Thanks, Dennis. I think a good portion of the angst here was the lack of EAA response to the questions posed. Thanks for participating.Originally Posted by djenders
Ron Wanttaja
Thanks, Dennis. I think a good portion of the angst here was the lack of EAA response to the questions posed. Thanks for participating.
Ron Wanttaja
I suspect it's more timing than anything. The compliments start being exchanged, and the mods have to eventually step in. Ideally, they WON'T cite a particular comment; just post a general "Be nice, boys."
In any case, consider: There are over 500 posts in this thread, the large majority of them critical of the EAA. They could have quashed the thread weeks ago, and probably had a pretty good justification for doing so.
I think it's a credit to the organization that they DO allow the beefing to continue.
Ron "Looks like I have to step up my game" Wanttaja
Huh?!?
Last time I looked this was a membership organization. HQ has an obligation to listen to the beefing provided it is not hate speech.
Further, they have an obligation to listen (not to one single voice) but to get a sense of what membership desires and take that into their calculus.
If they truly don't like what I say, they do have the option of revoking my membership.
ted
Lets keep this simple. EAA wants to protect the national organization and to do so must protect under 18. In our society today with all the 10 commandments thrown out anything goes. Rules from the EAA and the 10 commandments are both rules. If a pilot says I wont' do a background check for what ever reason, it doesn't matter no one flies.
Last night we professionally covered the new youth protection plan by reading directly from EAA documentation and no adding opinions. All YE activity by the local chapter stopped last night. Why. Almost total back lash on doing the background checks. We have fly-ins where kids can fly in and that would be from an EAA chapter. Now all fly-ins have been delayed for risk of non compliance. My guess the average age of the members present were about 55. Make all the rules you want but several members stated if this was required to do the background check AND all the record keeping they would withdraw from the EAA and just have a pilots meeting in a public site. Perhaps this is short term but for now the yearly flying events for our chapter has stopped dead in it's tracks until we know from the members how many will do the training and background check. Continue making "rules" and see how it works out.
Beefing? Didn't you know? EAA is now 100% vegan. Just kidding! Seriously though, play nice folks. The comments, critiques, and criticism...it's all helpful and warranted. And needed, frankly. Just leave the personal attacks and bashing out of it.
With the requirement for the SSN removed, I completed both the online training and submitted for the background check. I don't like the fact that I had to do so, but I did so in order to experience the process first hand. The online training was pretty straightforward. I missed one specific policy-related answer because I didn't read the question carefully enough. Much of it was already known to me, but only because my church requires similar training (and a background check) before you can work with kids (or with senior adults - the fastest growing "target group" for abuse!) in any capacity.
I sincerely wish that the EAA leadership would have discussed the need for this more completely with the membership before taking the draconian measures they took. I have a "zero tolerance" position on abuse. It has no place in civilized society. That said, I also think the solutions implemented have more to do with "looking good in a jury room" than with actually preventing abuse. My primary concerns center on these specific areas:
1) The requirement to provide your SSN for the background check. This one has already been addressed - you can enter "999999999" in place of your actual SSN.
2) The requirement to retain records for 3-years, or however long your local statues require. In many states, the statute of limitations is 30 years AFTER the minor reaches 18 years of age. Since YE allows 8-year-olds to participate, that means that to be compliant, records need to be retained for 38+ years. My chapter has no permanent "home" office - we meet in a member's hangar at the airport. Where would we possibly safely store records for nearly 40 years? Is EAA HQ going to provide an archive facility for these records?
3) The policy is unclear about which specific records must be retained. It addresses attendance rosters, sign-in and sign-out lists, etc. Presumably, there must be a mechanism to document compliance with the "2-deep leadership" requirement, but that isn't made very clear in the policy. For several of these items, there have been "outside-the-policy" clarifications that alleviate some of the concerns (but not all). But the policy itself needs to be made crystal clear, because however the courts interpret that policy will determine whether the local chapter complied with the policy or not. Those "outside" opinions and clarifications will be meaningless. (And who is to say that 38 years from now, EAA members will still have access to the archives of this discussion group?)
