Originally Posted by
Mayhemxpc
Some pilots will comply, perhaps many, and in fact many (however "many" is defined) have already done so. The question is the effect of those who will drop out of the program. It will certainly affect the capacity for program execution. Even a few dropping out will have some impact.
The argument that we should accept this because others have done so is a classic logical fallacy. (Ad populum.) It is not a valid/rational argument for doing something. Yes, most of the information is already out there. That does not justify exposing the information again -- or justify collecting it even if there were no risk of exposure. Why is this personal information necessary to reasonably preclude misconduct? What specific elements of information are necessary? Can the risk of potential misconduct be managed without collecting this information? What proof/data exists to support requiring that data? Being somewhat familiar with other YPP -- and in particular the BSA, which I believe the model for all of the others -- none of the three differences are any different than other programs, and we have NO assurance that the data collected will be restricted or limited in duration.
As I have said before, I am a big believer in training. Training in this matter can help you avoid unintentionally doing something that would get you in trouble -- and thereby avoid false accusation, help you to spot potential problems around you, and let you know who should be informed of potential impropriety. It is my hypothesis that this should be sufficient. I am, however, open to rational proofs that more is needed to achieve the desired outcome.
The pilots and others who are choosing not to disclose their information are, as far as I can tell, not opting out because they have something to hide, or because they do not want the burden of additional training and filling out a form. They object because they believe this program is wrong.