Young Eagles and Background Security Checks

[Floatsflyer]

I have been approved. My SSN has been compromised many times. Those of you who think yours hasn't are probably wrong. My entire life has been about making sacrifices to help others, I will continue to do so.

This is the saddest post I have ever seen on this forum. It is so beyond comprehension that I'm speechless. I thought Mother Teresa was dead.:(

[Turbomallard]

Anyway, that's beside the point. This decision came from senior management, not from the board. I'm still waiting for senior management to weigh in and answer some questions. The bunker mentality that they have taken is not helping the situation.

Agreed... I think the communication, or lack thereof, and the way this was presented to the membership is, frankly, the bigger concern for me... it is all too reminiscent of how things were done four years ago. If the process and mindset from that period is still in place, the issue goes beyond this particular event. The letter accompanying the policy was condescending, and the way this policy was/is being presented feels like something being slid under the door in the middle of the night.

Jim

[vaflier]

I think this whole affair shows that management at all levels either does not care what the membership thinks about how this organization is run, or they are completely out of touch with the rest of us. What a shame. They need to get out of thier comfy offices and get back to the grass roots with the members. I wonder when was the last time the top dogs flew in a Cherokee instead of a jet ????.

[vettdvr]

I think this whole affair shows that management at all levels either does not care what the membership thinks about how this organization is run, or they are completely out of touch with the rest of us. What a shame. They need to get out of thier comfy offices and get back to the grass roots with the members. I wonder when was the last time the top dogs flew in a Cherokee instead of a jet ????.

I agree the SS number is way too far. I just had a background check for the sate of La. so why can't the EAA used one completed by the La State Police vs compromising my SS number for another check a lawyer said you need to CYA

[FlyingRon]

The EAA still hasn't explained WHO is getting our information. It's pretty obvious it is NOT AmericanChecked. If there was a shred of transparency other than misdirection and lies here, I'd feel better. Nobody has answered this forum or emails I've sent to the EAA asking for clarification.

[cub builder]

I think this whole affair shows that management at all levels either does not care what the membership thinks about how this organization is run, or they are completely out of touch with the rest of us. ....

Yes. Completely out of touch. While I probably shouldn't, I always find it surprising when I see every month in Sport Aviation's "Who's Who at HQ", the person interviewed usually has no experience, knowledge or contact with pilots, planes or aviation prior to their hiring and indoctrination at EAA. Is it a wonder that the folks at HQ seem so clueless about pilots, planes, airplane builders, and aviation in general? While knowing something about aviation shouldn't necessarily be a prerequisite for hire, it should be high on the list of desired attributes when hiring for an organization that is supposed to be about aviation, and should be a prerequisite for middle and upper managers. Not to pick on the young lady in this months SA, but this quote from the article stands out to me and seems to be typical. "I had never been exposed to general aviation before starting at EAA."
Sorry for the thread drift. I'll get back to heating the tar and plucking the chickens. ;)

-Cub Builder

[Mark van Wyk]

I appears as though the requirement to submit Social Security Number has been dropped. If this was a major sticking point for many EAA volunteers, I urge you to now go forward and submit your background check information. Please do not let people with an obvious anti-EAA agenda ruin Young Eagles. If enough people comply, we can get through this.

[Marty Santic]

One issue that I have failed to see in any of the responses is how the chapter would police this new policy? The new policy applies to Young Eagle events, and any other event where the youth are involved. Applies to pilots, non-pilots and all ground personnel. Will the EAA supply the chapter a list of those vetted? Seems to me, if the chapter fails to ensure all have submitted to the background check, the chapter becomes liable. The EAA not so much so, as a program has been implemented that mandates participation. A twisted mind will certainly not tell the truth if asked if they he/she has been vetted.

