TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

Ryan,

This will be my last comment on your proposition. Your comments have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

There are many reasons why aspirants may or may not use 300 meter turnarounds, not the least are a lack of space and/or a lack of sufficient line on the drums. The winch I have cannot hold 600 meters of line.

On the other hand all I have to do if I own a 4000-6000 fpm capable plane (not extraordinary at all) to get a 1000 to 1500 foot launch is to elect to NOT use the switch and to use a 15 second motor run.

And you are beyond delusional if you believe that the difference between a 200 meter and a 457 meter launch would not make a difference in accomplishing most of the Flight Tasks.

As to whether the ESAP ultimately more or less constrains us to the exact same altitudes as the existing ESAP -- I don't give a hoot in h*ll. The concept of regulating launch altitudes the way we can was not remotely possible in 1969. What we are about here is devising an ESAP which will fairly test aspirants with a uniform, reasonable, doable and difficult test that reflects the unique nature of our ePlanes. It may or may not end up strikingly similar to the existing SAP. It does not have to end up stupidly similar.

Happy Landings,

Don

dHarban wrote: Ryan,

This will be my last comment on your proposition. Your comments have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

There are many reasons why aspirants may or may not use 300 meter turnarounds, not the least are a lack of space and/or a lack of sufficient line on the drums. The winch I have cannot hold 600 meters of line.

On the other hand all I have to do if I own a 4000-6000 fpm capable plane (not extraordinary at all) to get a 1000 to 1500 foot launch is to elect to NOT use the switch and to use a 15 second motor run.

And you are beyond delusional if you believe that the difference between a 200 meter and a 457 meter launch would not make a difference in accomplishing most of the Flight Tasks.

As to whether the ESAP ultimately more or less constrains us to the exact same altitudes as the existing ESAP -- I don't give a hoot in h*ll. That concept of regulating launch altitudes the way we can was not remotely possible in 1969. What we are about here is devising an ESAP which will fairly test aspirants with a uniform, reasonable, doable and difficult test that reflects the unique nature of our ePlanes. It may or may not end up strikingly similar to the existing SAP. It does not have to end up stupidly similar.

Happy Landings,

Don

Plus 1, Don.

dHarban wrote: This will be my last comment on your proposition. Your comments have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

That's cool. I just wanted to present my ideas. Clearly you, Ed, and Preston don't like them. :) I'm not sure what other folks think. Or if for that matter any of this is even up for discussion.

It would be kind of nice to get an opinion from the proposal authors on the other items I brought up. That being if non ALES contests (LMR, F5J, electric F3J, F5B, slope racing with electric models*, etc.) would be allowed for the contest portion and if there is/perhaps should be any kind of wording for minimum start height for the landing tasks.

dHarban wrote: And you are beyond delusional if you believe that the difference between a 200 meter and a 457 meter launch would not make a difference in accomplishing most of the Flight Tasks.

I like it. I'm changing my rcgroups slogan to that. :)


Ryan

* OK admittedly that last one I made up. I have no idea if guys are doing slope racing with electric models.

ryanw wrote: Assuming this new eSAP is implemented as proposed what about L5 witnesses? Will only eSAP L2+ be qualified for eSAP L5 tasks?

And then I guess the opposite of this as well. Will eSAP L2s be allowed to serve as L5 performance task witnesses?

Ryan

ryanw wrote:

ryanw wrote: Assuming this new eSAP is implemented as proposed what about L5 witnesses? Will only eSAP L2+ be qualified for eSAP L5 tasks?

And then I guess the opposite of this as well. Will eSAP L2s be allowed to serve as L5 performance task witnesses?

Ryan

I suggest that as far as witnessing goes a crossover be allowed so that ESAP achievers can witness for SAP and vice versa.

Preston

I would agree that cross over witness should be allowed.

Crossover Witness's would be in line with what the LSF has been doing for years by increasing fellowship to achieve accomplishment of levels.
So for Me that would be a YES VOTE.

Clarence

Of course cross over witnesses would be allowed. You'd be a member of the LSF but working on one or both of the SAP programs.

Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

Curtis

ryanw wrote: It would be kind of nice to get an opinion from the proposal authors on the other items I brought up. That being if non ALES contests (LMR, F5J, electric F3J, F5B, slope racing with electric models*, etc.) would be allowed for the contest portion and if there is/perhaps should be any kind of wording for minimum start height for the landing tasks.
Ryan

Ryan,

There should be no problem holding a LMR style contest and have it count for eSAP contest points, just as there are many, many variations on what counts for current LSF contests. Now I admit that most LSF eligible contests have standardized on the 10 minute task with a 100" landing tape but ladder contests would count, a timed slope course would count, there are many possible ways to run a contest. The eSAP should be no different. Who knows, maybe 1 year from now clubs will be holding e-launch events with bonuses for low launch heights or maybe they will permit a single motor relight in a contest. It really makes no difference in the contest part of the program as all contestants will be playing with the same set of rules. Over time pilots will decide on a preferred format for e-launch sailplanes just as has been done in modern TD.

I believe the real key to setting up the eSAP is to keep it simple. The program should allow for innovation to happen within the contest portion of the program. Just like modern winches and newer composite planes are in allowed to participate in the current SAP, so should variable launch heights and different contest formats be allowed in the new eSAP. Our focus should not be on spelling out what will be permitted, it should be making certain that we don't accidentally limit where the new program go.

Wayne

waynen wrote: Our focus should not be on spelling out what will be permitted, it should be making certain that we don't accidentally limit where the new program go.

That is my opinion too. That said I would like to get some leadership weigh in on the questions I posed.

Ryan