4) Clarification to the policy as it addresses (or fails to address) the attendance of minors at EAA events that are not primarily intended for minors. This includes events such as chapter meetings, fly-ins, pancake breakfasts, chili cook-offs, build events, and even EAA AirVenture itself! Now that I'm finally retired, and can attend AirVenture Oshkosh, my wife and I have been volunteering on the Trams. I have no idea whether I would be required to complete the training and background check to comply with the policy or not. I definitely had kids riding the tram without parental supervision, and I always made a point of interacting with them. Would this be "legal" according to the new policy? I'm not sure, because the "2-deep" policy is not clearly articulated for this type of event, much less this specific situation.
I believe that the overwhelmingly vast majority of EAA members are good people with good intentions. And I KNOW that EAA's leadership believes this as well. That's what makes this whole mess so frustrating to me. The totally unnecessary "insult" to the integrity of the entire membership is the aspect of this whole process that bothers me the most. Any time a new policy like this is implemented, there is going to be resistance to change, feelings are going to be hurt, and people are going to have a lot of concern about it. But much of that could have been minimized by following the same "comment period" process we demand from the FAA and other government bodies. We demand it of them, yet we don't bother to follow it when we implement major, sweeping changes that affect the core values of our MEMBERSHIP! (Note - not EMPLOYEES, but MEMBERS!)
In the future, I hope EAA will adopt a new process (something like what I've outlined below) for making radical changes that affect the membership:
1) Begin with a rational, sincere explanation of the perceived need for the new policy.
2) Follow up with a clear and careful explanation of the proposed policy, with justification of each item.
3) Open up a comment period, to allow questions to be answered, clarifications made, etc.
4) Re-publish the policy (with changes highlighted) and offer a second (shorter) comment period.
5) Enact the final policy.
Thank you for listening.
Jim Parker, EAA 160604
Exactly Ron. As Glory already pointed out, we were just jumping in to moderate.
Not trying to show any bias, but keep the conversation on topic and welcoming for all.
Dennis
Dennis Jenders, EAA #300475
I'm really sorry to hear that Mike. No one wants to see such a thing happen.
We are here to help answer questions and keep the forum a place where people feel free to communicate, within the rules of course. That means the team does jump-in to moderate from time to time.
Dennis Jenders, EAA #300475
Ron -
A little follow-up, and I apologize for the delay. I've been battling some sort of sickness for a few days.
You brought up a good question based off the language on the matrix. Again, a good learning for us how people read and absorb the policy. We always strive to make things as clear as we can, but having this sort of feedback is helpful.
I have confirmed with our staff that a monthly chapter meeting WOULD NOT be considered a youth-oriented event. In that case, you would not need a waiver signed by their parents.
Your question about local high school students dropping in meets similar criteria. You are not hosting a specific youth-oriented event, so a waiver wouldn't be needed. That said, I'm sure any kids on a field trip may have signed something at their school already.
Hope that helps.
Dennis
Dennis Jenders, EAA #300475
I understand your frustration, I do. Personally, I am a big believer in truth and transparency. I would hope that we could agree it wouldn't be realistic to involve the entire membership on this issue. As I shared earlier, we did involve 10-12 chapters. We could debate the merits of including more or less, the point of my response was just to address inaccuracies – primarily that our membership wasn't involved at all.
Speaking as just a member, and not an employee, I really hope we don't loose your involvement in such a meaningful program. I've been on a 30-year journey to become a pilot because I didn't have such a program, a mentor, or such support when I was younger. I think the infrastructure EAA now has in place would have helped me become a pilot much sooner.
What might be lost in this thread is the positive response we have had to the policy. EAA is trying to protect children, but also protect our pilots, volunteers, chapters, and the organization from a lawsuit.
So I do hope you reconsider, it would be a shame to lose someone as passionate as you are.
Dennis
Dennis Jenders, EAA #300475
Posting Permissions
