TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #159

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • 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


Don I was typing the exact same suggestion when your post came through.

I don't see how the bylaws would be written to support this?
I would think if I am a LSF member than voting is voting as it is one set of bylaws. This suggestion would require two sets of bylaws? I think this is another way of saying that the electric folks should NOT be part of the LSF.

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #160

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

Curtis Suter wrote:

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


Don I was typing the exact same suggestion when your post came through.

I don't see how the bylaws would be written to support this?
I would think if I am a LSF member than voting is voting as it is one set of bylaws. This suggestion would require two sets of bylaws? I think this is another way of saying that the electric folks should NOT be part of the LSF.

Curtis

There will be bylaw issues with the current proposal. Another point to consider, an eSAP “piggy backed” on the current bylaws will leave the eSAP without the “super requirement” protection of the original SAP which means a simple vote could amend or reverse it. The new eSAP should start on a stronger foundation.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #161

  • Don Harban
  • Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 0
Tim and Curtis,

This is not really much of a problem IF we distinguish between SAP members and ESAP members.

First, the only way that an ESAP can happen under any circumstances (taking into account the practical impossibility of gaining a supermajority ot modify the SAP) is to add a new Article XVII to the overall bylaws which adds and describes the ESAP. (The current SAP is Article XVI)

Second, Modify Article VI (Membership) to recognize SAP members as qualifying via Article XVI and ESAP members as qualifying via the new XVII.

Third, In Article XII (Amendments) retain Sections 1, 2 and 3 intact. (This continues to protect, unmodified, the existing SAP). And a new Section 4 that defines SAP members as being the only members qualified to vote on matters described in Section 2 (the current SAP supermajority protection). And add a new Section 5 that parallels Section 2 to describe amending Article XVII (the new ESAP). The new Section 5 would provide that amendments to the ESAP would only be possible for members who came via the ESAP.

There are some additional clean-up modifications that may be required, but the steps above would:

1. Add a new ESAP with steps toward identifying ESAP members.
2. ABSOLUTELY protect the existing SAP from being able to be modified by members who were not entitled under the SAP.
3. Would describe how and who could modify the new ESAP.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #162

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0
Then a ballot would pertain to SAP, ESAP or both (LSF).

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #163

  • Wayne Norrie
  • Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • Thank you received: 0
There is no need to worry about eSAP members changing the existing SAP. The supermajority clause currently prevents any changes from being made to the current SAP and adding even 1,000 new eSAP level 4 and 5's won't change that. As to general membership voting of issues, any pilot pursuing the eSAP program can very easily do the current SAP aspirant level (landing tasks and 2 - 5 minute flights) to become a voting member. Really, what are you worried about?

Just a comment on the separate program emblem's. In my opinion this is another red hearing. For many years of my life I worked at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. It goes without saying that there are a lot of doctors where I live. While at work everyone wore a name badge with their name and position on it. All of the name badges worn by the doctors simply had MD after their name. It made no difference if you were a general practitioner, a surgeon, or were the department chair. They were simply MD. Now I suppose that the neuro surgeon could have made an argument that his medical path was harder than that of the GP but none was ever made. They were all equal as far as their name badges went.

I see no difference with us. We should have one emblem displayed on our sailplanes if for no other reason than to show future aspirants that we are first and foremost, sailplane pilots. We currently do not have a separate emblem for a LSF pilot following the DLG path or a slope so why start now?

Wayne
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #164

  • Don Harban
  • Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 0
Wayne, what is important here is not so much who is right or wrong on any of these issues but seeking COMPROMISE which allows as many people as possible to walk away satisfied. There are clearly some differences which cannot be reconciled. But there are also some which can be reconciled by simply recognizing that it is not important to teach the other guy a lesson. It would be really nice to see these changes implemented in a way which would both SAPers and ESAPers with a positive feeling about the future of our hobby.

I agree with your observation that, given the way the numbers would work, it seems unlikely that the current proposal is will ever result in ESAP aspirants "taking over" the current SAP. But given the level of concern of many current SAP aspirants, why even argue over it. Implement changes which both sides can agree are bombproof and move on. As someone who would like to see the implementation of an ESAP, it is no skin off my nose if changes to the current SAP would be beyond my control (which they are actually not inasmuch as I am a Level IV). But I am a honey badger with respect to changing the SAP -- I just don't care. So why not just make sure that there is a firewall around it with respect to ESAPers and leave it at that?

I don't know whether I am more amused or saddened by all the banter about "pure" soaring being better or worse, easier or harder, than "powered soaring". WHO REALLY CARES? If someone feels that having separate designations for SAP and ESAP members is demeaning and somehow constitutes something like the civil rights "separate but equal" they really should get a life. Having separate SAP and ESAP designations simply recognizes a pretty obvious difference in the respective planes that are used. As someone who has finally pretty well retired from "pure soaring" and whose hair is on fire for "powered soaring", I kind of like the idea of racing for one of the single digit eSAP numbers. And someone out there might have the chance of being the historic first Level V eSoarer. Is that so bad?

