phases of sporting and competitive activity for R/C Soaring. This would include F5J and ALES. Next is "to encourage personal and collective advancement in knowledge of aerodynamics and related arts and sciences". Let's face it, there has been tremendous advancements in electronics, batteries and motors in the past decade or so. Electric motors are smaller and more powerful. Batteries are seeing similar advancements. Now a modeler can have an electric motor in the model launch it mimicking a winch launch, and he doesn't have to have the large open areas of land to do it. Last but not least (but probably the most important) "to promote the general interest in soaring flight." Electric power (as well as 2.4 radios) has opened more areas for soaring flight. Being able to fly with the Park Flyers, as well as with powered clubs, will only help to promote this aspect of flight and our hobby.

People here have mentioned that the bylaws are not the best written. Clearly there are contradictions as we have seen, as well as areas where the bylaws are flat out ignored (in my opinion... E.G.: how does the LSF provide identification of ACTIVE R/C Soaring enthusiasts? You die or drop out of the hobby yet your number remains assigned to you. How does that show activity?). Technology has jumped way past what anyone could have imagined when these bylaws were first written. That technology can be a good thing, and a bad thing.

The important thing is that each and every person READ the proposal, and vote your conscience. I personally believe the LSF must eventually accept self launch sailplanes. Is this the proposal to make that happen? That's for US to decide.

Respectfully,

Scott Gifford
8104 LSF I
AMA 5285
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #584

  • Don Harban
  • Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 0
I am puzzled as to why expanding those who are qualified to display the achievement badges (the Roman Numerals I thru V) does not constitute a change in the existing SAP.

The SAP is the only LSF document that specifically details that individuals who have completed the requirements of the SAP may display certain emblems -- RED Roman Numerals I thru V -- in conjunction with the LSF emblem. Inasmuch as these emblems -- the RED Roman Numerals I thru V -- are explicitly designated as the method for displaying completion of achievements under the SAP, that should preclude their use by others for other purposes.

The BYLAWS describe the use of the LSF insignia to designate LSF membership and might be reasonably construed to include membership via the ESAP. ONLY THE SAP describes the use of the RED Roman Numerals I thru V by MEMBERS WHO HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THES SAP. That should effectively preclude ANYONE ELSE from using them.

The current proposal clearly changes the existing SAP even though it does not modify its words. It changes it by modifying who is entitled to display the symbols defined within the SAP. C'mon guys. The same logic being applied to circumvent the specific wording of the SAP with regard to the display of achievement levels could easily be used in the future to modify the Bylaws to allow SAP achievements to apply toward the ESAP -- thereby effectively gutting the existing SAP of meaning.

Happy Landings,

Don
LSF IV 2763
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #585

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0

dHarban wrote:
The current proposal clearly changes the existing SAP even though it does not modify its words. It changes it by modifying who is entitled to display the symbols defined within the SAP. C'mon guys. The same logic being applied to circumvent the specific wording of the SAP with regard to the display of achievement levels could easily be used in the future to modify the Bylaws to allow SAP achievements to apply toward the ESAP -- thereby effectively gutting the existing SAP of meaning.

Happy Landings,

Don
LSF IV 2763


Don, I don't disagree with you at all and yesterday when I printed, read and marked up the proposal this was my one and only sticking point. However, wasn't a precedent already set that the original SAP can be changed with little to no fanfare when "Hand Launch" was added?

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #586

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Don. I agree wih your points completely. Unfrotunately in 2014 Constitutions, Byaws. and laws only mean something if politicians see any potential benefit for supporting them..If not they are ignored..
Curtis,
Handlaunch has been an estbalished form of launch from the very beginning. It was not a requirement to accept Discus Launching.. I did my Level 5 Goal and return, 2 hour thermal, and 8 hour all from a handlaunch...LJ
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #587

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0

LarryJolly wrote: Curtis,
Handlaunch has been an estbalished form of launch from the very beginning. It was not a requirement to accept Discus Launching.. I did my Level 5 Goal and return, 2 hour thermal, and 8 hour all from a handlaunch...LJ


Then what is Timm talking about at Post#556: www.silentflight.org/index.php/forum/5-l...oposal?start=430#556

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #588

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

dHarban wrote: I am puzzled as to why expanding those who are qualified to display the achievement badges (the Roman Numerals I thru V) does not constitute a change in the existing SAP.

The SAP is the only LSF document that specifically details that individuals who have completed the requirements of the SAP may display certain emblems -- RED Roman Numerals I thru V -- in conjunction with the LSF emblem. Inasmuch as these emblems -- the RED Roman Numerals I thru V -- are explicitly designated as the method for displaying completion of achievements under the SAP, that should preclude their use by others for other purposes.