[Mark van Wyk]

One issue that I have failed to see in any of the responses is how the chapter would police this new policy? The new policy applies to Young Eagle events, and any other event where the youth are involved. Applies to pilots, non-pilots and all ground personnel. Will the EAA supply the chapter a list of those vetted? Seems to me, if the chapter fails to ensure all have submitted to the background check, the chapter becomes liable. The EAA not so much so, as a program has been implemented that mandates participation. A twisted mind will certainly not tell the truth if asked if they he/she has been vetted.
In post #229 of this thread, I attached a sample of what a completion certificate showing proof of compliance looks like. So, there is a way to check if someone is lying or not. I hope people are not going to nit-pick this to death. I do not see the Youth Protection program going away. I hope most Young Eagles volunteers will comply, particularly in my local chapter, and I want a special Young Eagles event coming up in late May, 2016, to be a success.
I am surprised at the number of people on this forum, representing chapters all over the U.S., dumping their YE programs over this. I am also amazed that on the poll, more than 20 percent refuse to comply with ANY background check or youth protection program. Yes, the rules are imperfect, but I think manageable. And, it's for the protection of the kids we fly.
I would strongly object if EAA dropped a youth protection program entirely.

[smutny]

There is absolutely no rush to do anything right now. We will hear from Oshkosh on these issues. As Glory stated, and from what I hear elsewhere, all the comments here are being read, discussed and interpreted. It would be nice if we got a statement like that officially from up the chain. I'm sure it would belay a lot of the concern expressed here and elsewhere.

EAA is not the simple club it used to be, it is now a corporation and moves at a corporation's pace. We need to recognize that.

[combahee]

Mark you just aren't getting it.
For some the SSN was a major stumbling block. However it isn't the only stumbling block. According to your own poll only 12.8% who answered the poll said that it was the major problem with the background check. 52% to again use your poll, still have problems with the background check without the SSN debacle!
It isn't just one thing, it is the WHOLE PROGRAM that is in shambles. As I have pointed out numerous times, every part needs scrapping. About the only part that I haven't seen any opposition to is the review of the video. Take that as you will.
Many of us have a real concern about this program. You don't fine, then do as you will. But don't think most or any of us are anti-EAA. That is a false assumption. Why do you think we belong to the EAA? The magazine? No it's because we believe in the core values and see the importance of the organization. Doesn't mean we will sit idylly by as something we are passionate about hemorrhages.
Finally Mark since you are such a passionate devotee of the program, how many kids did you fly last year? I couldn't find you on the 10 for 2015 or even the 10 for 2014 list. Do you even fly YE's?

[lyleapgmc]

I went to Beenverified.com (http://Beenverified.com) and did a $1.00 search of my name. The results only go back a few years. This was a trial subscription. Perhaps the $22 search would reveal more. I am not about to spend the bucks to find out. There was an option to search more police records but it only goes back seven years. I was only asked for my name. I was then given a long page of possibilities and had to chose mine from the list.

They show my mother as being 106 years old. She passed when she was 93. According to them my wife is 71. She passed at 66.

There is a disclaimer/agreement about the use of the information:
"I will not use information provided by BeenVerified for decisions about employment, insurance, tenant screening, consumer credit or any other purpose requiring FCRA compliance." EAA volunteers are none of these so that may be how they can use the information to disqualify us.

It was interesting,

Lyle

Beenverified is the fourth party company that is processing the background checks.

[gdskoog]

I sent the below letter to all the members of Chapter #1374 of which I have been the President for the past nine years.
-----------------
Chapter members,

I find membership the Experimental Aircraft Association is no longer a priority in my aviation life. The motivation to step away from this organization stems from the recent institution of the new Youth Protection Policy (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy). In a nutshell I do not feel compelled to prove I am not a threat to the safety of children to all of the Generation X mothers and fathers out there. It is well within their rights to protect their children and hold suspect all strangers as they see fit. I on the other hand am well within my rights to stay as far away from their children as I see fit in order to not suffer the consequences of a false accusation. The mental seed has been planted by this new policy.


The Experimental Aircraft Association has taken the last step into the realm of International Corporation by allowing the fear mongers to take hold at the highest levels without offering tangible evidence of any incident of child endangerment by a Young Eagle volunteer to the membership at large. At least I haven’t been able to find any evidence of wrong doing. If the million plus Young Eagle flights were rife with such abhorrent behavior as was the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic priesthood of years past, this Youth Protection Policy (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy) would be a reasonable and financially justified step. As it stands, without such evidence, this is just a corporate C.Y.A. move to present the illusion of youth safety to protect the corporate brand. A fifteen minute “training video” and a background check is not going to flush out individuals who prey on children. Those people are insidious and consummate liars who make themselves invisible and commit their evil acts for years prior to getting caught, if they get caught at all. That is the horrific truth that must be acknowledged.

If there have been incidents in the past, why have we not been notified immediately at that point so that we, the local membership, could determine what changes we could institute to make our Rallies safer and/or decide if we would want to remain aligned with this program and organization? I am confounded as to how an organization that is overwhelmingly populated by the best risk management people on the planet (pilots) could make such a flawed assumption about its local memberships’ ability to police itself. Do they really believe we at the chapter level have never thought about “Youth Protection”; that we have blithely gone about organizing Young Eagle Rallies with no regard for the protection of the children we fly; not only in the air but on the ground?

The question I have struggled with since receiving the letter of January 15, 2016 is do I want to pay dues to a corporation that has made the decision to view me as a potential threat to the children all around me? Do I want to donate my time, my financial resources, and my aviation skill set to that organization that holds me in such low regard? Not only do they view me as a threat, but they assume it is my destiny to become a threat, else why continue to check up on me every three years? After reading the Youth Protection Policy (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy) it is obviously so Draconian in nature that what reasonable person would choose to subject themselves to such a policy just to give a total stranger’s child a twenty-minute airplane ride?

I strongly encourage all of the chapter members to read the policy and decide for yourselves your level of continued involvement. As for me, I will continue to give the children of my friends, family and people whose trust I have earned by their familiarity with the nature of my character airplane rides. I’ve even created my own certificates that I will sign for their refrigerators.

I will preside over the March Chapter 1374 meeting in order for the chapter to decide on a new president, then I will be leaving the EAA behind with the expiration of my membership in April. I very much appreciate your support over the past nine years, but this is a non-negotiable point. I have been vetted and cleared by the Boy Scouts of America for the last few years, so I certainly believe I have nothing to hide. I will be stepping away from that organization as well for the same stated reasons. I find it disheartening that our society has degraded to such suspicious and totalitarian behavior as the result of the heinous and reprehensible acts of a minuscule subset of clergy, educators and youth volunteers.

To the Young Eagles staff I wish you the best of luck with your Young Eagles program and I understand you are between the rock and the hard place with the policy handed down to your program. To the EAA corporate leaders it was fun while it lasted.

Regards,
Duane Skoog
President, Chapter #1374

[Mark van Wyk]

Mark you just aren't getting it.
For some the SSN was a major stumbling block. However it isn't the only stumbling block. According to your own poll only 12.8% who answered the poll said that it was the major problem with the background check. 52% to again use your poll, still have problems with the background check without the SSN debacle!
It isn't just one thing, it is the WHOLE PROGRAM that is in shambles. As I have pointed out numerous times, every part needs scrapping. About the only part that I haven't seen any opposition to is the review of the video. Take that as you will.
Many of us have a real concern about this program. You don't fine, then do as you will. But don't think most or any of us are anti-EAA. That is a false assumption. Why do you think we belong to the EAA? The magazine? No it's because we believe in the core values and see the importance of the organization. Doesn't mean we will sit idylly by as something we are passionate about hemorrhages.
Finally Mark since you are such a passionate devotee of the program, how many kids did you fly last year? I couldn't find you on the 10 for 2015 or even the 10 for 2014 list. Do you even fly YE's?
Yes, I do fly YE's, and I'm trying to save my home-base airport open house, thank you very much. Thanks for checking up on me. In 2015 I flew eight kids in my C-150 via Young Eagles at our local airport open house, and then a dad showed up late and I flew his two kids outside of YE so that they did not go home disappointed. Previously I flew eight or ten kids a year or maybe two years ago prior, I don't remember. I have received thanks letters from EAA, and I believe a pin, for my participation in YE. I also met with Sean D. Tucker, who was YE chairman a few years ago, at a local YE Christmas Dinner in San Jose, CA. I wonder what Sean thinks about all of this.
Again, I support EAA in instituting some sort of Youth Protection program. So, with the SSN requirement eased up, that means about 25 percent will comply. Maybe a portion of the 54 percent will re-think their opposition to a youth protection program. I think if we can get 50 percent, maybe more, to comply, then YE can survive. So, hopefully, EAA can fix this to the point where we can get 50 percent, maybe 75 percent comply, and the 20 percent that absolutely will not comply with any background check, so be it.

[Wirsig]

Agreed... I think the communication, or lack thereof, and the way this was presented to the membership is, frankly, the bigger concern for me... The letter accompanying the policy was condescending, and the way this policy was/is being presented feels like something being slid under the door in the middle of the night.

Jim

Bingo!

[flytoboat]

I just saw in the EAA Hotline that a Young Eagle pilot was younger than his Young Eagle Passenger. Who should have the background check in this scenario?
I've only flown YE's for 2 years, but I think this will be it for me. I'll will still enjoy giving rides to young people (and old) but it will be on my terms. After reading the 10 page policy, I don't see how our chapter is going to find enough volunteers to conduct them. The documentation requirements alone will suck all the fun out of it. We usually provide 250 or more rides at our annual airport open house. There will be a lot of disappointed kids at the next open house.

[lyleapgmc]

Bingo!


++Bingo!

[TomBush]

I sent the below letter to all the members of Chapter #1374 of which I have been the President for the past nine years.
-----------------
Chapter members,

I find membership the Experimental Aircraft Association is no longer a priority in my aviation life. The motivation to step away from this organization stems from the recent institution of the new Youth Protection Policy (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy). In a nutshell I do not feel compelled to prove I am not a threat to the safety of children to all of the Generation X mothers and fathers out there. It is well within their rights to protect their children and hold suspect all strangers as they see fit. I on the other hand am well within my rights to stay as far away from their children as I see fit in order to not suffer the consequences of a false accusation. The mental seed has been planted by this new policy.


The Experimental Aircraft Association has taken the last step into the realm of International Corporation by allowing the fear mongers to take hold at the highest levels without offering tangible evidence of any incident of child endangerment by a Young Eagle volunteer to the membership at large. At least I haven’t been able to find any evidence of wrong doing. If the million plus Young Eagle flights were rife with such abhorrent behavior as was the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic priesthood of years past, this Youth Protection Policy (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy) would be a reasonable and financially justified step. As it stands, without such evidence, this is just a corporate C.Y.A. move to present the illusion of youth safety to protect the corporate brand. A fifteen minute “training video” and a background check is not going to flush out individuals who prey on children. Those people are insidious and consummate liars who make themselves invisible and commit their evil acts for years prior to getting caught, if they get caught at all. That is the horrific truth that must be acknowledged.

If there have been incidents in the past, why have we not been notified immediately at that point so that we, the local membership, could determine what changes we could institute to make our Rallies safer and/or decide if we would want to remain aligned with this program and organization? I am confounded as to how an organization that is overwhelmingly populated by the best risk management people on the planet (pilots) could make such a flawed assumption about its local memberships’ ability to police itself. Do they really believe we at the chapter level have never thought about “Youth Protection”; that we have blithely gone about organizing Young Eagle Rallies with no regard for the protection of the children we fly; not only in the air but on the ground?

The question I have struggled with since receiving the letter of January 15, 2016 is do I want to pay dues to a corporation that has made the decision to view me as a potential threat to the children all around me? Do I want to donate my time, my financial resources, and my aviation skill set to that organization that holds me in such low regard? Not only do they view me as a threat, but they assume it is my destiny to become a threat, else why continue to check up on me every three years? After reading the Youth Protection Policy (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy) it is obviously so Draconian in nature that what reasonable person would choose to subject themselves to such a policy just to give a total stranger’s child a twenty-minute airplane ride?

I strongly encourage all of the chapter members to read the policy and decide for yourselves your level of continued involvement. As for me, I will continue to give the children of my friends, family and people whose trust I have earned by their familiarity with the nature of my character airplane rides. I’ve even created my own certificates that I will sign for their refrigerators.

I will preside over the March Chapter 1374 meeting in order for the chapter to decide on a new president, then I will be leaving the EAA behind with the expiration of my membership in April. I very much appreciate your support over the past nine years, but this is a non-negotiable point. I have been vetted and cleared by the Boy Scouts of America for the last few years, so I certainly believe I have nothing to hide. I will be stepping away from that organization as well for the same stated reasons. I find it disheartening that our society has degraded to such suspicious and totalitarian behavior as the result of the heinous and reprehensible acts of a minuscule subset of clergy, educators and youth volunteers.

To the Young Eagles staff I wish you the best of luck with your Young Eagles program and I understand you are between the rock and the hard place with the policy handed down to your program. To the EAA corporate leaders it was fun while it lasted.

Regards,
Duane Skoog
President, Chapter #1374


Duane,

A brilliant letter, and much more eloquently stated than my own. You hit the nail on the head. My own Private Airport Community Association (TS07) - which has flown 120ish YE each year - will no longer conduct flights under the YE banner for the same reasons you speak of. As for me personally, I cancelled my EAA membership a few hours ago due to this abomination of a policy. They need us. We do not need them. Take care, Sir. . .

[Bob H]

SSN was optional, not mandatory. I filled out form without disclosing it.

[Mark van Wyk]

SSN was optional, not mandatory. I filled out form without disclosing it.
Outstanding. It appears as though EAA has changed the security background check to make SSN optional. That means more people are complying.
Bob, If you take the poll:
http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?6475-Poll-Young-Eagles-Background-Security-Checks
You would probably go under the second choice:
"Yes, I will comply with YE background security checks but only if SSN requirment is removed."
I'm hoping more and more EAA members will come around and comply with the new background check and youth protection policies. I certainly hope EAA does not back down.

[Mike Switzer]

That means more people are complying.

Complying??? Do you realize what this sounds like? This is supposed to be a member run organization, not some "big brother" overseers we have to "comply" with.

[Jeff Point]

EAA is not the simple club it used to be, it is now a corporation and moves at a corporation's pace. We need to recognize that.
This is true to a point, but it certainly does not excuse the poor communication from HQ on this issue. A for-profit corporation that handled crisis communication as poorly as EAA is handling this would probably not survive. If the potential loss of it's most visible and successful program doesn't constitute a crisis, I'm not sure what would. The days of stonewalling, "no comment" and hoping the storm blows over went out with the 56K modem.

[FlyingRon]

They still haven't answered the issue. They silently made the SSN optional (in a dumbass way, took me two passes to realize while it is OPTIONAL I'm required to put in 9's in that field).
They still haven't properly explained who 8f7.com is. It is NOT who they say it is. Several of us have figured it out but the official explanation is wanting.

[Gilmore]

While an avalanche of opinion on this issue has already been posted, I can't help adding my two cents. I participated in the YE program from the beginning, and I was the first YE coordinator for my chapter in CA. When I read of the new Youth Protection requirements, I felt a deep sadness that a great program that did good for aviation will now be breathing its last.

EAA has been a holdout to a simpler, more rational America than the place we live in today. At Oshkosh we enjoy being among like minded individuals whose major addiction is Aviation. We live in a decent world in which our dedication is to a wholesome endeavor, figuratively and literally aspiring to a higher plane of human existence. Now we find that the sludge of modern life will reach out and drag even us down into the mire as well.

Two of my hundred plus Young Eagles went on to careers in aviation. I feel good about that, as well as the good will that was generated within our local communities by the program. I see few of us who will submit ourselves to this requirement necessary to continue to give of our time and resources to this program, no matter how well motivated we may be. Just another casualty of our modern world.

[Tom Charpentier]

Yes. Completely out of touch. While I probably shouldn't, I always find it surprising when I see every month in Sport Aviation's "Who's Who at HQ", the person interviewed usually has no experience, knowledge or contact with pilots, planes or aviation prior to their hiring and indoctrination at EAA. Is it a wonder that the folks at HQ seem so clueless about pilots, planes, airplane builders, and aviation in general? While knowing something about aviation shouldn't necessarily be a prerequisite for hire, it should be high on the list of desired attributes when hiring for an organization that is supposed to be about aviation, and should be a prerequisite for middle and upper managers. Not to pick on the young lady in this months SA, but this quote from the article stands out to me and seems to be typical. "I had never been exposed to general aviation before starting at EAA."
Sorry for the thread drift. I'll get back to heating the tar and plucking the chickens. ;)

-Cub Builder

I just want to step in for a second and comment on this on a personal level. I am the president of the Employee Flying Club at EAA, which helps pilots on staff stay current and welcomes new staff members to the joys of flying with an in-house support system that allows them to pursue those dreams. While we have a sizeable number of pilots on staff at EAA, in the past few years that we have been active our club has licensed about half a dozen new pilots and soloed several more. Glory, the moderator of this forum, is a very enthusiastic member of our current crop of students. Even many of the staffers who choose not to earn their license participate in flying club events and discover more about our great EAA community.


While I came to EAA as a pilot, I had never built an airplane before. Thanks to our staff build project – a Zenith 750 STOL – I am now intimately familiar with aircraft electrical systems, as I built most of ours. I also got my tailwheel endorsement through our club. There is always room to grow and develop in this community, and if we are going to survive we must welcome all comers who share our passion.


I agree that an organization of pilots, builders, and enthusiasts must have the same interests at its very heart, and be closely connected to the community. But I take exception to the accusation that staff members who do not fly or were not hired as pilots are “out of touch.” We’re making pilots here, and some of our newest pilots are now the most active members of our club – I’m not sure what encompasses grassroots aviation more than that.

[Diana]

My husband and I don't belong to a local EAA Chapter, as there isn't one close to us here in Missouri. In spite of that, we've taken almost 1,000 Young Eagles combined. That's not counting the many, many kids we took flying before the Young Eagles program started. We've promoted the Young Eagles Program on a local TV morning show, and had different TV stations come to our airport on days when we took groups of kids flying. Local newspapers published several articles over the years about our Young Eagles flights, as I have put a lot of effort into promoting this wonderful program. We've sponsored kids for the EAA Air Academy with our Young Eagles credits.

Some of the kids the two of us have taken flying are now airplane mechanics, pilots, and CFI's. One of those pilots is now a missionary pilot, and his mother recently thanked me again for taking him for his first flight. Mostly all of these pilots and mechanics were in the Young Eagles program. I have a filing cabinet drawer full of touching, and often humorous thank-you notes from kids we've taken flying. One touching story stands out that I posted on one of the many aviation forums where I've shared Young Eagles flights:

"Dad, it was the best 15 minutes of my life." This is what one of the kids told his dad when he got home from his Young Eagles flight the other day. He has had his share of problems. He lost his lower leg in a accident when he was about 8 years old...he is 13 now. His prosthesis bothers him sometimes. Getting in the airplane took a little extra maneuvering, but he managed just fine. I let this young man fly the airplane and he absolutely loved it. I still have a picture of his grin.

I've promoted the Young Eagles program on aviation forums for years, and encouraged other pilots to take kids flying through the program.

HOWEVER, after what has happened with the recent changes in the Young Eagles policy, and the very, VERY disappointing way in which it has been presented to us, including the fact that our legitimate concerns about these new changes have not been officially addressed YET by EAA, we are DONE with the Young Eagles program. Our consternation about these new changes has been adequately expressed by many other pilots (especially Tom Bush...thank you, Tom) here in this thread.

I "submitted" to the background check as soon as I got the letter, but also had concerns at the time about giving my SSN. Now I'm sorry I willingly gave my SSN away, and will know who to blame if there are any adverse effects from doing so.

My husband and I will continue to take kids flying, and share the joy and wonder that aviation entails, just NOT through the EAA Young Eagles program. We are also mindful of the safety of kids and the need to protect them from harm. We don't believe in this overkill recently presented in the new policy changes. It's not necessary for us, or even practical.

Years ago I made a video about kids and flying, so I'll post it here, again. Several disclaimers: No kids were harmed in making this video of photo clips. Many of the kids are family members and kids of our friends. The young kids (niece and nephew) in parachutes didn't actually yet get aerobatic rides (they did when they were older)....that was a photo shoot for one of the articles I had published in the EAA Sport Aerobatics magazine.

https://vimeo.com/119147338

My niece wrote me the following poem when she was ten years old:

Flying Spirit

I have a flying spirit,
I find it in my plane,
It keeps me calm and safe,
It holds me dearly in the air,
It will not let rain stop me,
It floats above the clouds,
Free to roam about.

I have a flying spirit,
I find it in my plane,
I have a flying spirit,
That spirit lives in me,
The lifting, flying spirit saves me.

When I asked her where she got the flying spirit, she told me she got it from watching me fly.

I'm very disappointed in how EAA has handled this and won't participate in the Young Eagles program in the future. But, like many others here have also stated, I'll keep taking kids flying, and will keep sharing the flying spirit.

[TedK]

I agree that an organization of pilots, builders, and enthusiasts must have the same interests at its very heart, and be closely connected to the community. But I take exception to the accusation that staff members who do not fly or were not hired as pilots are “out of touch.” We’re making pilots here, and some of our newest pilots are now the most active members of our club – I’m not sure what encompasses grassroots aviation more than that.

Tom- there are many extraordinary employees at EAA, and for those, we the membership are eternally grateful. But there are also employees who put their continued employment at EAA, and the survival of EAA above the desires of membership.

I have seen this before in CorporateAmerica, and it accelerates when the Corporation's attorneys lose touch with the Corporation's clients.

I wonder how many of EAA's in house and retained Counsel are grass root aviators who have flown YEs lately?

ted

[Glory Aulik]

Yes. Completely out of touch. While I probably shouldn't, I always find it surprising when I see every month in Sport Aviation's "Who's Who at HQ", the person interviewed usually has no experience, knowledge or contact with pilots, planes or aviation prior to their hiring and indoctrination at EAA. Is it a wonder that the folks at HQ seem so clueless about pilots, planes, airplane builders, and aviation in general? While knowing something about aviation shouldn't necessarily be a prerequisite for hire, it should be high on the list of desired attributes when hiring for an organization that is supposed to be about aviation, and should be a prerequisite for middle and upper managers. Not to pick on the young lady in this months SA, but this quote from the article stands out to me and seems to be typical. "I had never been exposed to general aviation before starting at EAA."
Sorry for the thread drift. I'll get back to heating the tar and plucking the chickens. ;)

-Cub Builder


I just want to step in for a second and comment on this on a personal level. I am the president of the Employee Flying Club at EAA, which helps pilots on staff stay current and welcomes new staff members to the joys of flying with an in-house support system that allows them to pursue those dreams. While we have a sizeable number of pilots on staff at EAA, in the past few years that we have been active our club has licensed about half a dozen new pilots and soloed several more. Glory, the moderator of this forum, is a very enthusiastic member of our current crop of students. Even many of the staffers who choose not to earn their license participate in flying club events and discover more about our great EAA community.


While I came to EAA as a pilot, I had never built an airplane before. Thanks to our staff build project – a Zenith 750 STOL – I am now intimately familiar with aircraft electrical systems, as I built most of ours. I also got my tailwheel endorsement through our club. There is always room to grow and develop in this community, and if we are going to survive we must welcome all comers who share our passion.


I agree that an organization of pilots, builders, and enthusiasts must have the same interests at its very heart, and be closely connected to the community. But I take exception to the accusation that staff members who do not fly or were not hired as pilots are “out of touch.” We’re making pilots here, and some of our newest pilots are now the most active members of our club – I’m not sure what encompasses grassroots aviation more than that.

I must agree, Cub Builder's post really hit a nerve for me. Although being a pilot is not a prerequisite for the job, through working at EAA a passion for general aviation, and all of its entities, has been ignited within all of us. As Tom stated, I am now a student pilot and having the time of my life, all thanks EAA hiring me without any prior experience in aviation.

Now, back to moderating: Stay on topic within a thread. If you move on to a new topic, start a new thread. :)

[ssmdive]

I think it is pretty clear, and the Young Eagle program is just an example of it, that the EAA does not represent what it used to represent. It no longer is about pilots, not about experimental aircraft, but an airshow every year. I'll be honest, I wish I didn't have to be a member. However, I am in the IAC and that makes me be a member. I honestly see zero benefit in being an EAA member. I'd rather just send some extra money to the AOPA.

[lutorm]

Today the answer is no, no, no. That said, the Student Pilot Certificate issuance process is changing so that a background check can be done. But it appears that this is to allow scrutiny of foreign nationals training in the US. If I understand correctly, Congress mandated this. But once you are certificated at any level, if you only fly for recreation, whether your ship is a C-150 or a Lear/Bombardier 80, you never run into an FAA mandated background check.


