| EASTERN SOARING LEAGUE MINUTES
OCTOBER 8, 2005
Submitted by Paul Bell, Secretary / Treasurer
The end of season meeting was held at the Best Western Dutch Colony, Reading, PA on October 8, 2005. There were about 20 members in attendance
1. The outgoing Secretary’s notes were read for the 2004 ESL EOS meeting.
2. The Treasurer’s report was submitted and accepted.
3. A proposed 2006 Schedule was submitted for review and after some minor modifications, the following is the potential 2006 schedule:
May 6,7 BASS HLG (Tentative)
May 20,21 F3J, Tom Kiesling CD (Tentative)
June 3,4 IGLGF (Not ESL)
June 10,11 SKSS 1
June 17,18 Polecat Challenge HLG
June 24,25 LISF 1 (John Hauff CD)
July 8,9 DBSF
July 17, 18 NATS (Estimated)
July 24, 25
Aug 12,13 CRRC
Aug 19.20 CASA HLG
Aug 26,27 SJSF 1 (Questionable)
Sep 9.10 CASA Open
Sep 16,17 SJSF HLG
Sep 23,24 LISF 2 (Frank Strommer CD)
Oct 7,8 ESL EOS
4. A long discussion centered around an initiative to attract new members and to increase ESL contest attendance.
a. A proposal was made by Tom Kiesling and Paul Bell to create a new Public Relations position (It was not discussed as to whether this position would become a member of the Board of Directors).
b. As an aid to the person selected, the following recommendations were included in the proposal:
i. Advertise contests in online discussion groups (RCSE, RC Groups)
ii. Advertise ESL, contest schedule and local club information in Model Aviation Magazine.
iii. Notify local newspapers of upcoming contests.
iv. Develop and distribute an ESL information handout to clubs
v. Develop and distribute an "ESL membership card" that includes the season schedule to clubs.
vi. Recommend that ESL member clubs define a "spectator area" at their club contests, as well as at ESL contests, to be staffed by a club member to answer questions, distribute information, help to identify visitors and potential members and as a safety measure.
c. The ESL treasury will fund Public Relations activities when the new Public Relations representative provides a plan identifying the amount of funding required for each effort.
d. The Board of Directors will approve the funding.
e. Jeff Steifel volunteered to be the Public Relations Representative for the first year.
5. Paul Bell proposed that raffles be conducted at each ESL contest as a means of attracting pilots to return to the contests and to attract new pilots.
a. An award of either cash or RC equipment was discussed (RC equipment was considered to be much more attractive than cash).
b. It was decided to leave the choice to the discretion of the ESL contest-sponsoring club.
c. It was agreed that this effort would be funded up to $100 per thermal duration contest day from the ESL treasury and would be limited to the 2006 contest season only.
6. Tom Broeski proposed the creation of a Master class. After discussion the proposal was voted down (1 For, 9 Against, 4 Don't Care)
7. Dale Hart proposed the creation of a Novice class, which was accepted after extensive discussion. The class will be designed to attract new, or beginning flyers and would include the following ground rules:
a. Awards will be limited to inexpensive framed certificates (no expensive awards)
b. Scores will not be mixed with Expert/Sportsman, but will be maintained by the ESL Scorekeeper.
c. No fee will be paid to ESL for Novice participants.
d. A Novice will advance to the Sportflyer Class after 12 contest days, or upon the request of the Novice flyer.
e. Tasks will be developed by the sponsoring club Contest Director and will be aimed at shorter flight duration times (for example five minutes) and easier landings (for example, in/out)
f. Launch assistance will be allowed, including control of the transmitter during launch by other than the Novice pilot.
g. There will be no limitations on aircraft type than can be flown.
h. The proposal for the Novice class was accepted.
8. It was proposed that a man-on-man (MoM) contest format be recommended to all ESL Contest Directors as a means of making the ESL contests more fair than some of the current formats
a. MoM was considered fairest test of flying skills
b. Group call up was considered to be the least attractive format
c. The MoM format was strongly recommended for all ESL contests (and was tried at the 2005 EOS using retrievers – which worked out very well.)
d. Contest Directors experienced in running MoM contests volunteered to offer tips and recommendations.
9. Tom Kiesling recommended that we adopt a general policy of mentoring less experienced pilots. Some suggestions on how to formulate a mentoring program could include:
a. Pair up more experienced pilots with less experienced for timing
b. Offer a clinic (of about one hour) at the completion of the Saturday competition
c. Advertise the clinic in contest flyer
d. Clinic subjects might include:
i. Sailplane setup
ii. Launching techniques
iii. Tips on thermal flying
iv. Have an Expert test fly and evaluate a sailplane
e. The clinic could be run by visiting club members to off-load local club members who are conducting the contest.
f. Tom’s proposal was accepted.
10. There was some discussion regarding ways to reclassify the current Expert and Sportflyer composition.
a. At issue is the very real problem that some newly minted Expert flyers have very little likelihood of placing high in the Expert ranks.
b. Consideration was given to replacing the current advancement system by ranking all pilots based on average score at the end of the season and then selecting some percentage of the total fliers to be Experts and the remainder (not including Novices) to be Sportflyers.
c. Details of this approach remain to be worked out pending an evaluation by the ESL Scorekeeper in concert with Dale Hart.
Post meting discussion