TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

In a previous post, in response to LJ unsubstantiated claims I posted the follow. "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."

I think it is significant that LJ has not responded with specifics as to how this fictitious merging could ever take place and his silence on this is duly noted.

PH

dHarban wrote: snip...

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

Don,

I too would like to see a separate designation. You may have been writing your post while I was suggesting a second proposal. But I do not want to see the ESAP proposal defeated over this. That is my point.

I sent the following to Jim Deck yesterday.

"Politically speaking, I think the board really do have to amend section 7 as I
have in the forum (today).

Here's my rewrite:

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."


Failure to make such a change will definitely lose some votes for the E-SAP. Board members please take note.

PH

Preston,

I don't give a hoot in hell how it is done (blue letters, a big E, whatever) , but I think the programs should be distinct and should be implemented in a way that assures both disciplines that they will not be mixed in the future. If that is our intent, then MAKE IT CLEAR. Don't go forward with an extension of the ambiguous existing bylaws that have gotten us into this mess. As I read the current proposal, the only different that is recognized is that ESAPers "may" display an E with their number not that they "must" if it is displayed.

If this proposal goes forward, it will not be long before ESAPers find themselves trapped with the same problems concerning "Living" and "Active" members that is biting us in the rear right now on this. If anything is going to happen with regard to the ESAP it should straighten out, at least for ESAPers WHO is LIVING, WHO is ACTIVE, and HOW DO we keep track of LIVING and ACTIVE and distinguish between those who have rights under the SAP and the ESAP.

Perhaps you do not see how the same reasoning that has been applied thus far in failing to distinguish between SAPers and ESAPers could not easily be implemented to gut the intent of the SAP once ESAPers become the ACTIVE majority. I hope you are right. But I am not willing to gamble my vote on it. Without more thought into addressing these issues we would simply be doubling down on the messes that the current bylaws spawn.

Happy Landings,

Don

Perfect!

If you know anything about me I'm a big proponent of electric launched sailplanes/gliders. You're right Preston, this really is a sticking point for me.

I think we're too late, from what I understand this is the proposal and all that's left to do is vote. I guess I have a few days to think on it more but it's not looking good. I guess we could pass it and hope for a change like Congress did with the military retiree pensions. Ooops, didn't mean to go there! :)

Curtis

Preston Heller wrote: I sent the following to Jim Deck yesterday.

"Politically speaking, I think the board really do have to amend section 7 as I
have in the forum (today).

Here's my rewrite:

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."


Failure to make such a change will definitely lose some votes for the E-SAP. Board members please take note.

PH

In the most recent proposal posted I have read through it a few times and from my reading of it I am not clear on how level V witnesses will work given the wording changes. It seems to me from the wording it is a bit of a grey area in that if an eSAP LII+ isn't distinguished from a SAP LII+ that would now permit SAP LV tasks to be witnessed by a LII+ regardless of program (and vice versa).

This could definitely be a grey area that even if now the board doesn't allow eSAP LII+ to be witnesses for SAP LV tasks that at some point in the future a small interpretation of the rules could be made to allow for this. That seems like a similar level of interpretation as has been done for XC course requirements and hand launch for thermal duration flights.

Ryan

Gents, collectively this dialogue seems to be bearing fruit.

I do agree that completing the original SAP is harder to accomplish today than it could have been some years back. Certainly the ESAP as currently proposed will be somewhat easier simply due to access to more flying sites, contests organised and participation numbers.

But if the suggestions being brought up, re. designations, (L3e or EL3, etc. for example) and clearly written clarification that both SAPs won't cross contaminate each other, (through voting or participation); are not included in the proposal to be voted on, they will be even harder to include & implement at a later date, due to the commencement of participation in the ESAP.

I feel these could be accommodated without much ado.

tMcCann wrote: It's "Hand Launch" not DLG but that was added incorrectly and should be removed, a view that I have shared with LSF board members previously. However hand launching arguably makes the tasks more challenging compared to motor launch which make the tasks less challenging.

I backtrack from that statement. Hand launch may have been added correctly. It was 1978 or 79 and the number of L4s & L5s was pretty small then so there might have been a "super majority" vote. I distinctly remember the discussion about adding hand launch followed by the announcement later that it had been added so it wasn't a spontaneous addition. Perhaps someone will remember more details.

dHarban wrote: 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

Don,

Thank you for posting this, now I am understanding some people's thought process regarding the new eSAP being "easier" than the original. I was having a hard time trying to figure out how eSAP could be easier when the only difference is the method of launch, since as written now, pretty much eSAP is a mirror to the original.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like people are upset that there will be more OPPORTUNITIES and therefore be able to advance thru the levels in a shorter period of time. Would these same people be upset at some young kid who did not have to work for a living, was able to fly everyday and practice, and happened to live in an area which was a soaring hot bed (So. Cal., Phoenix, East Coast Soaring League, Denver, etc) and crank thru his/her levels as opposed to someone who lived out in the sticks and had to earn a living, schedule time away from the job and family, plus make travel arrangements? From what I have seen here, probably. But then that is the competitive nature of humans.

Curtis, you state "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." Yet doesn't it say in the proposal that if you restart it voids that attempt? I'd say it gives the pilot a safety crutch and enables him to learn and more importantly gain confidence in his abilities. He still has to hone his skills and complete the task without using the motor after launching. On the other hand, someone could keep launching under the original SAP and eventually blunder thru the requirements if he lived in an area which always had hat-sucking thermals on a day in which even a barn door would soar. What can be done about that person? Then as someone has previously mentioned, look at the advances in technology and the performance capabilities of today's sailplanes, as opposed to the ships flown in the beginning. Technology is definitely making the tasks easier, yet no one is jumping up and down wanting to make changes limiting what ships can be used.

I agree with many here that I am a little disappointed that the revised proposal did not change much, after all of this discussion and many good ideas and points. I also know that no matter what we do, someone, somewhere, will not be happy. But when I think of the SAP, eSAP, and the purpose of the LSF, a quote from the movie Cars pops to mind: "Well, the road didn't cut through the land like that interstate. It moved with the land, it rose, it fell, it curved. Cars didn't drive on it to make great time. They drove on it to have a great time."

Just thoughts to ponder.

Scott

Scott,

Nobody is suggesting that there is anything wrong with more OPPORTUNITIES -- far from it.

All that is being suggested -- ALL THAT IS BEING SUGGESTED -- is that the new opportunities which might arise from the proposed ESAP be clearly separated from the existing opportunities already offered by the SAP and that nothing will be implemented which could diminish the character of the current SAP now or in the future. Personally, I don't care if any particular level of the ESAP takes ten minutes and its corresponding SAP level takes ten years -- as long as they are clearly separated. Powered and non-powered soaring are similar, but they are not the same. And not just with regard to launching. You can call a frog a dog until the cows come home and it still won't fetch the morning paper. When this all started, I hoped that we could arrive at a program that would allow me to seek recognition as a powered soarer -- not a back door path to recognition as a non-powered soarer -- a first rate path for that already exists.

It has been clear from the beginning that some of the people who have devoted their time and efforts to the SAP want to be assured that their efforts and activities will remain distinct from the proposed ESAP and that recognition for those efforts will not be confused with recognition for the proposed ESAP. Accomplishing this distinction is not exactly rocket science. And the failure of the current proposal to make anything resembling a good faith effort to do so does not inspire confidence that further encroachments will not occur in the future. After all, how hard can it possibly be to ensure that the respective interests can and will be recognized for their distinct efforts?

Right now individuals in the SAP have an organization, a set of rules, and definitions of how they will be recognized that have worked for decades. When this process began, I believed that the organizers of the effort to incorporate an ESAP into the LSF genuinely wanted to understand the needs and desires of ALL the parties. The final product utterly fails to reflect any effort at all to balance the concerns of both sides.

The concerns that have been expressed ARE NOT ABOUT DENYING ANYONE OPPORTUNITIES. They are about preserving the character of existing opportunities while adding new opportunities for individuals interested in powered soaring. Suggestions to the contrary illustrate how badly flawed the existing proposal is.