I have no problem with sticking with one "emblem" -- if that makes any difference. However, I haven't seen one on a plane for a long time. It might be refreshing to see them come back. But I also have no problem with displaying something like a Ie, or IIe instead of a simple I or II with the emblem to designate the level of achievement within the eSAP. The "LSF" adequately conveys our common interest in soaring. A different LSF "number" just shows that there are different ways of doing it.

Happy Landings,

Don
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #165

  • Wayne Norrie
  • Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • Thank you received: 0
I just want to take a moment and remind everyone that there are multiple pathways to getting your LSF levels and some of them are going to be different than the way you may have attained yours. I think it is safe to say that currently most LSF IV's and V's followed a very similar path. But today, under the current SAP it is entirely possible to achieve your LSF V having never touched a winch or a hi-start. I can go through the entire LSF program with a DLG, well probably not me but Bruce D or Gavin T could, and have a completely different experience than most all of the existing LSF IV's and V's.

Would my DLG earned level 5 have been "easier" than your open class sailplane level 5? Who knows. The DLG journey will certainly be a different experience than the open class journey. As I stated before, I believe that today both of these level 5 members would have the same voting rights within the SAP and both would be able to display the exact same LSF emblem. Now the exact same argument holds true for slope pilots. I could do the entire LSF program going down the slope path, only attending slope contests for points and doing all the slope tasks in place of the TD tasks. A couple of the higher level tasks would require me to borrow someone's TD ship but I would not need to run the winch, only complete the task with it. That would be an entirely different LSF journey but it would have the exact same recognition as any other LSF journey.

I would argue that the e-launch LSF journey and the traditional string launch LSF journey have much more in common than do the DLG journey or the slope journey. Why then are some of us proposing a separate emblem and recognition for those of us who elect to take the e-launch journey?
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #166

  • Don Harban
  • Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 0
Wayne, you are surely correct in observing that eSoaring has more in common than not with unpowered soaring.

But the problem we have in front of us is not hammering those similarities into the heads of those who want none of it any more than it is for them to hammer the differences into our heads. We have bylaws whose clear intent is to protect the interests of those members who achieved Levels IV and V from ANY POSSIBILITY of having changes made by people who did not do follow the path that they followed.

Maybe more importantly, is to respect their sensibilities and traditions. Right now the LSF is THEIR party -- and we are inviting ourselves IN. I would never have written the provisions with respect to modifying the SAP the way it was written. It is an evolutionary dead end. But it is what it is. And I think that those of us who want to join the party can reasonably be expected to do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING possible to preserve the letter and intent of the original bylaws AND SAP.

And in that respect, there is not much more that can be done beyond absolutely assuring that members who do not become Level IV's and V's through the existing SAP cannot possibly participate in changing the existing SAP.

Comparing DLG's to electric soaring planes is really not a reasonable comparison. The original intent of the LSF was clearly intended to apply to UNPOWERED planes. Whatever else it may be, the DLG is still an unpowered plane. And our planes are not.

In the limit, what matters the most is advancing a program which will help support our overall hobby. I can assure you that whether or not we have an "e" or something like that attached to a membership number won't mean squat to anyone but the people who have already dug their heels in on the subject. And the people who are probably more important to us are the people who WILL come -- not the guys who are already here.

With regard to the Level IV's and V's who were clearly afforded extraordinary powers, nothing useful will really come of wasting time hammering them with how "we have more in common than not" -- especially if we can find a path to a new ESAP which simply eliminates need for those discussions.

Happy Landings,

Don
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #167

  • Lincoln Ross
  • Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Thank you received: 0
My mind is kind of in a blur, but if I'm not mistaken, I've read all the posts in this thread by now.

There's a point in here which I am a bit unclear on, though previously I just assumed that the answer was no. Probably because the phrase "separate but equal" makes me see red! Please forgive me if this was clearly stated and I missed it. It's clear that for the eSAP, you do your tasks with an electric, and for the regular SAP, you mustn't. But how about contests? I haven't seen a clear answer on that. Can someone in the eSAP use points from a TD contest? Vice versa? Since everyone in the contest has the same advantages and disadvantages, you can't truly say one or the other is easier to win*. As a level IV, I'm concerned that TD may keep shrinking until I can't get to very many 20 person contests. This already seems to be happening with DLG, which I really enjoy. I'll admit that, with my skills as they are, I may have to go to a lot of contests to get my three wins. If ALES wins can count, I can get to more contests. Also, this will motivate me to attend and support more ALES contests.

Personally, I think ALES or something like it is the future of RC soaring, even if all those gliders do have ugly spinning things.

Lincoln Ross
LSF 6011
Level IV

P.S. I think it might be too soon to enshrine 30 seconds and 200 meters. We might see an unanticipated development. Chances are, we will. Seems like neither ALES or hlg's popularity were anticipated.


*Last weekend, at the Pumpkin Fly, I was third in TD and something like third from last in ALES!
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #168

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

It's clear that for the eSAP, you do your tasks with an electric, and for the regular SAP, you mustn't. But how about contests? I haven't seen a clear answer on that. Can someone in the eSAP use points from a TD contest? Vice versa?

As I read it now you'll have to accomplish contests with two separate models as the SAP are two completely different programs. One with whiskers and one without.

*Last weekend, at the Pumpkin Fly, I was third in TD and something like third from last in ALES!

That's interesting in of itself.

Curtis
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.301 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum