Ron- you are closer to seeing the workings of HQ than the rest of us hoi polloi.
Is EAA Inc more interested in itself than achieving the goals of the membership?
i am hoping that your answer favors the later, but even so, the relationship doesn't seem to be a positive amplification. Any clue how to reconnect the two components? Is there an organizational equivilant to marriage counseling?
ted
I would like to follow up on some of Ron's observations.
I wrote before that this SHOULD be a risk management program. Identify the risks and the apply risk treatment measures appropriate reducing exposure or mitigating effects. Effective risk management uses Einstein's Constraint, with the goal of making the risk treatment measures as simple as possible, but no simpler. Training is almost always an appropriate risk treatment measure. (That is, if the training effectively addresses the risks.) Sometimes, training alone is enough. An operational practice which implements the training and can reduce UNNECESSARY exposure, mitigate potential effects, and is flexible enough to adapt to particular circumstances can also be important. Additional practices which are needlessly complex, interfere with operations (i.e., achieving the desired outcome of the program), and/or opens up new risks, are rarely warranted. This is particularly true for actions that sound good but analysis shows would not significantly reduce exposure or mitigate risk.
But we are all pilots and should already have an operational understanding of this. MOST of the comments here demonstrate that understanding, if not expressed in generic risk management terms. (According to the poll, that would be about 89% of us.)
So, "What does that mean to us Wookies?" (1) EAA management should review the YE program using solid risk management criteria. (2) EAA management should then explain their proposed risk treatment to those who will be affected by it. (3) I strongly support training. I have not taken the training yet, nor has EAA management explained its risk analysis, so I am unable to evaluate it against the risks. Ron says it is OK and I will accept his opinion on that. (4) Based on what little I have read about EAA management's perceived risks, the discussion here, my experience with other such programs, and the way I have seen the YE program work, I strongly believe that the background checks are unwarranted. They will not help reduce exposure in any significant way. They increase risks to the adult volunteers and will add unnecessary burdens to the program, risking overall program failure. The background checks MIGHT mitigate effects to the EAA as a corporation should an undesirable event occur. Might. Maybe. To some unknown degree. They could also increase risks to EAA corporate WHEN an EAA volunteer becomes a victim of some crime associated with breach of PII and that breach can be traced to the EAA mandated background check. (Hmmm…just speculating here, but which might be the more likely event?)
Last edited by Mayhemxpc; 02-07-2016 at 10:29 AM.
Not any more... like I mentioned a few posts back, I'll probably have to lie low on my next visit. :-)Originally Posted by TedK
Everyone I've worked with at HQ is sincerely interested in what the membership wants, and in making the organization better. I've never worked with the Young Eagles folks, but I have no reason to believe it's any different with them. When you walk through the working areas at headquarters, the private spaces (e.g., cubicles) are FILLED with aviation stuff. I haven't seen a cat picture yet.
Obviously, HQ can't limit its hiring to only aviation nuts. But being around EAA HQ does apparently tend to infect folks. For instance, IIRC, Glory mentioned that she's taking flying lessons through the EAA club.
As in any organization, though, there's a transition as you move higher. At some point, EAA HQ has to change from a bunch of airplane nuts to a modern non-profit corporation; mission statements have to change from "What makes the organization fun" to "How do we ensure the continued survival, viability, and growth of this 501(c)(3) corporation." I haven't had much interface with folks at those levels.
What percentage of those higher people are airplane nuts? How many had models hanging from the ceiling as kids? How many have skinned knuckles from digging under the cowling of an Acro Sport? How many have kept frozen, glassy smiles towards their spouses as they explained how the airplane needed a $3,000 XXXXX because of FAA rule changes? How many have sat on a chair at fly-in after the day's flying is done, listening to the tick-tick-tick of cooling engines while sharing a cooler-iced beer with like-minded buddies?
EAA was blessed in having a founder who did all these things. While there were grumbles and mutterings about nepotism and empire-building, his son had an EAA-immersive upbringing and, I think, the same love for aviation.
But...the supply of Pobereznys is not infinite. The organization DID have to mature with the times. Counting beans doesn't take an aviation nut, nor does being a corporate lawyer, managing the HR department, or being the the mid- or higher-level manager who oversees such activities.
Yet, remember: It doesn't take an airplane nut to be good at jobs like these. Some may say it might even be an impairment....
http://www.wanttaja.com/pilot.jpg
What I'm trying to say, in my usual long-winded way, is that while the members' goals will have priority at the lower-levels of the organization, the upper level's primary mission is the protection of the corporation. And, of course, when it push comes to shove, the upper leadership's goals with be pre-eminent. Not much will change that, save, perhaps, if a Paul Poberezny-like leader is available at the next regime change.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited by rwanttaja; 02-07-2016 at 11:42 AM.
The problem is when the "head" ceases to understand that it needs the body and becomes a totally self serving entity. The roar of silence from national and the milquetoast letter from Pelton speaks volumes right now.
And mature it did...right into AOPA II.
Frankly, if it weren't for getting a discount on my insurance by being a member, I doubt I'd keep my membership up any more. I let my AOPA membership lapse years ago as there was virtually nothing in the organization for me. The same is quickly becoming true for EAA (if it hasn't already).
I don't mind an organization's managers doing what's necessary to protect it. But if 30 years go by and the organization didn't feel the "need" for some program or policy, why do they "need" it now? What's changed? Doesn't appear to be any significant risk here, based on 3 decades of data.
