Young Eagles and Background Security Checks

[tomkk]

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.

Each to their own. Not interested in arguing the point, but if anyone from headquarters does follow this forum I just wanted wanted them to know not everyone shares many of the negative views expressed here. Have there been many good points raised here? Of course. Should the policy be revised to alleviate some of the impractical aspects and acknowledge our rather unique environment? Sure. Is the policy likely to be scrapped? Not likely. I don't care for it either, but it seems to be a sign of the times. Personally, though, I'm not unhappy enough about it to drop out. YMMV

[MauiLvrs]

it seems to be a sign of the times.

And the only way to stop doing things because they are a sign of the times is to refuse to do them!

[Dave S]

Each to their own. Not interested in arguing the point, but if anyone from headquarters does follow this forum I just wanted wanted them to know not everyone shares many of the negative views expressed here. Have there been many good points raised here? Of course. Should the policy be revised to alleviate some of the impractical aspects and acknowledge our rather unique environment? Sure. Is the policy likely to be scrapped? Not likely. I don't care for it either, but it seems to be a sign of the times. Personally, though, I'm not unhappy enough about it to drop out. YMMV

Our chapter has opted out due to the general administrivia burden and distaste with essentially being told to do something they don't want to do. My sense is that our pilots will continue to give airplane rides on their own but without training records, forms, permission slips, waivers, warnings, etc.

[lyleapgmc]

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....

Me And You Is Friends
You Smile I Smile
You Hurt I Hurt
You Cry I Cry
You Jump Off Bridge I Gonna Miss You Emails

[Eric Cernjar]

Eric:

Can you summarize the input that they provided as the policy was being developed?

Thanks,


BJC

Hi Byron,

After talking to a few of the internal staff that helped draft the policy, I can give a brief summary. The process we took was to run the policy by a handful of chapter leaders and Young Eagle coordinators to understand the pros and cons of the policy. During our conversations we were able to clear up most of the questions that they had and admittedly the social security # concern was raised. Based on how the data was handled we felt that our members’ confidential information would be handled with the utmost caution, but based on the feedback received that requirement was eliminated. What I think we’re seeing, based on the feedback here and through direct communications, is at times there are misunderstandings on how this policy is followed based upon the type of activities a chapter is conducting. With the volunteers we leaned on, we were able to clear those questions up with a conversation, but without that two-way communication we are seeing that there are some misunderstandings that we’re looking to further clarify in the near future.


I hope this is helpful, and if you're looking for further clarification beyond this I'd encourage you to contact our staff directly. If you need contact info, just let me know.

Thanks,
Eric

[Jim Rosenow]

Hi Byron,

After talking to a few of the internal staff that helped draft the policy, I can give a brief summary. The process we took was to run the policy by a handful of chapter leaders and Young Eagle coordinators to understand the pros and cons of the policy. During our conversations we were able to clear up most of the questions that they had and admittedly the social security # concern was raised. Based on how the data was handled we felt that our members’ confidential information would be handled with the utmost caution, but based on the feedback received that requirement was eliminated. What I think we’re seeing, based on the feedback here and through direct communications, is at times there are misunderstandings on how this policy is followed based upon the type of activities a chapter is conducting. With the volunteers we leaned on, we were able to clear those questions up with a conversation, but without that two-way communication we are seeing that there are some misunderstandings that we’re looking to further clarify in the near future.


I hope this is helpful, and if you're looking for further clarification beyond this I'd encourage you to contact our staff directly. If you need contact info, just let me know.

Thanks,
Eric

It seems to me that if a policy is properly written, in black and white, there should be no need for further clarification of it on an individual basis. This group of concerns are pretty generic, and widespead, which I why I assume Byron asked that they be answered for all of us. If a policy cannot be explained to a fairly intelligence and rational group (members), it would seem an issue with the policy and not the members. Just my $.02 and certainly not speaking for BJC.

Another totally unrelated question, Eric. I note your membership number is well over a million. I'm curious about the numbering scheme. I've always believed that there were about 100K active EAA members. Is my perception that far off?

Respectfully submitted,

Jim
EAA #64315, 1971-2015 (the membership, not me) and waiting for a reason to re-join

[Eric Cernjar]

Another totally unrelated question, Eric. I note your membership number is well over a million. I'm curious about the numbering scheme. I've always believed that there were about 100K active EAA members. Is my perception that far off?

Respectfully submitted,

Jim
EAA #64315, 1971-2015 (the membership, not me) and waiting for a reason to re-join

The numbering is sequential, so every new member gets the next number in sequence. Currently we have almost 200,000 members in total.

