TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

What are pro and con thoughts on grandfathering folks into the eSAP? Early on one of the proposals discussed allowing folks a one time transfer between the SAP and the eSAP. An example might be a LSF 3 that has became stalled on LSF4 due to no longer having the ability to winch or high start launch. Opinions on giving folks a one time option to transfer work already completed?

Ryan

Ryan,
I am having trouble understanding why the need for this option. I was under the impression that the programs were separate. I would presume that at some point an ESAP achiever might get so drawn in to soaring that they are inspired to finish their SAP.. If it were me I would want the right to go back and finish what I started. LJ

I personally like the idea but only and only if the eSAP program does not allow motor restarts unless the model is on the ground.

Curtis

I am currently a Level IV. This idea would be a wonderful thing for me or some other Level IV and would most certainly be the path chosen by the first successful ESAP Level V -- and it would strip that opportunity from the first person who really deserves it, the first guy to actually complete the ESAP.

I would not support a "new" program that would deny the opportunity to be the first legitimate ESAP Level V to someone who actually earns it.

Happy Landings,

Don

LarryJolly wrote: I am having trouble understanding why the need for this option.

It has been asked about so I thought I would bring it up for discussion. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

LarryJolly wrote: I was under the impression that the programs were separate. I would presume that at some point an ESAP achiever might get so drawn in to soaring that they are inspired to finish their SAP.. If it were me I would want the right to go back and finish what I started. LJ

The eSAP is a new program so it can be whatever we want it to be. We can have it interact with the SAP (or not). We could say that you can grandfather work in, we could say that you can grandfather your 2nd most recent completed level in (so L5 can come in as a 4, 3 can come in as a 2), or maybe some idea not yet had.

There isn't any mechanism available to prevent a person in the SAP from finishing it. So the idea (assuming anhyone likes it) would be a one time option to grandfather into the eSAP but without a bylaws change to the SAP (super duper duper difficult as we all know) there isn't any mechanism to forbid a LSF member from completing the program. The option would be a one time you can convert your work now to the eSAP as opposed to convert your work now but then also keep working the SAP, finish a level, then ask to convert that again to the eSAP now that you were a L3 and are now a L4.

Ryan

dHarban wrote: This idea would be a wonderful thing for me or some other Level IV

I had a feeling that a number of folks might feel that way. Some folks might feel that if the eSAP is administered by the LSF, has the same tasks and format as the SAP, and grants them membership in the LSF then previous work done should count towards the eSAP.

A counter point might be that the eSAP should be a completely new form of membership in the LSF and a new numbering scheme like how it works when a person completes the SAP (if they complete L1 a 2nd time they get a 2nd LSF number).

dHarban wrote: it would strip that opportunity from the first person who really deserves it, the first guy to actually complete the ESAP.

What if the new program had some separate mechanism to recognize people for completing all levels of it start to finish?

Ryan

Curtis Suter wrote: I personally like the idea but only and only if the eSAP program does not allow motor restarts unless the model is on the ground.

Can you expound a bit why you feel that way?

Thanks!

Ryan

Because I misunderstood your proposal. If it is still two separate programs then I think it is possibly a good idea but I have to think on it a bit more. Perhaps only up through Level III. If not then all 135 level V's are already finished with the eSAP.

I still think with no motor starts we should just be one program! But I realize only Washington DC will/can break and not follow rules set before us without impunity.

Curtis

Curtis Suter wrote: I still think with no motor starts we should just be one program!

Based on the comments I have read from members and heard from talking to members I don't think that there is support for changing the SAP. I could be wrong though.

Ryan

I do not think it is changeable via the bylaws set forth. In other words the SAP is written on stone tablets.

I will vote for what follows the bylaws and will have to deeply think over each word as is provided on the ballot. I hope it is something I can approve. If anyone thinks e-soaring isn't growing rapidly they aren't paying attention to model sales, new pilots and new contest locations popping up all over the nation.

Curtis