The BYLAWS describe the use of the LSF insignia to designate LSF membership and might be reasonably construed to include membership via the ESAP. ONLY THE SAP describes the use of the RED Roman Numerals I thru V by MEMBERS WHO HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THES SAP. That should effectively preclude ANYONE ELSE from using them.

The current proposal clearly changes the existing SAP even though it does not modify its words. It changes it by modifying who is entitled to display the symbols defined within the SAP. C'mon guys. The same logic being applied to circumvent the specific wording of the SAP with regard to the display of achievement levels could easily be used in the future to modify the Bylaws to allow SAP achievements to apply toward the ESAP -- thereby effectively gutting the existing SAP of meaning.

Happy Landings,

Don
LSF IV 2763


I follow your logic and inference.

However, as you posted, you feel something "should mean", but it does not say that.

And you say it "might reasonably be construed", but we have clear words to show that it does not mean that.

And you feel "that should effectively preclude anyone else", but it does not say that either.

The current proposal clearly does not change the SAP.

It does expand the ways that one can become a member of LSF and the SIG, but does not change the current SAP.

It does not change the rights and privileges of how current SAP members may display their achievement. It does allow another part of LSF to likewise display their level of achievement within that program.


This comes down to the philosophy of scarcity vs. abundance.

The philosophy of scarcity says that if more people have what I have, somehow what I have has been diminished in value even though nothing has been taken from me. If there are more LSF Vs then the accomplishment of being an LSF V is somehow diminished.


The philosophy of abundance says that what I have maintains its value even if others have the same. If I have achieved LSF V then my accomplishment is clear. If you also achieve LSF V, my accomplishment is not diminished.


I agree that a separate numbering designation would be best but the fact that that is not part of the proposal does not, in my opinion, change the SAP program in any way, shape or form.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #589

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0
Level Designations - A second Proposal.

The issue of level designations seems to be a hot topic beyond the question of an ESAP program. I happen to agree that there should be different designations but see this as a separate question.

A suggestion to the Board. - We need a second proposal that can be voted on independently.

Since the ballot has not been sent out, and more time could be helpful in getting the mailing lists up to date I would like to make a suggestion. I suggest we hold off the current ballot and publish a second proposal.

Subject of second proposal would be how the accomplishment levels would be designated/named if Proposal 1 is passed. Here is a sample of how this might be worded. I am not going to go into rigorous detail with the bylaws. That is for the Board to do.

Naming Convention Proposal:

If Proposal 1, establishment of an ESAP program, is passed then Proposal 2 would define how the accomplishment levels would be designated. If Proposal 1 fails then Proposal 2 fails as well.

1) Accomplishment levels for the ESAP program would be designated as E1, E2, E3, E4, E5.

2) If Proposal 1 passes and Proposal 2 fails then the designations for the ESAP will be the same as the SAP being level I, II, III, IV and V.


Naturally some wording needs to be worked but the intent of proposal 2 is clear and does not impact or change Proposal 1 nor does it change/impact the SAP program.

If prop 1 passes then we have an ESAP program. If it fails - all bets are off.

If prop 2 fails then ESAP uses the same designations as SAP.
If prop 2 passes then ESAP has different designations.

That is how it would work.

Using this method we give the membership 3 possible outcomes.

No ESAP

ESAP with levels I through V

ESAP with levels E1 through E5 ( or some other numerals which is irrelevant to me)
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #590

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0

dHarban wrote: I am puzzled as to why expanding those who are qualified to display the achievement badges (the Roman Numerals I thru V) does not constitute a change in the existing SAP.

The SAP is the only LSF document that specifically details that individuals who have completed the requirements of the SAP may display certain emblems -- RED Roman Numerals I thru V -- in conjunction with the LSF emblem. Inasmuch as these emblems -- the RED Roman Numerals I thru V -- are explicitly designated as the method for displaying completion of achievements under the SAP, that should preclude their use by others for other purposes.

The BYLAWS describe the use of the LSF insignia to designate LSF membership and might be reasonably construed to include membership via the ESAP. ONLY THE SAP describes the use of the RED Roman Numerals I thru V by MEMBERS WHO HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THES SAP. That should effectively preclude ANYONE ELSE from using them.