[Byron J. Covey]

Hi Byron,

After talking to a few of the internal staff that helped draft the policy, I can give a brief summary. The process we took was to run the policy by a handful of chapter leaders and Young Eagle coordinators to understand the pros and cons of the policy. During our conversations we were able to clear up most of the questions that they had and admittedly the social security # concern was raised. Based on how the data was handled we felt that our members’ confidential information would be handled with the utmost caution, but based on the feedback received that requirement was eliminated. What I think we’re seeing, based on the feedback here and through direct communications, is at times there are misunderstandings on how this policy is followed based upon the type of activities a chapter is conducting. With the volunteers we leaned on, we were able to clear those questions up with a conversation, but without that two-way communication we are seeing that there are some misunderstandings that we’re looking to further clarify in the near future.


I hope this is helpful, and if you're looking for further clarification beyond this I'd encourage you to contact our staff directly. If you need contact info, just let me know.

Thanks,
Eric

Thank you Eric.

Quality communications, either verbal or written, are rare these days. (Just ask anyone trying to follow construction manuals without the benefit of others who have worked long and hard to sort it out.) If a policy requires two way communications to sort out misunderstandings, the policy needs to be rewritten. It never should have been issued with those shortcomings.

I would also note that, especially with an organization of volunteers, it is not only appropriate, but is necessary, to provide enough background to everyone to demonstrate the need for the procedure. After all, there have been fatalities of YE's, but there has been no EAA procedure addressing piloting skills, other than the requirement to meet minimum government standards.

For many of us who have been in the EAA long enough to have five digit membership numbers, this is just another disappointment in a long series of disappointments. It is time for Jack to straighten out the leadership team up there.

Several years ago I tried to get a copy of the by-laws or charter of the EAA. I was not successful. Is there such a document? Is it secret? Can you post a link?

I understand that you are the information conduit here, not the ultimate decision maker. Thank you for providing the above information, and thank you in advance for providing information about the by-laws and or charter.


Byron J. Covey

[cub builder]

Hi Byron,
What I think we’re seeing, based on the feedback here and through direct communications, is at times there are misunderstandings on how this policy is followed based upon the type of activities a chapter is conducting.

Thanks,
Eric

What HQ is refusing to acknowledge is an outright rejection of this policy by many members. That is not a misunderstanding. I keep seeing numerous attempts by EAA staff to steer this off into a "What we really meant to say is this" conversation, when the fact is that a significant number simply reject this approach. "But everyone else does it this way" is not a reasonable argument for approaching the issue in this manner. I don't think anyone objects to a pre-rally briefing or training and/or procedures appropriate to they issue at hand. But this notion that we must all prove we aren't convicted perverts to participate is offensive to many.

Aircraft builders and pilots are an intelligent and innovative group of people that rarely follow the crowd; otherwise we wouldn't do what we do. There have been some really top notch suggestions for how to handle this subject in a much less offensive manner in this thread, but HQ simply refuses to recognize that anyone might reject this policy. Reading between the lines, the unspoken answer is, "This is what we are going to do. Like it or lump it."

For many of us who have been in the EAA long enough to have five digit membership numbers, this is just another disappointment in a long series of disappointments. It is time for Jack to straighten out the leadership team up there.

I think Byron sums it up pretty well with the quote above. But I expect Jack is likely a supporter of this policy, thus the refusal by HQ to even acknowledge dissension from the membership.

-Cub Builder

[Mark van Wyk]

...(snip)...What HQ is refusing to acknowledge is an outright rejection of this policy by many members...."This is what we are going to do. Like it or lump it." ...(snip)...-Cub Builder

Cub Builder, you are correct that a certain number of members reject the policy. There are definitely a lot of squeaky wheels on this forum. I don't know whether the complainers represent the majority or not. I do believe you are correct that this is what EAA is going to do, and therefore --as you state --- EAA's policy seems to be that the program stands, and therefore you and others who don't like it have the choice to not comply and quit flying Young Eagles. I do not believe that EAA is going to back down or scrap the program, like some on this forum repeatedly demand. I believe the program is here to stay.
My question is: what percentage of Young Eagles volunteers are complying? What percentage are refusing to comply? Can EAA management give us some numbers?
I have read on this forum that some chapters are scrapping their Young Eagles programs over this. Others have said they are going to comply and go forward. My understanding is that San Jose Chapter 62 plans to go forward. There will be a San Martin Airport Fly-In scheduled for Saturday, May 14, 2016, and Young Eagles will go on as planned.
At my place of employment, I just completed a mandatory "harassment" online training. I could have stamped my feet and held my breath until I turned blue and refused to take it, and I could have quit my job. Or, I could just take the training. I took the training. Yes, YE is a volunteer program. But, so are a lot of other volunteer programs that require similar Youth Safety training and rules.
NOTE TO EAA: Stand your ground. Don't scrap the program. Improve it. And, give us some numbers as to how many members are complying, so that those of us that want to continue with YE can move forward.
--Mark van Wyk