Young Eagles and Background Security Checks

[Flyboyron]

I was thinking exactly the same thing just now.

I think Paul would have said, "Are those two million kids better off with the program, or without it?" Risks and all, I think we know nothing can be 100% safe. If we really wanted the kids to have no risk, we wouldn't be putting them in airplanes in the first place, because that required them to ride in those horribly unsafe cars to get there.

(Which, by the way, would seem to violate the "no person vehicles" rule, anyway...)

[Flyboyron]

You're absolutely right. All those things are serious failures of the new policy.

The SSN problem overwhelmed them, but even without that, the policy is crazy, unenforceable, and unsustainable, for all the reasons you have cited.

[Flyboyron]

All very good points, Ron

Ron

[ssmdive]

Maybe what should happen is "creative destruction". The EAA seems to have long ago lost their charter and now seems to only be about selling avionics and holding an airshow every year. The heavy handed expectation that the volunteers work for the EAA and the impossible paperwork requirements they want to impose on what they see as "employees" as opposed to members might very well signal the end of usefulness of the EAA.

If the YE program dies, it seems that many people are willing to pick up the mission and continue. May I suggest the name "Young Phoenix"? This organization could be about trying to get kids interested in aviation and would treat the people willing to spend their time and money as valued assets and not employees to order about.

Dinosaurs had their extinction event. No one uses horses for real transportation. Maybe the EAA has run its course?

[Mark van Wyk]

Maybe what should happen is "creative destruction"... snip ...Dinosaurs had their extinction event. No one uses horses for real transportation. Maybe the EAA has run its course?

That's exactly what I am fighting. Those who want to trash YE over this. I think the concept of training and background checks is OK, but possibly the implementation could use some tweaking.

[Glory Aulik]

Hello All,

As the moderator of the EAA Forums I must step in when appropriate and well, moderate. Up until a few recent posts, everyone has been very respectful and I must thank you for that! But as a refresher I would still like remind everyone of several rules: posting rude, disrespectful, or being invasive of a person’s privacy is not allowed, personal attacks will not be tolerated, and last but not least, please continue to be respectful. These rules are set in place to encourage engaging conversations for everyone involved.

For reference:

4. Do not post or link anything knowingly false and/or defamatory, libelous, inaccurate, rude, racist, disrespectful, abusive, harassing, threatening, obscene, profane, racially or ethnically offensive, invasive of a person's privacy, or that otherwise violates pertinent laws

5. Don't antagonize, harass or attack others. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Challenge points of view and opinions, but do so thoughtfully and respectfully... without insults. People who continually or repeatedly provoke or encourage arguments and hostile feelings will be banned from the forums.

6. Respect is the name of the game. Please refrain from inflammatory and defamatory comments as well as flaming, taunting, and general disrespect. Allow people to have their opinion. Don't just tell them they're wrong. Do not make uninvited remarks about typos, duplicate posts, posting styles, etc.

7. Criticism must be respectful, constructive and positive. Opinions must be clearly stated as opinions and worded in a way so readers are unlikely to understand the post as presenting facts. Facts must be accurate and relevant to the topic or thread. Full disclosure of relationships to organizations / products / services mentioned or their competitors and affiliated organizations is required.

Now that the nitty gritty is out of the way, I would like to say that we, as an organization, are listening to your thoughts and concerns regarding the Youth Protection Policy. Every individual who has participated on this thread is passionate about the EAA, Young Eagles, Chapters, etc., and the well-being of such programs. I am continually intrigued to read the thought provoking posts that appear regarding this topic. It’s inspiring to see how strongly each of you feel about passing along that same passion for aviation to kids. Like I said, we are listening to what you’re saying and can expect to receive an update on the situation very soon.

Thank you!

[ssmdive]

That's exactly what I am fighting. Those who want to trash YE over this. I think the concept of training and background checks is OK, but possibly the implementation could use some tweaking.

The 'market' will decide. It is a simple case of agrivation vs remuneration. If you make people jump through zero hoops to take kids flying, you will get 'X' number of people willing to participate. You make people jump through some hoops and some will stop. Make people jump through a great deal of hoops and a great deal will drop out or refuse to participate. Heck you yourself said that you don't want to be the only one wearing out your plane by himself, so you understand the concept even if you don't know it.

So far the market has pretty clearly stated that the EAA has WAY overstepped reasonable requirements for volunteers.

You keep saying what is 'OK'... Well it is pretty clear that it is only Ok to you. And the simple fact is that before you impose regulations on people, you need to make sure there is an actual need, not just fear mongering. So far we have seen one case of a guy that was a pedophile, but it seems none of his acts involved EAA and one case of an idiot taking kids to lunch without permission. Based on these two cases.... The solution is insane.

So an 'OK' solution would be to make a YE rule to not land at any other airport other than the origin. Another would be to make all flights 30mins or less. Simple, and actually fix the issue. What the EAA is proposing is curing the disease by killing the host.

[vaflier]

Glory, thank you for your post !. You are correct that the members are very passionate about aviation and for me especially the Young Eagles Progam. I have gained tremendous enjoyment and will always treasure the look on the kids faces when you left them fly the plane. One young man in particular really stands out as he was somewhat mentally challenged and when he timidly took the wheel and flew the plane for a while, his joy was boundless. On our way back he sadly asked if we really had to go back it was so beautiful up there, I said heck no lets fly a while longer !!. His mother was crying in the back seat when we landed and told me she had never seen her son so happy. I will treasure those and other moments forever. After moments such as that how could I not be passionate about flying and Young Eagles. I truly want to see the problems resolved and the program grow. Please ask the management to help us and fix what is wrong and lets continue to make it better.

[Mike M]

The background check is free of charge because EAA is paying for it? Wait a minute. We ARE the EAA!

Before this deteriorates in to a serious spat, can we just rein back a little bit, and instead of squabbling with Mark (I do agree with everyone else's comments regarding his posts, but that's neither here nor there), focus on the issue at hand - the background checks, the SSN requirement, and EAA staff who came up with this idea.

For me, in all of that letter, what really made me laugh was the "free of charge" sentence. Seriously? You, EAA staff, had considered charging volunteers for the privilege of this for long enough that you felt the need to point out you now were not going to charge the volunteers? Can you spell arrogant?

Isn't it sad that people who would normally sit around happily discussing your shared passion are at each other's throats because of this ill-thought out, badly conceived program created by the folks who work for you.

[Mike M]

I originally used my real id info on this forum and one of the moderators advised me not to.

...having a username not relative to your real name is considered normal; nothing to do with cowardice whatsoever.