The current proposal clearly changes the existing SAP even though it does not modify its words. It changes it by modifying who is entitled to display the symbols defined within the SAP. C'mon guys. The same logic being applied to circumvent the specific wording of the SAP with regard to the display of achievement levels could easily be used in the future to modify the Bylaws to allow SAP achievements to apply toward the ESAP -- thereby effectively gutting the existing SAP of meaning.

Happy Landings,

Don
LSF IV 2763


Don, two things. The use of red roman numerals is not trademarked by the SAP or the LSF for that matter, so their use elsewhere is not protected under any law. Second, their use by the ESAP in no way whatsoever impacts or changes the SAP. Not one word of the original SAP is changed. Not one achievement is impacted. The simple E designation before the Roman numeral provides clear an adequate distinction as to which program the level was accomplished, but this still only speaks to the issue of being able to distinguish the programs, not one impacting or changing the other in any way. But if it would you think there needs to be more clarity than a large letter E before the Roman numeral, I would certainly support blue numerals for the ESAP. So it would look like this: LSF III vs LSF E-III. Has it come down to this? Really?

I found the many comments you made earlier in this thread regarding enriching the tasks very helpful in terms of the ESAP and I hope that eventually one or more of them might be incorporated into the electric soaring program.

*Preston Heller*
LSF III
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #591

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0
I say just add electric assisted launches to the original SAP.

Use an altitude that equals what Larry Jolly can launch too off of winch and ensure the limiter will not allow any restarts. Then there is no difference at all. Well their is a slight difference; the folks who did the hi-start, hand launch or winch launch method would be at an advantage as they would not have had the experience of learning how to launch using an electric motor with a 17" prop spinning next to their head.

Remember it's Soaring Achievement Program not a Launching method program.

Just trying to add a little lightheartedness to this thread.

Now on a very much serious note:
I still don't like the labeling being the same. Yes we have a LSF number and so no matter which program you are in you should be able to display the LSF logo. However, if you display your achievement number it should show a distinction between the programs. This is because the cross country tasks are easier with the ability to restart. I'm certainly more apt to go further out down low looking for lift with an electric motor in the nose than I am without.

I still haven't decided if it's worth voting up/down on this one issue though. This is a big issue to me. I don't want folks comparing my E-Level V to the purists Level V. "I don't mind being second rate". ;) It's not like there is any money in it.

BTW, I'll work on my LSF e-levels but in no way would I ever strive to become a Level V. There, I said it. What is important is to get young and/or new folks interested into the hobby and the LSF has been, I don't think it currently is, a wonderful way to accomplish this. For some though, the ego's that are abound in the LSF are a turn off to many.

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 3 years 11 months ago #592

  • Don Harban
  • Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 0
Ed, let me lay it out for you from the standpoint of a Level IV LSF member who is exclusively flying powered gliders now and who has a clear and enthusiastic vision of the future of powered glider flying.

Failing to provide some reasonable way to distinguish between those who complete their achievements via the SAP and those who complete their achievements via an ESAP will substantially cheapen the achievement for those who have come up through the existing SAP program -- at least in the immediate future.

The declining number of participants in the SAP is the result of two factors. The one we all obsess about is the overall decline in participation in RC soaring competition. The other one, which is related to the first, is that over the years it has become much more difficult to complete the SAP achievements -- especially the Level IV and Level V tasks. While advances in technology have made the Flight Tasks more easy, reduced competition opportunities combined with substantial improvements in skill levels at the top have made the existing SAP (especially Level V) much more difficult than they were back in the day when I completed my Level IV. Back then there were ample "Club Level" comps with 20 or so participants to make the Level V wins achievable in combination with a couple of top 20 percent finishes in abundant regional or national competitions. Had I not gotten side tracked with sailboat racing, I had no doubt that my Level V could be easily completed within a couple of years.

Not any more. Competitions are farther and fewer and with less entrants. The meets big enough to qualify for Level V are more than amply loaded with competitors which regularly podium place in national and international comps.

So we start up an ESAP in an exciting field of competition where, frankly, the numbers are pretty good and the skill levels are not up to the general standards of SAP comps. I am sure that someone will take exception to this, but whether we like it or not, this is the truth. It will change, but not overnight.

So no matter how you slice it, in the early years of the new ESAP, it will be easier to achieve any particular level of achievement than it currently is with the SAP. Yet the guy who achieves any particular level of the ESAP gets to display the same "badges". The issue is not about scarcity or abundance. Its not about SAP guys selfishly wanting to "protect their turf". Its about respecting the accomplishments of the SAP guys by not cheapening their achievements.

In time the ESAP may become as difficult, or even more difficult than the SAP. But until that time, we should respect the difference.

Happy Landings,

Don
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.351 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum