Sportsmen, Electric Soaring, And The Lsf [Archive]

tonyestep

Apr 11, 2009, 09:06 PM

Herewith my RCSE post on this subject:

"Whatever form it takes, the bigger point is that LSF is trying to be
inclusive. That is a key element that everybody connected with soaring
should embrace if we are to grow this sport, or even just hang on to
keep it from shrinking.

It's easy to exclude. We see lots of proposals to ban this or that
piece of equipment, or type of plane or competition, or whatever. None
of those have gotten too far in recent years, and it's just as well --
that sort of thing just pushes away participants at a time when we're
all talking about how to get more. Ideas are constantly being aired on
this forum and elsewhere about how the way X group of soaring
enthusiasts enjoys their hobby is wrong and needs to be changed or
abolished. But we need to make room for everybody.

In order to grow, soaring needs to be fun compared not only with video
games and so forth, but also with electric foamies, helicopters, glow .
40s, and all the other kinds of R/C that compete for the attention of
our young aspirants and new flyers.

The AMA has tried to do something similar with its parkflyer
membership, which so far has had little success. It is not easy to
snag new enthusiasts, and the soaring community will have to keep
working at it if we are to make it happen.

The LSF board is making an effort to expand the reach of LSF and
displaying a welcoming attitude toward guys who might swell our ranks
and build our sport. Kudos to them for this effort. If new LSF
programs aimed at sport flyers are indeed adopted, the active soaring
clubs should pick up the ball and promote them as part of a community
effort to build participation in our wonderful hobby."

-----------
And, having said the above, I will add that our club has an LSF co-ordinator (Mark Miller) who has helped a number of guys accelerate their LSF accomplishments. One of our members, Chris Lee, went from a standing start to Level 4 in one summer, but of course this new initiative isn't named at guys like Chris. It's aimed at least in part at the possible recruits and potential converts that we might encourage into becoming more active and more accomplished, and Mark has a bead on those guys as well. Like most clubs, we have a sizable contingent of very nice guys who fall into that category, and perhaps this will help us coax them out to the field more often and get them flying.

So more power to the LSF for trying it. It can't hurt, could help.

Kenny Sharp

Apr 12, 2009, 08:52 AM

In October of 2008, there were 78 new aspirants.
Not bad.

I don't think the LSF needs changing.

will_newton

Apr 12, 2009, 11:53 AM

In October of 2008, there were 78 new aspirants.
Not bad.

I don't think the LSF needs changing.It needs e-soaring to be acknowledged. The whole world doesn't fly off a towline and slope.

jtlsf5

Apr 12, 2009, 01:01 PM

Gents, just a reminder that your discussion and comments here will not be considered by the board. Please post your comments, positive and negative to the link on the LSF website, www.silentflight.org. That is the official repository for comments on the LSF proposals.

JT

Kenny Sharp

Apr 12, 2009, 01:35 PM

I think that e-soaring is fundamentally different than pure sailplanes.
I say this because with a motor, a pilot is unlikely to make the same decisions as the same pilot would make without a motor.

When the decision time comes to make the long trek downwind in search of lift that if, not found, would be an automatic land-out....a pure sailplane pilot would abandon the search. An e-glider pilot on the other hand, knowing that one would only have to re-start the motor to get out of trouble, would take the chance.

Two totally different disciplines with little in common.
They are both, psychologically different.

Once a sailplane is launched, that is it.
Once an e-sailplane is launched, there are still many power-on options left....even though it would count as a zero score.

I feel that the possibility of a power up during a task, would affect the task fundamentally....It would allow the e-pilot to take risks the pure pilot wouldn't take.

I'm all for recognizing e-soaring.....just not under the guise of "Silent" flight....which to me, means, non-assisted flight.

I have sent this post as an e-mail to the LSF comments site.

will_newton

Apr 12, 2009, 02:38 PM

Hah! You are assuming that someone restarts the motor. That trick is for weenies.

In XC soaring you get to relunch and relaunch and relaunch until you can get the boomer that you think will get you around the course. Relighting is actually encouraged and part of the rules.

Dang Kenny, aren't you the same guy that flies F5B? That is e-soaring too, part of the task is gliding and thermalling and speed runs--all without the motor running-except for the run up to altitude. :confused:

SUNSQUINT

Apr 12, 2009, 03:05 PM

I try and make and make it a point to keep my motor runs to just the first launch (or to save my plane if need be). Maybe it's because I also fly pure sailplanes. I mostly fly electric sailplanes for the simplicity of going to the field and not having to set up a winch or hi-start on the days I don't want to. Recently, at the school yard we fly at, we are coming under pressure to not be there with winches (that's another story).

I do recognize Kenny's observation about the different mentailty of electric versus pure sailplane, but if it is done as an LMR approach, or even the UK's 200 watts/kilo LMR approach, The playing field can be pretty level. The Albuquerque club's timing method is also a very good one.....

I think the LSF would do very well to include electrics....after all, it is still about the challenges of soaring.

schrederman

Apr 12, 2009, 03:22 PM

Stayin' outa this 'un...

jbaird

Apr 12, 2009, 03:27 PM

Exactly my thoughts, You can take many more risks without the danger of busting your plane. Not an equal playing field.

I think that e-soaring is fundamentally different than pure sailplanes.
I say this because with a motor, a pilot is unlikely to make the same decisions as the same pilot would make without a motor.

When the decision time comes to make the long trek downwind in search of lift that if, not found, would be an automatic land-out....a pure sailplane pilot would abandon the search. An e-glider pilot on the other hand, knowing that one would only have to re-start the motor to get out of trouble, would take the chance.

Two totally different disciplines with little in common.
They are both, psychologically different.

Once a sailplane is launched, that is it.
Once an e-sailplane is launched, there are still many power-on options left....even though it would count as a zero score.

I feel that the possibility of a power up during a task, would affect the task fundamentally....It would allow the e-pilot to take risks the pure pilot wouldn't take.

I'm all for recognizing e-soaring.....just not under the guise of "Silent" flight....which to me, means, non-assisted flight.

I have sent this post as an e-mail to the LSF comments site.

superskeg

Apr 12, 2009, 04:17 PM

In October of 2008, there were 78 new aspirants.
Not bad.

I don't think the LSF needs changing.
Ditto! and Ditto to your post about electrics. If it has a propeller it's not a sailplane in my opinion and it's not silent. Let's just include everybody, gas power planes, boats, cars, why not model trains. Group hug!

Stuntman

Apr 12, 2009, 05:21 PM

Ditto! and Ditto to your post about electrics. If it has a propeller it's not a sailplane in my opinion and it's not silent. Let's just include everybody, gas power planes, boats, cars, why not model trains. Group hug!

and you then exclude all those without access to winchs or fields where bungies, etc do fit or work. If it wasn't for E-sailplanes I wouldn't be flying saliplanes at all.

Good on ya fellas for being so considerate. :rolleyes:

Kenny Sharp

Apr 12, 2009, 05:38 PM

and you then exclude all those without access to winchs or fields where bungies, etc do fit or work. If it wasn't for E-sailplanes I wouldn't be flying saliplanes at all.

Good on ya fellas for being so considerate. :rolleyes:

Yes.
Exclude electrics from the LSF.

But that doesn't mean to exclude you or anyone else including myself, from flying e-sailplanes.

It wouldn't make sense to me for an electric soaring league to include pure gliders either.

Thermaler

Apr 12, 2009, 05:44 PM

I will be voting yes also.
Something that is being forgotten though is the hand launch guys as long as we are trying to be inclusive.
After all soaring is soaring no matter how you get it up (<8

And JT is right, it does not count here.

Joe

Edit: I just sent my comments to the LSF and noticed that it will be voted on by LSF IV & V's. So I would not have been able to have a say in it unless I sent my comments to the LSF, glad I did.

Joe

superskeg

Apr 12, 2009, 05:45 PM

... If it wasn't for E-sailplanes I wouldn't be flying saliplanes at all.

Good on ya fellas for being so considerate. :rolleyes:

That's great, I have nothing against motor gliders, ya'll should form your own SAP. What bothers me is all subsequent LSF achievers will have asterisk, it will be the end of an era.

superskeg

Apr 12, 2009, 05:49 PM

I will be voting yes also.
Something that is being forgotten though is the hand launch guys as long as we are trying to be inclusive.
After all soaring is soaring no matter how you get it up (<8

And JT is right, it does not count here.

Joe
Hand launch has always been included in LSF they're sailplanes and THEY DON'T HAVE MOTORS!

Thermaler

Apr 12, 2009, 05:51 PM

In October of 2008, there were 78 new aspirants.
Not bad.

I don't think the LSF needs changing.

How many finished L1? :confused:
How many did it just to get into the Masters? :eek:
How many are did/are going to make L2? :o
It is not changing, it is expanding. It is called diversifing in the business world.

Joe

jaizon

Apr 12, 2009, 05:59 PM

Hand launch has always been included in LSF they're sailplanes and THEY DON'T HAVE MOTORS!

Are there any tasks other than slope for which they would qualify?

Thermaler

Apr 12, 2009, 06:00 PM

Hand launch has always been included in LSF they're sailplanes and THEY DON'T HAVE MOTORS!

My voucher reads in Section 7 - Thermal Duration Flight

"A thermal duration flight commences at the time of release from the end of a towline"

That leaves the hand launch guys out in the cold.

Joe

jtlsf5

Apr 12, 2009, 06:03 PM

That's great, I have nothing against motor gliders, ya'll should form your own SAP. What bothers me is all subsequent LSF achievers will have asterisk, it will be the end of an era.

Just why do you think that having a parallel program for non-competitive flyers, or launching with an electric-assist will dilute "pure" LSF achievments? I've been a LSF5 for 21 years and feel honored to have made it and to be in the company of some of my soaring heroes. The only person whose SAP accomplishments are extremely important to me are my own. What others do is up to them.

Doesn't mean I don't see the need to bring new pilots in, and if some of these changes do that, the sport/hobby will be healthier for it. I truly believe that it will ultimately lead to an increase in traditional LSF achievers as those that start in Sportsman or use electric power will discover the beauty and elegance of pure soaring flight.

Just my $0.02 worth.

JT

Kenny Sharp

Apr 12, 2009, 06:07 PM

How many finished L1? :confused:
How many did it just to get into the Masters? :eek:
How many are did/are going to make L2? :o
It is not changing, it is expanding. It is called diversifing in the business world.

Joe

I don't know the answers to your 3 questions....but ...

1- I saw a long list of names for that month that achieved Level 1....a long list.

2- We at the ESL get new members, so that some who live on the opposite coast or other Countries, can compete in some of our very large DLG Contests.....That's OK with me.

3- All of them....I can forsee the future. ;)

As to your last comment, Disney created Dreamworks... among others.
If the LSF wants an SAP program, that's OK with me.
If the SAP program is to allow electric motors, then let's call it something that acknowledges electric power....Even if it's something as simple as SAP3, or SAP5.

superskeg

Apr 12, 2009, 06:08 PM

Are there any tasks other than slope for which they would qualify?
All of them except the spot landings. Have you read the rules?
Here's a link. do some reading http://www.silentflight.org/lsf-tasks.shtml

jtlsf5

Apr 12, 2009, 06:10 PM

My voucher reads in Section 7 - Thermal Duration Flight

"A thermal duration flight commences at the time of release from the end of a towline"

That leaves the hand launch guys out in the cold.

Joe

Joe,
The paper vouchers are old stock (doesn't mean they are no good). Please go to the website, and review Section 7 under the LSF Tasks tab (http://www.silentflight.org/lsf-tasks.shtml). You will note that the sentence you quote has been amended (I know its been a while, but not exactly when) to include hand launch as a viable means to initiate a thermal duration flight.

JT

Thermaler

Apr 12, 2009, 06:13 PM

Thank you for the info JT. Not the first time I have been wrong.
I learned something new and it did not hurt!!!
Just like a SSAP won't hurt the LSF!

Joe

Kenny Sharp

Apr 12, 2009, 06:14 PM

.

Doesn't mean I don't see the need to bring new pilots in, and if some of these changes do that, the sport/hobby will be healthier for it. I truly believe that it will ultimately lead to an increase in traditional LSF achievers as those that start in Sportsman or use electric power will discover the beauty and elegance of pure soaring flight.

Just my $0.02 worth.

JT

Good point.
I hadn't considered your second sentence before now.....Interesting.

tonyestep

Apr 13, 2009, 12:16 PM

BTW, guys, if you want to comment to the LSF, send an email to:
info@silentflight.org

I did and received a confirmation email, so the link does work.

Ralph Weaver

Apr 13, 2009, 09:00 PM

Ray Hayes

Apr 14, 2009, 01:27 PM

I don't see any point it having pure electic gliders in the same class as the ones that have ugly dork noses and need to be launched with fishing line attached to an old starter motor.

There should be the existing class for string launched and a seperate class for the pure electric sailplanes - no crossing over, no asterisks needed, no excuses from the string launchers.

Just add an electric class. LSF-E or what ever. You can be an LSF level III and they can be an LSF-E level III.

______________________________________________

Good thinking Ralph.

The trouble I have with a non seperate e power program, is the power up is not the same as a winch launch, because the e power pilot can easily power to a sailplane already in lift. Up wind, down wind, anywhere and not necessarily have to launch to 600 feet to tag into the lift. The power up would not necessarily resemble a winch launch to 600 ft that is confined to the turn around location and this opens up a world of difference.

A sailplane launced from a winch can tag into some ones lift of coarse, but is restricted by the location of the lift relative to the launch release.

If the e power up is not restricted in time, only in height, there is no resemblence to the confined winch launch because of the options the e power flyer has.

A seperate e power is the way to go.

Ray
Sky Bench
http://www.skybench.com

Ray Hayes

Apr 14, 2009, 04:04 PM

added the 2M lil Bird photo

jtlsf5

Apr 14, 2009, 04:27 PM

onethermal

Apr 14, 2009, 04:28 PM

I will vote yes.
The more people that come in will help us to keep R/C soaring alive for the future.

Clarence

Ralph Weaver

Apr 14, 2009, 06:27 PM

First, in general, the altitude limiter also limit motor run times to 30 seconds. There may be a slight edge to the electric at launch, but it's carrying more weight and has more drag. Also, because it has the motor in the nose it can't do as agressive of a dork landing.

I'm very excited about the LSF taking this on. No doubt it's a difficult job, but it needs to be done. Hopefully it can be done to everyone's satisfaction... we'll that's impossible - let's hope it can be done to most reasonable people's satisfaction.

Kenny Sharp

Apr 14, 2009, 06:41 PM

Ralph Weaver

Apr 14, 2009, 09:07 PM

That's certainly possible but then one would have to assume that the winch launch experience is superior (not just preferable).

Ray Hayes

Apr 15, 2009, 11:35 AM

______________________________________________

Good thinking Ralph.

The trouble I have with a non seperate e power program, is the power up is not the same as a winch launch, because the e power pilot can easily power to a sailplane already in lift. Up wind, down wind, anywhere and not necessarily have to launch to 600 feet to tag into the lift. The power up would not necessarily resemble a winch launch to 600 ft that is confined to the turn around location and this opens up a world of difference.

A sailplane launced from a winch can tag into some ones lift of coarse, but is restricted by the location of the lift relative to the launch release.

If the e power up is not restricted in time, only in height, there is no resemblence to the confined winch launch because of the options the e power flyer has.

A seperate e power is the way to go.

Ray
Sky Bench
http://www.skybench.com
_______________________________________________

Oooops, I have to change my yes vote to a no vote.

I'm guilty of not reading the LSF proposed changes very closely, I didn't realize the proposal is adding e power launching to the original LSF Achiement program.

"The LSF board proposes to include electric-assist launch as a legal method to launch a sailplane for completion of SAP/SSAP tasks with the following conditions:"

That propsal in plain words "sucks", it is outrageous and demeaning to the LSF original and current asspirants, it's borders on insulting and definetly "waters down" this great program.

If not making a seperate Sportman program for e power is based on:

The LSF Sec. will be overloaded with with work. I suggest LSF establish a budget that allows for the over loaded sec work be done by a paid for outside service. Handling a 100 MONTHLY enteries ( guessing ) will not be costly. I don't know the LSF financial balance sheet or PL statement, fact is, I don't if it is published. Maybe it is a big secret ?? Jim Deck is A very good Sec and really cares about his Sec duties, but the next guy may not be so good. Seems like that and the Tres job is where most of the work is for the LSF volunteer officers. Both jobs could be farmed out and even report a financial staement annually like AMA does.

The reality of RC soaring is .... it is going to e power big time and for several good reasons. The number of potential LSF asspirants with e power sailplanes will easily pass the winch/hi start group in the near future.
THE VERY BEST WAY TO SERVE THIS NEW GROUP IS WITH A SEPERATE PROGRAM. AN E POWER PROGRAM DESIGNED BY AN E GROUP FORUM, START WITH BOB BURSON.

Think of the rub between the e power guy and a winch pilot flying in the same club. Pursuing the same flight task, the winch pilot waiting for his turn at the winch, the e power pilot waiting for someone to show him the lift. THIS WILL BE A HUGE NEGATIVE FOR THE WINCH PILOTS AND COULD VERY EASILY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LSF ASSPIRANTS DESIRING TO WINCH OR HI START LAUNCH. IT IS A H... OF A LOT CHEAPER TO PURSUE THE LSF WITH A HI START THAN E POWER. E POWER COMAPRED TO WINCH/HI START LAUNCHING IS LIKE OIL AND WATER.

It doesn't appear the LSF is going to change the proposal based on comments received, so I will have to vote NO to their proposals.

Ray
Sky Bench WOODYS FOR EVER .......
http://www.skybench.com

superskeg

Apr 15, 2009, 12:10 PM

tonyestep

Apr 15, 2009, 12:18 PM

Ray, I think that the members are going to get that changed. The comment period is open, and a large number of members have spoken up in favor of setting the electric program up as something separate so that there could never be any confusion betwee the electric program and the traditional program. I think that if you submit your comments via info@silentflight.org, they will be heard. At least I hope so.

My own opinion is that the best outcome is not that the proposals get defeated, but that they get changed to put electrics in their own category, with no switching or changeover or connection of any kind to the soaring programs.

Windependence

Apr 15, 2009, 03:06 PM

At this point in these discussions I am hesitant to even comment any more due to the strong emotions of many of the participants. That being said I must counter a couple of the arguments being made against the inclusion of e-powered gliders.

The thought on the e-pilot turning 50 degrees off the launch line to fly straight into lift? Who would do that? Would any of you who fly both styles even consider that? For that matter what stops the guy launching off the hi-start from grabbing the chute and running over 150 yards so he can launch straight into the lift. This argument is silly. People don't do that now. That e-pilot could very well be the guy you have been flying with for the past 10 years. Just ask yourself the question "Would i do that?" So why do you assume that the e-power pilot will?

The argument of using the motor run time to fly up to just under launch height and than start flying around for lift is equally rediculus. That is not what is being suggested. I think it can be reasonably assumed that all the e-powered glider pilots want to do is mirror a standard launch with the motor and then shut it down and soar. Again I ask the question to all of you who are passionately against this, "Would you do what you are suggesting others might do?" My guess is you will answer no.

The one argument that has been made to me that I tend to agree with is the one about the e-pilot being able to refire the motor to save the plane from certain death. That issue is easily resolved with the use of a device that shuts down the motor 30 seconds from launch and does not allow it to be refired.

My only remaining thought on this discussion is this. Will all of you who are against the inclusion of e-powered launches, when you have a reason for not wanting to allow the e-piolt to compete side by side with you, ask yourself if you would do what you are arguing against. Ray would you launch away from the flight line directly into the circle of planes already in lift or would you launch along the existing flight line then try to get over there. Would any of you use the motor to fly around looking for lift and then shut down the motor. Have you ever seen the guy at the contest on the hi-start swing it around in the middle of the contest so he can get a better launch? Just ask yourself, what would I do? Chances are that is exactly what the e-glider pilot is going to do.

Wayne

Edit - As I am only a LSF aspirant I cannot send my opinions to the LSF board. I do hope they will read my many comments throughout these threads and take them into their consideration as they make their decisions.

StevenatorLTFO

Apr 15, 2009, 09:00 PM

if I had a e powered sailplane, you can bet your bottom dollar that if I know lift is "over thar", that is the direction that sailplane will be flying as soon as its safe and practical to make that heading choice. With a winch or highstart, the point of the beginning of your flight is going to be where the turnaround/stake is. (speaking in rough terms of course)

aeajr

Apr 15, 2009, 11:39 PM

_______________________________________________

Oooops, I have to change my yes vote to a no vote.

I'm guilty of not reading the LSF proposed changes very closely, I didn't realize the proposal is adding e power launching to the original LSF Achiement program.

"The LSF board proposes to include electric-assist launch as a legal method to launch a sailplane for completion of SAP/SSAP tasks with the following conditions:"

That propsal in plain words "sucks", it is outrageous and demeaning to the LSF original and current asspirants, it's borders on insulting and definetly "waters down" this great program.

If not making a seperate Sportman program for e power is based on:

Ray, the proposal for e-launch and the proposal for SSAP are two different proposals and should not be tied together. The LSF board lists them separately. You should consider them that way.

Demeaning? You mean like the guys who use modern day hi-tech planes and high powered winches to perform the same tasks that had to be done with old designs, wood spars and hi-starts or less powerful winches of yesteryear?

Why were modern composite sailplanes never banned from being used. Aren't they demeaning to the program? Don't they water down the challenge? Don't they take away from the accomplishments of the pilots of 30 years ago?

_______________________________________________

The LSF Sec. will be overloaded with with work. I suggest LSF establish a budget that allows for the over loaded sec work be done by a paid for outside service. Handling a 100 MONTHLY enteries ( guessing ) will not be costly. I don't know the LSF financial balance sheet or PL statement, fact is, I don't if it is published. Maybe it is a big secret ?? Jim Deck is A very good Sec and really cares about his Sec duties, but the next guy may not be so good. Seems like that and the Tres job is where most of the work is for the LSF volunteer officers. Both jobs could be farmed out and even report a financial staement annually like AMA does.

If LSF continues its current paper intensive process, based on an old paper and snail mail work flow, I would have to agree with you. However in my comments to the LSF I suggested that the registration and reporting process also be brought into the 21st century.

There is no reason to continue to follow the slow, paper intensive process that is in use today. No business could continue to operate today if they were to base their business processes on such out dated methods.

In any case, the goal is to increase the membership in LSF, the awareness of soaring and participation in soaring achievement programs. We can only hope that the rate of new registrations and task reports increases.

An updated process would be very easy to institute, saving a lot of time and money.

_______________________________________________

The reality of RC soaring is .... it is going to e power big time and for several good reasons. The number of potential LSF asspirants with e power sailplanes will easily pass the winch/hi start group in the near future.
THE VERY BEST WAY TO SERVE THIS NEW GROUP IS WITH A SEPERATE PROGRAM. AN E POWER PROGRAM DESIGNED BY AN E GROUP FORUM, START WITH BOB BURSON.

I think you are right about e-power. If you feel it should be a separate program, I hope you have shared with the LSF board.

_______________________________________________

Think of the rub between the e power guy and a winch pilot flying in the same club. Pursuing the same flight task, the winch pilot waiting for his turn at the winch, the e power pilot waiting for someone to show him the lift. THIS WILL BE A HUGE NEGATIVE FOR THE WINCH PILOTS AND COULD VERY EASILY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LSF ASSPIRANTS DESIRING TO WINCH OR HI START LAUNCH. IT IS A H... OF A LOT CHEAPER TO PURSUE THE LSF WITH A HI START THAN E POWER. E POWER COMAPRED TO WINCH/HI START LAUNCHING IS LIKE OIL AND WATER.

As for the rub, as you call it. Think of the rub between the guy flying the light weight woody and the pilot flying the high end moldie. The moldie guy is zooming to the moon and the woodie guy is struggling not to break his wing.

Or think of the guy flying off a hi-start because he doesn't have access to a winch. He is restricted by his equipment and his budget yet he is expected to perform the same tasks.

Just imagine the rub. Think of the injustice of it. :(

What a rub for the guy who can't afford that high end equipment.

Oh, wait, that is the way it is now. So, what's new? :eek:

_______________________________________________
It doesn't appear the LSF is going to change the proposal based on comments received, so I will have to vote NO to their proposals.

Ray
Sky Bench WOODYS FOR EVER .......
http://www.skybench.com

Ray, I don't know why would suggest the LSF board will ignore the input of the membership. I for one believe they will give all input serious consideration.

I think you should have a little more faith in the LSF board to be open to ideas.

Windependence

Apr 15, 2009, 11:52 PM

Does piloting an e-powered sailplane somehow inhibit the pilots ability to make choices? Just because you can fly straight to the lift right out your hand does not dictate that you must do so. Most all of the arguments against the electric launch powered plane start something like this; Well the e-powered plane can do blank, you fill in the blank. You know I have a 4 wheel drive SUV but you don't see me driving through the ditches and across the medians and through people's yards during rush hour traffic. My vehicle can do it but I am in control of it so it doesn't do it.

If the contest has a winch set up or a hi-start I simply launch the same direction of the winch until I reach the turn around, power down the motor and then I, like every other pilot, beet feet over to the boomer. Just because you can do something does not demand that you must do it.

I do not really think I will persuade any of you to change your positions. Most of those against seem pretty entrenched in their opinions and that is just fine. I just feel that many of the arguments being put forth are based upon what could happen. Remember I do hold a transmitter in my hands controlling the actions of my plane so if the rules state launch to the west to an altitude of 550 ft and go as far as the turnaround, guess what, that is what my plane is going to do. E-pilots are not looking for some unfair advantage, it is the contrary, they are looking for how they can fly with the rest of the organization on a level playing field. I do truely believe that this can be worked out.

The idea of having seperate groups for e-soaring, hand launch, traditional soaring, and whatever else groups you can think of seems, to me anyway, to fragment an already small group of pilots. As a new person starting out, where is the incentive to want to get into soaring if everywhere you look it is "you can't fly this here" and "you can't fly that there". Imagine the beginner pilot showing up to their first ever fun fly contest with his/her new Radian and being told "nope, you can't fly that here." I just think the approach should be if you want to be a soaring pilot come on in. Fly what you want we have ways to see that it is an even flying field.

Wayne

PS. I was rereading my previous posting and I did not mean to single out Ray H. I only mentioned him by name as it was his thread. I meant nothing by it. Hopefully no hard feelings.

FrogChief

Apr 16, 2009, 01:44 AM

Rawr!!!! :p

Only SAILPLANES in the LSF...no POWERED AC!!!

E-Sailplanes, until able to be regulated by a standard black box that guarantees a nominal launch height and only ONE motor run per launch will always be suspect and not in keeping with the LSF program.

The point is that you can justify a powered plane until the cows come home. But it's still a powered AC.

atmosteve

Apr 16, 2009, 04:26 AM

aeajr

Apr 16, 2009, 07:57 AM

Boy oh boy, is it any great wonder why some of us are no longer interested in such programs like those offered by the LSF and all that it entails with status and politics, and would rather just live and fly free from all the hype... All the same it seems Logical and sensible that an E class would have to be a seperate program imh unqualified opinion for those that enjoy getting their LSF wings with parity.

Its also quite sad to see the old mouldie Vs woodie horse being needlesly flogged again, either modern derivation of wood or composite can win you a comp imho regardless.
It probably needs to be finally got over and not used in silly wages of words, point scoring status ad-nausea.

That was my point, exactly. I hoped someone would bring it out.

Unless you define a single design and a single launch method, there will always be inequity among pilots and their planes and their launch. This will effect their opportunity to complete the SAP tasks and win contests to meet SAP requirements.

It has always has been this way and always will be. As Ray says, it sucks, but it will never be equal for everyone so why even bring it up?

Especially in competition, the well funded pilot will always have the advantage over the poorly funded pilot. Yes, a guy flying a Spirit 100 could beat 20 guys flying Supras, Pikes and the like, but what are the chances?

In competition, a 10% advantage provided by technology can mean the difference between 1st and 10th place. And I would dare say that Supra has a better than 10% advantage over the Spirit.

Thus the cry for a sportsman program. Let the individual pilot prove himself against a standard. Let him hone his skills with the equipment he has available, regardless of what the other pilot is using.

We haven't even talked about the advantages of DLGs where you can walk around the field, feel the lift and then launch right into the thermal in which you stand. No set up or break down of winches or broken lines. No need for a huge field to lay out your hi-start. Yet no on is saying that you can't do a 2 hour thermal task with a DLG.

Whether the launch is by hand, by hi-start, by winch or by motor climb, once you hit the top of the launch you have the same challenge as everyone else. And you are still on your honor to complete it, according to the rules and report it honestly.

Electric launch, with the required launch cap and documentation, changes nothing! We ask for a witness signature and we will continue to ask for a witness.

e-launch - SSAP only

Having said that, my recommendation to the LSF has been to introduce e-launch into the SSAP only. Let it be observed and tested to see if the technology will become cost effective and readily available to make this 600 foot limit practical.

Today the 600 foot launch limit is not in general use in competition, so why introduce it into a competition SAP?

Don't change the current program in any way shape or form. As has been said, it has endured for 40 years. Let it stand for the forseeable future unchanged.

Defer the introduction of e-launch into the SAP to some future vote.

Windependence

Apr 16, 2009, 09:10 AM

E-Sailplanes, until able to be regulated by a standard black box that guarantees a nominal launch height and only ONE motor run per launch will always be suspect and not in keeping with the LSF program.

That device already exists and I can have one in my plane by next week. It limits the motor run, prevents it from being refired, can shut down the motor at a specified height and has a data logger so the flight can be reviewed. So can I compete against you after next week? :)

Wayne

tonyestep

Apr 16, 2009, 09:15 AM

Even though the sportsman's program and the electric launch provision are two separate proposals, it looks as if the wide opposition to electric launch could wind up killing both it and ths sportsman idea.

The LSF directors and most of the guys who vote don't read these forums, but they do read and post on RCSE, and that's the way the tide seems to be running.

Because of the way that something like this has to be handled under the LSF's organizational setup, there's no convenient mechanism for back-and-forth before a rule is proposed; and then if confusion arises, there's no good way to straighten it out.

A few simple modifications would probably please everybody and result in some proposal(s) being passed; but with the noise level as it is, that seems unlikely. And if these proposals lose, it will be years before any board will try again.

tkallev

Apr 16, 2009, 10:28 AM

I beleive the Board will review comments received and possibly revise the actual proposals before a vote is called. Their call for comments includes a request for alternate proposals from the membership.

tk

tonyestep

Apr 16, 2009, 12:59 PM

Thanks for your comment, TK. That will be best all around. Tom Broeski has boiled down most of the comments into an alternate proposal that he has submitted to LSF. That one calls for maintaining the SAP as is, no crossovers, and making electric launch an optional part of the sportsman's program. Tom's proposal would I think would have an excellent chance of passage. It would also be one on which the entire membership could vote, since it proposes no change to the SAP.

aeajr

Apr 16, 2009, 02:27 PM

I would support that.

Ray Hayes

Apr 18, 2009, 07:44 AM

Welcome aboard Ray. There appears to be mass misunderstanding of what the proposals mean. From the postings of Board members their minds seem to be set but please send them your comments http://www.silentflight.org/lsf-ssap.shtml however this could still be stopped by the vote. Everyone should read and UNDERSTAND the proposal
No whining ex post facto

Superskeg,

There is no substitute for LSF and it appears it has to be saved from itself.

Board gone wild ...

I'm still in shock about a post I read expressing intent to hold future AMA Nats with e power and winch launching together. Someone is hell bent on on special interest. I think they should figure out how to attract enterants to the Nats E power event, other than mixing it in with the Nats winch contest.

The threads about the LSF proposals are dissappointing, very few post from the Level lV and V guys. Plenty of posts from inexperienced flyers, I wonder if the board can see that when they do there magical review.

Wish I had time to pound the keyboard more on this issue, but Sky Bench is calling. WOODYS FOR EVER .......

Ray
Sky Bench
http://www.skybench.com

aeajr

Apr 18, 2009, 08:38 AM

Ray,

Have you been privy to the proposals and input e-mails that have been sent into the LSF?

Headhunter5504

Apr 18, 2009, 03:31 PM

It saddens me to see the rigid, kneejerk reactions of those long associated with rc soaring. It's almost as if they cannot see the bigger picture, cannot change with the times, cannot adapt. Woodys forever. And that absolutely fine, great in fact, if that's what you choose. :D As much as you would like for the world to remain the same it does not. Change is inevitable. The idea is to make it the best change possible. For me a decline in the soaring community is not the future I would like to see.

But let's leave that aside for a moment and go back to the idea of "pure" TD sailplanes (i.e., no motor on board). How are they propelled into the air at TD contests? What gives them that initial burst of stored up energy that allows the purist of the ability to ride the thermals in the first place? Let me look. Yep. It's an electric motor :eek: , for most TD contests in the U.S. And a darn big motor at that. :eek: Of course it's not on board, but if truth be told that's just a technicality, a bit of sleight of hand as it were, used to support a position that just does not hold up to even the barest of scientific or logical scrutiny. There just is no argument that can divorce that winch motor from your sailplane's ability to get aloft. Or put another way, in a TD contest are you willing to not use any electric motor to get your plane aloft?

Blood boils, veins pop out of foreheads as pitchforks are raised. 160/110 and going up, cries of anarchy and blasphemy scorch the interweb. Easy does it. I don't care how you get your plane in the air, only that you soar once you are there. Why pound your chest with rightous indignation when in fact you just don't find much support for TD contests without electric power (witness the paucity of F3J in the U.S., yet truly that contest model seems closer to the spirit you invoke).

But I hear no calls for doing away with all forms of electric power, vis-a-vis the LSF, only one particular kind. Whether you come off the electric winch or off the electric motor, it just doesn't matter (in fact, the pilot with the extra weight of a motor and battery in his plane might be at a distinct disadvantage), and I'd go along with the idea of no way to refire once the motor is off. And telling us you've never seen pilots waiting for others to launch before they do (so they can see where the lift is), implying that that's what e pilots would do, is disingenuous. "Launch now." or lose your landing points or some other incentive could easily be used.

So, IMHO, the us/them poles that have manifested here are this. On one side of the issue we have some established members of the soaring community balking at the idea of any change to their established order, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the 12 volt elephant in the room :eek: , i.e., the fact that the electric winches they use to power their sailplanes into the air are part of their flight system. The fact of the matter is this point has not yet been effectively refuted. On the other side we have many newcomers and (in my estimation) many other established members of the soaring community looking for adaptations to the status quo that will allow for growth and positive change within the LSF.

Kenny Sharp

Apr 18, 2009, 03:57 PM

.....and I'd go along with the idea of no way to refire once the motor is off.

This is key to the success of allowing e-power in ANY soaring format which purports to be on the same playing field as a winch launched model.....

KEY.

tonyestep

Apr 18, 2009, 05:07 PM

...hold future AMA Nats with e power and winch launching together. ...
============
Relax, Ray. By now it's clear that isn't gonna happen. Numerous other proposals either have been submitted or are in preparation, and the vote is still more than a month away. The board put out a trial balloon -- they can't be faulted for that. They're trying to figure out a path to grow LSF -- again, they can't be faulted for that either. They're a bunch of enthusiastic volunteers working on the behalf of their members.

It's true that many posts have come from inexperienced guys, but there have also been numerous voices of guys who have traveled widely, know a lot of other flyers, and flown with and against the best. In due course, things will get ironed out and what finally gets adopted will please most of the members -- maybe you too.

Windependence

Apr 18, 2009, 07:25 PM

This is key to the success of allowing e-power in ANY soaring format which purports to be on the same playing field as a winch launched model.....

KEY.

Hi Kenny and all those apposed to allowing e-powered launches,

Please consider the use of the following device in e-power launched gliders. I believe it meets all of your requirements. It powers off the motor at a preset height, it also shuts down the motor after x number of seconds. It prevents the motor from being refired until it is landed and a reset button is pressed and it logs the flight for evaluation if necessary. Here is a link to their website. http://www.magtechinc.net/RCAltimeter.htm

It is available for purchase today. I believe this device makes for a level flying field between e-power launched gliders and winch/hi-start launched gliders. Almost all the remaining arguments can be resolved by stating that the e-power launched glider must launch in a mannor that mirrors a winch launch along the existing winch line setup. Just imagine an invisable winch line on the plane as it is being launched.

I have included a couple of screenshots of the devices interface. I am not expecting you to change your mind today or tomorrow but give it some thought. I have said it before somewhere else on these threads and I will say it again here. I believe that soaring and LSF should be as inclusive to new pilots as possible for the sake of the sport. To start dividing up an already small population of people is not in the best interest of the sport. I would love to see that fresh new pilot bring their Radian or similar style plane to their first contest and not be told "sorry you can'y fly that here, go somewhere else." There must be a simple way to be able to incorperate all gliders, whether they are handlaunch, traditional or e-powered into an LSF contest. They still need to accomplish the existing tasks within the spirit of the existig SAP. I really believe that this can be accomplished without diminishing the accomplishments of previous LSF members. No astericks needed. Also that e-pilot, after one or two seasons of flying just might go out and buy a traditional full house plane for their next plane because they have been around other pilots and would not be as intimidated by the launches.

Again I am not asking LSF to modify the SAP to include motorized flight or aerobatics that many electric powered pilots do. I am only asking them to allow me to use my plane to accomplish the existing tasks. I only want to use a different launching method. Why should this one thing foster the creation of an entirely different program?

Wayne

RicVaughn

Apr 18, 2009, 08:51 PM

Would you have this device in the winch launch gliders to deploy full flaps until all winch launched planes start from the "SAME'" altitude????

Ric

schrederman

Apr 18, 2009, 10:25 PM

Why would I want to change an established skill factor, by requiring flap deployment at a certain altitude, just so you could fly your motor glider in my contest? While some may wish to draw parallels to the motor in the nose and the motor on the ground, they are NOT the same thing. Launching skill is learned by practice just like thermaling and landing. It's a good thing that Contest Directors have a lot of leeway. That won't be happening in any contest I put on... If you want to fly motor gliders, then do so. No one here is saying you can't. While the two types of soaring flight are pretty much parallel, The launching modes are not. I've flown a motor glider and there's not much to it. Add power until you are at altitude and shut it off. The winch is different and requires skill to get the max altitude from a preset length from the winch to the turn-around pulley. The equalizer is that preset length... It's the same for everyone.

As to the moldie/woodie thing... I have some woodies that launch and fly as well as my moldies... and more to come...

The way I see it is simple... Any flyer will get as much out of this as he puts in. It appears that the flyers that do not want to winch, and take the e - asy way out... need to compete with others of the same aspiration. Yes the winch is more trouble but the soaring is pure and without interruption. If I wanted to compete with electric gliders, I'd build one... I don't so I won't. If my health ever gets bad enough, I probably will... If any of you want to compete with pure sailplanes, in LSF or otherwise, build or buy one, but don't force yourself on me otherwise.

Stayed out of this as long as I could stand it.

Jack

rdwoebke

Apr 18, 2009, 10:41 PM

:D
160/110 and going up, cries of anarchy and blasphemy scorch the interweb. .

Nice use of interweb, head. :D

The thought on the e-pilot turning 50 degrees off the launch line to fly straight into lift? Who would do that?

I definitely do that. I have flown 4 electric glider contests now (e Nats 3 times and the X5J Extereme in Muncie, IN once) and I was definitely doing that.

But then I also have flown a lot of hand launch contesting and we do that all the time too. We call it "turn and burn".

I am only asking them to allow me to use my plane to accomplish the existing tasks. I only want to use a different launching method. Why should this one thing foster the creation of an entirely different program?

Wayne,

The reality of the situation is that most likely a new program would have to be created. If you read our association's bylaws you will see that it is very difficult to modify the SAP within our bylaw's voting requirements. As well as getting a majority in favor vote from all the LSF voting eligable members that choose to vote, 2/3 of all the living L4s and L5s have to vote in favor of the change. And as you know in this country getting voter turnout is near impossible.

Ryan

Windependence

Apr 18, 2009, 11:16 PM

I definitely do that. I have flown 4 electric glider contests now (e Nats 3 times and the X5J Extereme in Muncie, IN once) and I was definitely doing that.

But then I also have flown a lot of hand launch contesting and we do that all the time too. We call it "turn and burn". Ryan

*sigh* This is what I am talking about. I never said how the electric guys do it at the electric contests. The point was, and always has been, would you consider doing it at a winch launch contest. If you launch like that at your electric contests then why do you not grab a hi-start and swing it around 120 degrees and fire your other ships right into the lift at the nats?!?

The answer to this is, I am just guessing here, because it is against the rules of a LSF/nats/most clubs TD contest rules. Everybody continues to bring up aspects of other contests rules to make some excuse why this wont work. I will be watching the nats closely this year and I fully expect to see LSF contest people launching every possible direction because that is what they do in e-contests and handlaunch and if it is ok there it must be ok everywhere. I officially give up trying to make this point. I will be watching to see the outcome but I'm not holding my breath.

Wayne

Not mad or angry, just frustrated.

aeajr

Apr 18, 2009, 11:41 PM

I was flying electric gliders today in an X5J contests format. Lots of fun, but I prefer my pure gliders off the winch.

But that does not mean that I don't support the addition of e-gliders for the sportsman program.

I don't favor mixing e-gliders with winched gliders in competition today and don't forsee it in the future.

rdwoebke

Apr 19, 2009, 12:05 AM

Not mad or angry, just frustrated.

Hey Wayne,

I'm not trying to frustrate you, I'm just trying to explain to you how things work. I have flown a lot of contests. At least 50. I'm not trying to use the "electrics can launch in any direction" to slam you or anyone else. I am definitely trying to explain to people the reality of what it would take to change the SAP and why I think it is unlikely that will ever happen. If that frustrates you or anyone else I appologize. To use an overly used phrase, it is what it is.

I'll explain a few more things, if you even care. You say:

I never said how the electric guys do it at the electric contests. The point was, and always has been, would you consider doing it at a winch launch contest. If you launch like that at your electric contests then why do you not grab a hi-start and swing it around 120 degrees and fire your other ships right into the lift at the nats?!?

Have you been to a contest? I'm guessig by the rest of your post that you have? You said that you'll be attending the Nats this year, I bet you'll have fun with that. If you have been to a glider contest, you will understand why you could not swing the high start around. Glider contests have a fixed amount of real estate (the field). There is typically one area for cars to the left or the right, one area for winches and another area for the landing zone right behind the winches. There is typically no real estate to setup a high start going another direction without physically intruding on the landing zones or the winches. In fact I have once helped a pilot at a contest who was having trouble flying off the winches setup a high start. This was me trying to be helpful. See, I'm not all bad even though I guess I frustrate you. :) We were very careful about the high start because in a winch contest there will either be a retriever that brings the winch line back or the pilots tap the winches down all the way to the turn around to prevent the lines crossing each other from the multiple winches. The high start we had to be careful about to make sure we carefully retrieved it right after launch so that it did not tangle with the winches.

At a side by side contest mixing e gliders and winch gliders (I'm not opposed to this, btw) there is not the logistics of tangling lines with the e gliders and the e gliders could easily turn and burn and not endanger anyone. To some degree even the winch launched models tend to alter launch direction. If there is a cross wind sometimes you will see a pilot going say left then altering course to the right to have the latter part of the winch launch be more into the wind. And you'll occasionaly see a turn and burn where a guy will come staright off of zoom turning a full 180 or a 90 to left or right to get towards a thermal.

Ryan "frustrating people on the internets since 1993" Woebkenberg

superskeg

Apr 19, 2009, 12:27 AM

Ralph Weaver

Apr 19, 2009, 11:04 AM

I like "electric sailplanes", some of my best friends are "electric sailplanes", I just don't want them to live in my neighborhood.

jtlsf5

Apr 19, 2009, 12:10 PM

Article XII Section 2 (Super majority) say 2/3rds of living 4s and 5s which is virtually impossible and way different than 2/3rds of cast votes of 4s and 5s. How will the number of 4s and 5s still alive be determined? Seems like this whole discussion of amending the SAP is moot.

Not correct, but thanks for making a key point via your personal interpretation of the bylaws. The wording of the relevant section of the bylaws was carefully chosen, and it does not say 2/3 of the living 4s and 5s. The exact wording is "That vote must also contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living Level IV’s and Level V’s."

Current may be interpreted to mean those that still have contact with LSF and/or those that can be contacted by LSF considering the due diligence that the Secretary is making to update the list. Those deemed not current (which may also mean no longer interested in participating in soaring or LSF-related matters) would likely not be counted in the available total.

The proposals review, potential amendment and pending vote will proceed. You can choose to participate in the process, or not.

rdwoebke

Apr 19, 2009, 12:17 PM

Can you tell us how many L4s and L5s are current and living?

And while you are here, can you clarify something else. The web page on the LSF site reads "The resulting final proposals will be submitted to a vote of the LSF level 4 and 5 members per the bylaws". But my read on the bylaws is that changes to the SAP require:

2/3 in favor vote from the baord
50% in favor vote from all eligable voting LSF members that choose to vote on the issue
2/3 in favor vote from current living L4s/L5s

But then I'm just soaring riff raff so I could be wrong about my interpertation of this.

Ryan

tonyestep

Apr 19, 2009, 01:15 PM

"...contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living ...."
======================
This language contains a catch, however. It does not say 2/3 of those who vote. Therefore an abstention is the same as a "no" vote.

This alone practically guarantees that the SAP will remain unchanged, and that if the board wants to establish a sportsman class and/or provide for electric launches, they'll have to do it through a separate program.

That program would be voted on by the entire membership. Actually, that outcome is what appears to be favored by most of the LSF members who have posted to various forums.

superskeg

Apr 19, 2009, 01:33 PM

Not correct, but thanks for making a key point via your personal interpretation of the bylaws. The wording of the relevant section of the bylaws was carefully chosen, and it does not say 2/3 of the living 4s and 5s. The exact wording is "That vote must also contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living Level IV’s and Level V’s."

Current may be interpreted to mean those that still have contact with LSF and/or those that can be contacted by LSF considering the due diligence that the Secretary is making to update the list. Those deemed not current (which may also mean no longer interested in participating in soaring or LSF-related matters) would likely not be counted in the available total.

The proposals review, potential amendment and pending vote will proceed. You can choose to participate in the process, or not.

Thank you for sharing your interperation of the bylaws however I still respectfully disagree. AR12 Sec 2 Seems pretty unambiguous to me. It says "current living" not "current and living" or just "current" or "active" I don't see any definition of what a current member is but AR VI Sec 6 reads:

An active member is defined as one of the following;
a. A member who has achieved Level II, III, IV, or V.
b. A member who has achieved Level I within the last twenty-four months, or has contacted LSF in writing (including LSF’s administration of contest) within the last twenty-four months.

So unless passed achievers are sending emails and letters to LSF from beyond the grave it seems the number of "current living" 4s and 5s and "active" 4s and 5s would be the same.

In addition AR12 Sec 2 states:
"That vote must also contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living Level IV’s and Level V’s"
Which I interperate as a non-vote by slightly more than 1/3 would cause the amendment to fail.
It's clear the founders wanted it to be hard to change the SAP. I have chosen to participate and encourage all members to do the same by reading the bylaws http://www.silentflight.org/docs/lsfbylaws.pdf
LSF V #79

SmokinJoe101

Apr 19, 2009, 01:36 PM

This level IV will vote no.

sj LSF 6401

aeajr

Apr 19, 2009, 05:37 PM

This level IV will vote no.

sj LSF 6401

vote no to what?

Are you against the formation of a sportsman program?

are you agianst a sportsman program including e-launch?

Are you against adding e-launch to the current SAP?

Really three things to consider, and I hope it is worded that way in its final form.

jtlsf5

Apr 19, 2009, 06:23 PM

This level IV will vote no.

sj LSF 6401

Joe,
Just what are you voting no to? Unless you know something I don't, the proposals on the website are open for possible revision and not finalized yet. That will occur after the comment period and review occur. Please wait until that time to register your fully informed vote.

JT

jrerickson

Apr 19, 2009, 06:24 PM

I've been staying out of this fray waiting for the dust to settle. If there is a proposal to change the SAP, I will vote no. I'm all for an electric launch and a sportsman program, just they need to be completely separate from the original SAP.

There are some excellent articles on the LSF website. I suggest everyone read "The LSF Story" by Scott Christensen, LSF V #1. From the read you get a sense of what the original pioneers had in mind when they drafted up the guidelines that are being so scrupulously analyzed at present.

The crux of the LSF spirit revolves around competition. This is clear both on a statistical as well as social plane. The scoring system encourages and rewards the attendance of large events. Why? Because the original founders knew the value of both competing against your fellow pilots, but also because of the social aspect. Not only is it fun, but you get to talk about techniques, see building methods up close, watch the constant evolution of design, and see how you can do under some pressure. You, as a pilot, evolve by going to contests.

For those that say that they can't attend a contest, then the current LSF program is not a good fit. I know when I was working on my Level V, I made sacrifices to attend contests. I had to go to 20+ person events to get my wins. At every one of these events I was flying against other Level V's, as well as many non LSF guys that had serious skills. Joe Wurts and Daryl Perkins come to mind. It took nearly two years to get those wins, but they were earned.

I also completely agree with a post that Kenny Sharp made about the psychological difference of flying an e-sailplane and flying a non powered glider. The proposed rules state that the motor is just to be used for the launch. I'm okay with that. But anyone who has flown an e-sailplane knows if they get in trouble they always have an out. You can go chasing that thermal way downwind and if it never develops, you just flip the switch and power out. A very different, and important difference. There is no bail out with a glider. You live (and walk) with your downwind decision.

Finally, for those who want to proceed in the Sportsman program I say fine, but I wonder what level of satisfaction they will have knowing there is a much more difficult program running alongside what they are doing.

It comes down to the individual and what motivates them. This is about flying model planes, after all. There have been a number of achievers who have taken this pursuit seriously and it has become much more than flying a toy plane. It's about initiative, dedication, perseverance, and comradeship.

John

LSF V#122

dharban

Apr 19, 2009, 07:12 PM

Finally, for those who want to proceed in the Sportsman program I say fine, but I wonder what level of satisfaction they will have knowing there is a much more difficult program running alongside what they are doing.
John

LSF V#122

I am an LSF Level IV just like you were once, living in nowhereville, traveling and continuing to work on my Level V. I may get it, I may not.

But I am retired and I fly on every good weather day. I am not one of those guys that just goes out and burns circles in the sky. Every time I fly, I practice. I cannot imagine going out to fly as much as I do without some structure. After a while it would just get old.

So in answer to your question as to "what satisfaction (someone who proceeds with the sportsman program) will have knowing there is a much more difficult program running alongside....", the answer from my perspective is that I personally would very much enjoy a program which consisted of structured tasks which I could mix in with my practice. And I think there are certainly others who would like to have some structured objectives to add interest to simple random flying sessions. I could easily enjoy both.

It would be my hope that in structuring a Sportsman Program that the tasks which make it up would be more difficult than the existing tasks in the SAP, but whatever it might end up to be, many of us would welcome a Sportsman Program to provide a structured challenge compatible with the real time, geographic and economic factors which face many participants.

After all, there are many of us who are comfortable with the prospect that somewhere, out in that big, big world there is someone who is better than we are at every possible thing. We take immense satisfaction in what we can do rather than lose sleep about what we cannot do. And every morning when the feet hit the floor we do what we can do to do everything a little better.

Happy Landings,

Don
LSF IV #2763

RicVaughn

Apr 19, 2009, 10:04 PM

I'm just a little confused, "electric gliders always have and out and can search WAY downwind knowing they have an OUT.

Just what are we talking about? Going out and flying around or contest? Agreed, the e-sailplane does have a way out of trouble, but in a contest what's the difference? A zero and have you plane for the next round, or a zero and a pile of scrap? Your score is the same, just your wallet suffers.

Ric

jrerickson

Apr 19, 2009, 10:46 PM

rdwoebke

Apr 19, 2009, 11:10 PM

vote no to what?

There are some people that will vote no to any changes. That is just how they opperate. There are also some that hate electrics so much that they will vote not to any inclusion of any sort into the LSF.

For the people that favor change luckily for them they don't have to sway all of those people, just enough of the other people to meet the voting requirements.

Really if the changes are just new programs no voting should be neccesary. The LSF president has the power to impliment new programs or comitees so long as they don't interfere with the bylaws or the SAP.

That said if the proposal is an electric program this means that either there is no bylaws change but then all electric flyers would have to complete L1 with a non e-glider (per bylawas VI section 2 item D) to be actual LSF members or the bylaws would need to be changed.

Ryan

dharban

Apr 20, 2009, 08:54 AM

It is not clear from what has been published so far if the LSF’s intent with the Sportsman Soaring Achievement Program is simply to drop the contest requirement or to change the lineup of tasks. I would hope that they are considering beefing up the tasks.

One possibility might be to replace the competition requirements with something which emulates in some way the competition requirements of the existing SAP. For example, they might consider requiring the completion of a series of Precision Duration Tests.

At each level from Level II and up an aspirant would be required to complete six Precision Duration Tests defined as follows:

1. A Precision Duration Test consists of three consecutive flights flown on one day which require the aspirant to fly a specified task time for each flight and to land within a specified distance of a predetermined spot within a specified time limit from the task time.

2. For a flight to qualify as a Precision Duration Test attempt the aspirant must declare his intent to begin the “Test” prior to launching the first flight.

3. Only one attempt to complete a Precision Duration Test may be made on any particular day.

4. The successful completion of a Precision Duration Test would require that each of the three consecutive flights meet the task time and precision time and landing requirements.

5. At each level the aspirant would be required to successfully complete six Precision Duration Tests.

6. The task requirements for the Precision Duration Tests would become increasingly difficult for each successive level.

Perhaps the requirements could look something like this:

Level II – Task time = 5 minutes, Landing Distance = 3 meters, Time Tolerance = +/- 15 seconds

Level III – Task Time = 7 minutes, Landing Distance = 1.5 meters, Time Tolerance = +/- 10 seconds

Level IV – Task Time = 10 minutes, Landing Distance = .5 meters, Time Tolerance = +/- 5 seconds

Level V – Task Time = 12 minutes, Landing Distance = .25 meters, Time Tolerance = +/- 2 seconds

Now I don’t know if the numbers are right, but they illustrate the principle. (And for the flamethrowers out there, I’m not the least bit interested in discussing whether these are appropriate “substitutes” for competition or whether there is any “substitute” for competition.) I will stipulate that there is no real substitute for competition. The intent of this suggestion is to come up with an enhancement to the program which might be interesting and challenging for participants. No more. No less.

The existing SAP will be what it is. And if it is approved, the SSAP will be what it will be. In the end, neither will “prove” much of anything other than that the participants are blessed with the time and money to enjoy a great sport and the company of great people. Feel free to comment on the concept and/or the numbers. Let’s try to avoid debating whether the SSAP is the real thing or whether “real men” would even consider the SSAP.

Happy Landings,

Don
LSF IV #2763

rdwoebke

Apr 20, 2009, 09:00 AM

I too included in my feedback to the board that there should be additional tasks added to the SSAP. I suggested ladders would be a good task to add (say a 5 minute ladder in one day to the 30 minute rung) or perhaps F3B distance runs for the higher levels.

Ryan

aeajr

Apr 20, 2009, 09:21 AM

I'm talking about flying around in general. I haven't seen the final proposals regarding substituting the self propelled launch versus a winch launch, but if it were to achieve a thermal task ala LSF, I think you would take more chances than you would with a glider.

If it's for a contest, are you talking about landings in the same way as traditional LSF, on a graduated tape? I just haven't seen any e-sailplanes contests around here. Plenty of guys fly the planes in our club, but we don't compete against each other.
John

I fly both pure gliders and electric gliders. I have flown both in club contests but only compete at the regional level in pure gliders.

I teach on pure gliders and e-glider. Frankly I prefer to teach on e-gliders as the pilots get a LOT more air time. I find they learn to fly much more quickly, gain confidence much more quicly and learn to themal much more quicly. And there is no extra equipment needed for them to practice.

I treat the movement to pure gliders as a graduation, a promotion. That motor is like a safety net. Once you are good enough, you can join the big boys and learn to work without a net. :) Most come over to pure gliders in time. But I also feel most would not have started on pure gliders. I know I would not have started on pure gliders.

As for competitions

From what I have seen and read, most e-glider TD contests are run in a very similar fashion to pure glider contests, once the launch is done. Duration times are stated and typically there is a landing task of some kind. Whether it is within circles, along a runway strip or along a tape is just a detail. Of course you don't generally dork land an e-glider so hitting the "spot" may be harder with an e-glider. ;)

Like pure gliders where some contests use hi-starts, some winches and some hand launch, so it is the with e-gliders. There are classes based on launch systems (motor/battery/prop) and, I imagine, wing spans.

Of course there are additional options available to how you run any contest whether they are pure or e-glider. In some forms of pure glider contests you can relaunch. And in some forms of e-glider contests you can restart the motor. But in any contest, all participants are governed by the same rules. If you are in an e-glider contest you have the same options as everyone else. And if you are in a pure glider contest, you have the same options as everyone else.

I am NOT an advocate of having e-gliders and pure gliders competing against each other. But I don't think any of the LSF proposals call for that.

In my opinion, the current SAP program is the "navy seals" program for RC Soaring. As such, those who have completed it are recognized for their outstanding acheivement. Truly these are the best of the best! It is an exclusive club. I say let's keep it that way.

But it is not a program that has attracted a high percentage of RC soaring pilots. The Sportsman SAP creates a new program that is clearly within the LSF charter and invites in a huge audiance that does not currently feel welcome.

I am pretty new to soaring, having only flown for 6 years, but if my personal experience, and my experience with teaching new pilots carries over, I think you will see that the SSAP will eventually draw more participants into the SAP program. Once the Sportsman is confident and has achieved the best he can in the sportsman program, he will be looking for that next challenge and that will be the SAP. I think you will see more pilots willing to enter into contests with more contests being organized for both electric and pure gliders.

Best regards,
Ed Anderson - LSF 8044 Level 2 ( mailed today)

rcbrust

Apr 20, 2009, 10:08 AM

I treat the movement to pure gliders as a graduation, a promotion. That motor is like a safety net. Once you are good enough, you can join the big boys and learn to work without a net. :) Most come over to pure gliders in time. But I also feel most would not have started on pure gliders. I know I would not have started on pure gliders.

In my opinion, this is the kind of mindset that makes the LSF seem standoffish to many people. To me, soaring is soaring. There's no better or worse kind or pure or unpure kind. It just comes down to what type you happen to like.

Heck, if you want to talk purity, then when you're done using the crutch of a winch and zooming to 750ft launch heights, try graduating to hand launch where every flight starts around 100-200 feet. :)

Randy

jtlsf5

Apr 20, 2009, 11:57 AM

In my opinion, this is the kind of mindset that makes the LSF seem standoffish to many people. To me, soaring is soaring. There's no better or worse kind or pure or unpure kind. It just comes down to what type you happen to like.

Heck, if you want to talk purity, then when you're done using the crutch of a winch and zooming to 750ft launch heights, try graduating to hand launch where every flight starts around 100-200 feet. :)

Randy

Isn't your bias (suggestion) just another symptom of the overall problem? Everyone has their own idea of what is best for LSF and soaring in general. The only common denominator is that personal preferences appear to dictate what is right, pure, and proper.

Trying to come up with a simple, straightforward compromise has turned into an interesting exercise in anarchy. We (the board) have yet to view the official feedback to the website, and it will be looked at with an eye to modify or replace our initial proposals. At that point it goes to a vote and is accepted or not.

I won't try to predict the future, just let it play itself out.
JT

Bernd Brunner

Apr 20, 2009, 01:52 PM

Two points from my side:

1. launch method: if we change the rules, why not thinking about other launch methods? Why not allow aero-towing too? IMO the result is more pure soaring than after launching with an e-glider - no "security net". It´s no problem to control the max launch height, cause variometer with downlink like the picolario are quite common.
Btw: for me using an e-glider is like flying with an asterisk.... but it´s the future.
My wish and suggestion:
Allow electric assisted launch.
Allow aero-towing.
An electric-assist launch or an launch by aero-towing must be to an altitude no higher than 600 feet above ground level. This has to be controlled by an altitude recorder or an altimeter with voice announcement.

2. landing: here in germany we have much more e-glider contests than contest for pure glider. The landing task is landing along a fixed landing tape of appr. 45ft. The distance from the glider nose to the tape is used for calculating the points. This is the prefered way, cause no one really likes spot landings (not only with e-gliders). This task is also used for contests with large scale gliders.
-> So why not allow to choose: spot-landing or along a fixed landing tape ?

Bernd
LSF #7840

SmokinJoe101

Apr 20, 2009, 02:17 PM

Joe,
Just what are you voting no to? Unless you know something I don't, the proposals on the website are open for possible revision and not finalized yet. That will occur after the comment period and review occur. Please wait until that time to register your fully informed vote.

JT

JT,

I am for leaving the LSF as it is, cuz as it stands it means something, there is a level of pride, effort, status & acomplishment that goes with the badge.

NOW I have a insentive to finish my level V as I do not want an asterisk next to my V. Just the two hour left to go.

sj

dharban

Apr 20, 2009, 03:42 PM

JT,

I am for leaving the LSF as it is, cuz as it stands it means something, there is a level of pride, effort, status & acomplishment that goes with the badge.

NOW I have a insentive to finish my level V as I do not want an asterisk next to my V. Just the two hour left to go.

sj

Joe,

None of us knows what the LSF is actually going to propose, so we might all consider keeping our powder a little dry. A couple of points, though:

1. There are two separate ideas circulating out there. One is the development of a second and distinct Sportsman Soaring Achievement Program to address the needs of those who have voiced the desire for an achievement program that does not include competition requirements. A am a Level IV and I personally don't see how a separate sportsman's program effects me one way or the other. There is no asterisk, no stigma, nothing which a sportsman program would attach to the existing program. It is, and in my opinion should be, a separate stand alone program.

2. The second idea is somewhat more vague and suggests exploring ways to incorporate e-Sailplanes into one or both of the conventional sailplane programs (the existing SAP and the Sportsman SAP). I am an immense advocate of e-Sailplanes and would love to see the development of achievement programs for e-Sailplanes. We are actually exploring some ideas locally along these lines. But I would not favor mixing, in any way, programs for conventional sailplanes and e-sailplanes. I would support the LSF moving down separate paths to support e-soaring. I am sure everyone has a different opinion on this.

The LSF has done great things over the years to advance RC sailplanes -- and there is every reason to believe that it will continue to do so. For those who believe that the LSF as it is now constituted represents the last, greatest and only idea which should ever be incorporated in our sport, I would ask you to consider the future of any organization or activity which is unwilling and/or unable to change to accommodate the future.

The LSF has been designated by the AMA as the Special Interest Group (SIG) which represents the interests of the entire RC soaring community and (correct me if I am wrong) the RC e-soaring community. Without intending in any way to demean the fine efforts of the LSF, however, its primary (almost exclusive) interests and activities are competition related and/or related to a competition oriented achievement program. The LSF really doesn't have much to offer to someone who is uninterested in competition. The fact is that there are many more people involved in sport soaring and e-soaring than there are in competition oriented activities. It would appear to me that the needs of RC soaring enthusiasts who are interested in competition are being met to the greatest extent that can reasonably be expected. Threads like this and others that have proceeded it, however, have identified a part of the soaring community which is looking for some organized activity which does not include competition.

It is not written anywhere that the LSF has to do anything. But I do not see the proposal for a Sportsman SAP as being a threat in any way to those among us who are interested in competition and the competition oriented achievement program (I happen to be one of those people). I do see the Sportsman SAP as a way not just for the LSF organization to reach out, but for all of us who are competition oriented to reach out to those who, for whatever reason, are not interested or able to participate in competition activities. The Sportsman SAP is a way for the LSF to expand its reach and to strengthen the sport. Heck, who knows, building bridges to the Sportsman folks might end up producing a few more Competition folks -- it sure won't produce less. And it might strengthen participation at the club level where membership numbers mean something -- especially with respect to obtaining and keeping flying sites.

The Sportsman SAP represents an opportunity to come up with something which may broaden the appeal of our activity and add credibility to the notion that it is an activity that is well supported for all soaring enthusiasts at the national level. The decision which we make on this will determine for the foreseeable future whether the LSF represents only the narrow interests of competition flyers or of a broader community which also includes sport flyers.

As a Level V aspirant, I would rather take a chance that broadening the base of interested people might spin off a little more interest in competition than worry whether a separate SSAP will somehow demean the stature of my SAP accomplishments.

Happy Landings,

Don
LSF IV #2763

neonbutterfly

Apr 20, 2009, 05:16 PM

Good post Don...i have been following this and other threads and agree that the LSF needs to expand...to welcome all soaring pilots into the fold.....and Don stated this very eloquently!!!!....

i'm sure the new programs will adequately challenge each pilot and will reflect the goals of the LSF.....challenge and accomplishment are the key words here....no matter what type of sailplane you are flying......

Bob Crane LSF 186

aeajr

Apr 20, 2009, 08:56 PM

Isn't your bias (suggestion) just another symptom of the overall problem? Everyone has their own idea of what is best for LSF and soaring in general. The only common denominator is that personal preferences appear to dictate what is right, pure, and proper.

Trying to come up with a simple, straightforward compromise has turned into an interesting exercise in anarchy. We (the board) have yet to view the official feedback to the website, and it will be looked at with an eye to modify or replace our initial proposals. At that point it goes to a vote and is accepted or not.

I won't try to predict the future, just let it play itself out.
JT

I don't think so Jim. I take no offense at people disagreeing with me. By tossing ideas around, new ideas emerge and sometimes better ideas.

For example, originally I supported the idea of changing the SAP to include e-gliders. But after reading a lot of viewpoints, I have changed my position on this. I am open to the ideas of others.

Change is always a little scary.

I sell computer systems for a living. Every time I sell something, I change someone's life. So there are those who resist the new and those who embrace it. Generally those who resist are invested in the past and how it used to be. Those who embrace it are looking for how it could be. Change is not always good, but it is always good to look at the options.

There should be room for many views and there should be room for all types of soaring in the LSF.

But that is just my opinion. :)

aeajr

Apr 20, 2009, 09:05 PM

In my opinion, this is the kind of mindset that makes the LSF seem standoffish to many people. To me, soaring is soaring. There's no better or worse kind or pure or unpure kind. It just comes down to what type you happen to like.

Heck, if you want to talk purity, then when you're done using the crutch of a winch and zooming to 750ft launch heights, try graduating to hand launch where every flight starts around 100-200 feet. :)

Randy

Would you please tell me, what was it about my statement that offended you?

Since I am one of the people who seek to expand the LSF to include sportsman and e-gliders, your comments caught me by surprise.