"Everybody else is doing it" is NOT a valid reason, IMO. "The lawyers told us we had to" isn't either. Neither is "I'm afraid! Something BAD might happen someday!".
As others have said...show us demonstrable risk that is non-negligible, and an analysis of all options to deal with such a risk if it exists, that leads to a cogent mitigation plan. Not just what other people *say* is "best practice".
'"I am very familiar with a chapter which it turned out had a registered sex offender as a member. The chapter did not know of his status until he left the area. This person was terrific, well liked, and an excellent volunteer. He never attended YE activity, and in retrospect now we know why.
This was a "near miss" (in the sense that the person was a sex offender, but hadn't participated in Young Eagles), but Mark van Wyk in Post #132 provided a specific case:
A Ramsey man [Chad Michael Geyen] who used to volunteer with youth faces more charges of sexual abuse against children....The father of two has a private pilot's license and volunteers with the Experimental Aircraft Association's Young Eagles program, which coordinates flights with volunteer pilots for young people interested in flying.'
***************
I see we have devolved to the "anecdote standard." Just a few questions to chew on before we get too far up on our high horses. I'm getting a little nosebleed myself from all this moral high ground.
Couple of things: firstly, unless I woke up in Russia this morning, accusation and conviction are two different things, and in America, the accused is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty." You either believe that or you don't, and all the crawfishing, finessing, and hair-splitting about, You-Can't-Be-Too-Careful are non-starters, IMHO.
Secondly, I have seen some of these "sexual abuse" cases firsthand, and while that does not appear ON THE FACE to be the case above, that is exactly the kind of accusation now in vogue with women's divorce lawyers in order to apply leverage, when both parties know it's a damned lie, so vide supra and think carefully before judging an "accused," especially when all you know is what you have been told by a third party.
Thirdly, I am also familiar with two men who have been convicted of the above. Both cases involved young men somewhat OVER 18 who were doing the horizontal mambo with girls who were younger, but still in their age group, generally. I think they referred to themselves as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend." Now these fellows will have to register the REST OF THEIR LIVES, for doing that very-normal thing which young people in the course of human history have never been able to resist.
Fourthly, unless I woke up in Russia AGAIN, when you serve your time or do your particular sentence, you are supposed to have Paid Your Debt to Society. What happened to that? How does a sex offense become a life sentence, with lifetime reporting and restricted living location?
It's very, very easy to succumb to that human desire to regulate others; very, very hard to undo it. I see no credible reason for any of this nonsense, and from like responses in my local chapter, it looks like Young Eagles is, for us, a thing of the past.
With a recidivism rate of about 35 % for those who molested a male child, society should keep an eye on past offenders.
see : http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rstood-crimes/
BJC
Awareness, mostly.
The problem certainly isn't new. But the *magnitude* of the problem didn't become clear until the last several decades.
I'm 61 years old. When I was growing up, I received sniggered warnings to watch out for "funny uncles." I had no idea what that meant, nor what I should do if one of my uncles told me a joke.
Since then, a lot of horrid cases have been revealed, and societal decisions have been made for increased vigilance. Kids
now receive a pretty good bit of warning. Those who work closely with children are not only checked themselves, but are given training to help them spot instances where kids might be undergoing abuse outside their immediate purview.
Because of the increased awareness, we hear of more cases. And, happily, the predators are caught earlier.
Are all of them caught? And caught quickly? Of course not. Note the Geyen case that Mark posted. Geyen was 44 years old. He hadn't started that week, that month, that year, or probably even that decade. Some of these people are extremely clever, and some of them never will be caught.
But many aren't that smart, and with proper vigilance, they can be caught and stopped.
Jimbob has a valid point about "anecdote standards". But there are some folks who say, "It has never, and WILL never happen, in a Young Eagles environment." The anecdote merely proves that this attitude is incorrect.
And, of course, "Data" is not the plural of "Anecdote". It would be good to have actual data to work with, to help, as RV Builder says, establish what the actual risk is.
One or a hundred, though, would be immaterial if EAA ever got sued. If an EAA official, in court, says, "There hadn't been enough instances to justify a prevention program," the plaintiff's attorney would respond, "What to you consider an acceptable level of child sexual abuse?" And EAA would have totally lost the jury.
Ron Wanttaja
And that is how we ended up with $400K Cessnas. But I digress.
Suppose that someone builds their own plane, relying in large part on EAA's "Hints for Homebuilders". They then crash and kill themselves, and the survivors sue EAA because of that builder's reliance on those videos (and there are a few which promote somewhat questionable practices). Should EAA, as a "preventive" measure just *in case* they ever get sued delete all those videos? EAA official in court: "There hadn't been any instances of someone relying on them and then dying because of it". Plaintiff's attorney: "How many deaths would you consider an acceptable level?"
Running around afraid of everything that might ever happen someday isn't leadership...it's cowardice.
Oh, if the EAA was worried about that, we'd see more emphasis on production aircraft, and expensive TSO'd avionics, and....
Geeze. Wait a minute. :-)
Your point is perfectly valid, and one must assume there's been SOME thought given to risk control at national. They must have put SOME thought into where they might need additional protection, or whether they can continue as they have been. One factor: juries are likely to be less sympathetic to a guy killed flying a "home-made" airplane, than an abused eight-year-old.
Ron Wanttaja
Posting Permissions