I agree there is no better or worse, they are all soaring, but they ARE different in that they each have a somewhat different set of skills required. That different set of skills is primarily around the launch. There are also differences as to what your options are when you get into trouble, so other skills have to be developed.

Thermal soaring and slope soaring are both soaring and they are both great, but they are different. They require different skills and different learning.

So, tell me what upset you, I really want to know.

Ray Hayes

Apr 20, 2009, 09:39 PM

These are the LSF porgrams I believe would do the most to promote our wonderful hobby and increase LSF's influence and following of new and current dedicated RC Sailplane pilots. The new programs would most likely be aspired to by current LSF members, which is good, but also open the doors to new people.

1. Establish an achievement program for e power Sport Flyers without contest requirements. Requires a different set of tasks from the original LSF program.
There may be a need for a seperate e power program with required contests. From what I have witnessed, the USA e power group are not contest orientated.

2. Establish an achievement program for Sport Flyers without contest requirements and launching exclusively by winch, hand launch or hi start. Also requires a new set of tasks.

3. Retain the original LSF Achievement Program without change or additions.

I offer this motto for the current LSF board that is taking progressive steps to answer the call from some, asking for inclusion in a different way to the LSF family.

" There they go, I must hurry, I am their leader "

The LSF has not always been a Sig to AMA, the LSF has a very long History of sponsoring wounderfully successful LSF contests starting in Califorina and including the LSF/Nats contests now held at AMA's Muncie, IN location. The LSF, by it's nature is focused on holding an annual National level contest, we who attend and those that don't are blessed with the opportunity to spend time with fellow enthusiasts. The scope of the LSF/NATS is very wide, from electric to hand launch and most everything in between. There is something for everyone. The past and present dedicated volunteers do a wonderful service to the hobby at the LSF/Nats event and are to be applauded for their time and good work.

The offering of new programs is new ground for this board, it will be intertesting to see what is offered up for voting. I still find it hard to believe the board wants to include e power in the original LSF Achievement program, just blows me away.

Ray

LSF 803

Sky Bench
http://www.skybench.com

tonyestep

Apr 20, 2009, 09:51 PM

Ray, it's all gonna turn out fine. The proposals that will finally get adopted will be much as you outlined above. The SAP isn't going to be modified. Some sort of sportsman's class will emerge, and maybe something that allows electric launch, but they won't feed into the regular SAP. After the comment period is closed, the board will post alternative proposals, and the membership will vote, and everybody will be happy.

Ray Hayes

Apr 20, 2009, 10:24 PM

Ray,

Have you been privy to the proposals and input e-mails that have been sent into the LSF?

No, but looks like Tony has. I am waiting a reply from Mike Stump on another matter.

Ray
Sky Bench
http://www.skybench.com

flying_flip

Apr 21, 2009, 12:29 AM

SAP - should in my opinion, stay as it has for the past 40 years.
It is legacy.

SSAP - Go for it. A sportsman program is a good idea for those unable (or unwilling) to compete. No idea what the 5 levels would entail (not outlined in the proposal), but must be separate and distinct from the SAP.

eSAP/eSSAP - Separate again. With or without competition.
I have no issues with electric flight, but it is different enough, to be separate.
If the Electric Soaring is growing, this will be a fast Program to grow.

I will be voting to:
1. Yes. Start a separate Sportsman program.
2. No. to E-powered launch being added to the Legacy LSF program.

Phil
LSF Level 4

Bernd Brunner

Apr 21, 2009, 12:57 AM

What´s wrong with my post, that it´s not worth to comment??

Is LSF about soaring, which includes motorless(!) scale-ships too, or is it about soaring with TD ships (electric or not-electric) only? Or is soaring only with plane which are launched by high-start/winch? Why not aero-towing as alternative launch method?

And what about the precision landing? Why not along a tape? Is it not challenging?

I agree with Phil: Don´t change the SAP, but add something new: SSAP/eSAP.

Bernd

rdwoebke

Apr 21, 2009, 08:26 AM

What´s wrong with my post, that it´s not worth to comment??

Those are fine ideas. I'd suggest you make those comments to the board at that info @ lsf address.

While we are suggesting aero tow can we get rocket boosted added too?

Ray Hayes

Apr 21, 2009, 09:13 AM

Alert - Sportsman, Electric Soaring, And The LSF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to requests to develop a soaring accomplishment program (SAP) for soaring pilots that do not wish to include competition in the program, the LSF Board has developed a plan/program variation to address these needs. The details of the program may be found very soon on the LSF website:
( www.silentflight.org ).

The board has also developed a plan to include electric-assist launch as a valid method to launch a sailplane for the purposes of accomplishing tasks included in the SAP.

As required by the LSF bylaws, any change to the SAP must follow a process that is outlined in the bylaws.

To that end the board will:
1. Post the LSF Board proposal for a modified SAP on the LSF website
2. Post the LSF Board proposal for electric-assist launch on the LSF website
3. Request comments and/or alternate proposals by LSF members for a period of 30 days after the LSF Board proposals are posted on the web site.
4. Evaluate comments and counter proposals for a period of 14 days following the close of the 30 day comment period.
5. Determine the final proposed changes to the SAP.
6. Submit the final proposals to a vote by the LSF 4 and 5 members (per the bylaws), requiring a simple majority to pass
7. The result of the vote will be communicated to the membership at large and (if passed) the proposal(s) will be incorporated into the bylaws.

On behalf of the LSF Board,
Jim Deck LSF Secretary

__________________________________________________ ________

The board has also developed a plan to include electric-assist launch as a valid method to launch a sailplane for the purposes of accomplishing tasks included in the SAP.
__________________________________________________ ________

The board has also developed a plan to include electric-assist launch as a valid method to launch a sailplane for the purposes of accomplishing tasks included in the SAP.
__________________________________________________ ________

Ray
Sky Bench
http://www.skybench.com

tonyestep

Apr 21, 2009, 10:43 AM

One important footnote to the text quoted above:

The voting process refers to proposed modifications to the SAP. For other matters, the voting would be conducted among the entire membership.

There seems to be zero possibility that the level 4 and 5 holders will vote to modify the SAP as recommended. However, the establishment of a sportsman's program that does not change the existing SAP should and no doubt will be referred to the whole membership, as will the establishment of any proposed propellor-driven program.

nuevo

Apr 21, 2009, 11:27 AM

There seems to be zero possibility that the level 4 and 5 holders will vote to modify the SAP as recommended.
You may very well be right, but unless you've done a survey, I'd say your statement is premature.

rdwoebke

Apr 21, 2009, 11:35 AM

The voting process refers to proposed modifications to the SAP. For other matters, the voting would be conducted among the entire membership.

I still contend that per the bylaws all eligable voting LSF members should have a vote in this (not just the L4s/L5s, but their votes sort of count more due to the extra super majority required to change the SAP). But then I'm not a lawyer and I'm soaring riff raff.

unless you've done a survey, I'd say your statement is premature.

This is the internets! Permature statements based on conjecture (and I agree with Tony and have said basically the same thing) is what this thing is all about. ;)

Ryan

tonyestep

Apr 21, 2009, 01:36 PM

"...unless you've done a survey, I'd say your statement is premature..."
====================
We shall see. Meanwhile, I stand by my prediction, which is not total conjecture, but is based on the posts here and RCSE. Few of those eligible to vote have spoken up in favor of modifying the SAP, although many support some sort of parallel program.

Moreover, the rule sez that 2/3 of all living and current level 4s and 5s would have to vote in favor; those who don't vote will in effect be counted as a no vote. If turnout is, say, 60%, then the proposed modification to the SAP will automatically lose-- and turnout is likely to be much lower than that.

You've read the posts, too, and you have a vote (which I don't, having remained at level 2 for over 3 decades). What do you think are the chances of the SAP being changed to allow electric launches and crossovers from a sportsman's program? Do you think they're something other than zero?

nuevo

Apr 21, 2009, 02:03 PM

Interesting point about the That vote must also contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living Level IV’s and Level V’s.

I presumed that meant 2/3'rds of those eligible, who cast a vote. If they require 2/3rds of those eligible to vote, then the chance of any change to the SAP... ever... would be zero.

rdwoebke

Apr 21, 2009, 02:08 PM

Moreover, the rule sez that 2/3 of all living and current level 4s and 5s would have to vote in favor; those who don't vote will in effect be counted as a no vote. If turnout is, say, 60%, then the proposed modification to the SAP will automatically lose-- and turnout is likely to be much lower than that.

I presumed that meant 2/3'rds of those eligible, who cast a vote. If they require 2/3rds of those eligible to vote, then the chance of any change to the SAP... ever... would be zero.

One of our board members had a comment on the Current Living 2/3 dealeo here:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12061946&postcount=64

His read on the bylaws does not jive with what Tony threw out as an example. It does not really jive with how I read them but then I'm soaring riff raff.

Ryan

tonyestep

Apr 21, 2009, 02:30 PM

..His read on the bylaws does not jive with what Tony threw out ...
==========
Yes it does. JT quotes the bylaws, then points out that there may be some living members who are not current, and hence would not be included in the count. I agree that that is what the bylaws say. JT does not comment on the question of non-voters or abstainers, but simply quotes the relevant language:

'The exact wording is "That vote must also contain affirmative votes of two-thirds (2/3) of the then current living Level IV’s and Level V’s."'

That is perfectly clear. A requirement for an affirmative vote of 2/3 of those current and alive means that if 1/3 don't vote, then the proposal is defeated.

However, I think this is moot. My prediction is that the original proposals will be withdrawn, and a set of proposals like those submitted by Tom Broeski or Dave Corven will be substituted, leaving the SAP intact and establishing some parallel programs. I think those will pass.

Of course this is just talk. Jon is 100% right about that. But within a few weeks, all will be revealed.