Actually, these procedures have been in place since shortly after 9/11. All non-US citizens (including US permanent residents) are required to submit to fingerprinting and a background check by the Department of Homeland Security before being allowed to start flight training. This applies to any training for a certificate, so you have to do it for private, instrument, commercial, etc, regardless of how many other certificates you have. Clearly part of knee-jerk 9/11 security theater, and a big contributor to why I never finished getting my private after 9/11.

https://www.flightschoolcandidates.gov/afsp2/?acct_type=c&section=WN

[lutorm]

As for the question of the background check, I can't but think that it seems misguided to worry about sexual abuse of children while they are being flown around in an experimental aircraft of unknown condition by a pilot of unknown proficiency. Statistically, flying in general aviation airplanes is up there with riding motorcycles in terms of risk, and if I was a parent sending my child off on a flight with some guy I don't know at the local EAA club, i would worry a whole lot more about whether the guy is a safe pilot that maintains his airplane properly than about the child being touched inappropriately during the flight. Yet I'm not aware of any concerns about this aspect of the YE program.

[Mike Switzer]

As for the question of the background check, I can't but think that it seems misguided to worry about sexual abuse of children while they are being flown around in an experimental aircraft of unknown condition by a pilot of unknown proficiency. Statistically, flying in general aviation airplanes is up there with riding motorcycles in terms of risk, and if I was a parent sending my child off on a flight with some guy I don't know at the local EAA club, i would worry a whole lot more about whether the guy is a safe pilot that maintains his airplane properly than about the child being touched inappropriately during the flight. Yet I'm not aware of any concerns about this aspect of the YE program.

This is something I have always had an issue with. While most of the pilots around here that participate are fairly competent, there were a couple that would have to do 3 laps around the pattern the day before a YE event to be legal to carry passengers.

[Byron J. Covey]

...if I was a parent sending my child off on a flight with some guy I don't know at the local EAA club, i would worry a whole lot more about whether the guy is a safe pilot that maintains his airplane properly....

I will not fly with someone if I don't know from personal observation that he is a competent pilot. Ditto others' airplanes.

I have been amazed at the trust that parents put in total strangers.


BJC

[Mark van Wyk]

This is something I have always had an issue with. While most of the pilots around here that participate are fairly competent, there were a couple that would have to do 3 laps around the pattern the day before a YE event to be legal to carry passengers.



I will not fly with someone if I don't know from personal observation that he is a competent pilot. Ditto others' airplanes.
I have been amazed at the trust that parents put in total strangers.
BJC
Both EXCELLENT points. I have observed numerous planes in the pattern at an uncontrolled airport carrying kids in a Young Eagles event, with pilots chattering on the radio trying to figure out where the other is. I question the competence of at least one of the pilots, I don't recall his name or tail number. I have seen one plane cut off another plane in the final approach leg more than once.

And on September 27, 2014, the unthinkable finally happened when some trusting parent stood on the tarmac and watched their child die, along with the pilot, during a mid-air collision at a Young Eagles event.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140927X22122&key=1

I remember the first time I was asked to give rides to kids at a Young Eagles event. I was told "all you have to do is join EAA, and you are eligible." Meaning, all I had to do was go onto www.eaa.org (http://www.eaa.org), sign up, pay my membership fee with a credit card, get my EAA member number, and I was good to go. I believe they do check medical and possibly airplane registration and airworthiness.

DON'T THEY?

No wonder I feel so strongly that EAA Young Eagles definitely SHOULD tighten up it's eligibility requirements. That is why I believe all pilots should be willing to comply with the background check, and yes, maybe EAA needs to do more to ensure the safety of the kids.

[rwanttaja]

And on September 27, 2014, the unthinkable finally happened when some trusting parent stood on the tarmac and watched their child die, along with the pilot, during a mid-air collision at a Young Eagles event.

Make that "the unthinkable happened a second time." Our chapter had YE fatalities about ten years ago.

Ron Wanttaja

[combahee]

Mark so first you were happy requiring the volunteer pilots to undergo background tests and online testing, Now you want proficiency tests? And you are the one worrying about YE going away?
It should be up to the chapter to know their pilots.
Would you be happier if the EAA just did away with the program?

[Mark van Wyk]

Mark so first you were happy requiring the volunteer pilots to undergo background tests and online testing, Now you want proficiency tests? And you are the one worrying about YE going away?
It should be up to the chapter to know their pilots.
Would you be happier if the EAA just did away with the program?
If kids are in danger, yes. Otherwise, EAA should continue to tighten up their standards. The background check is only a start. You have a problem with this?

[Jim Rosenow]

If kids are in danger, yes. Otherwise, EAA should continue to tighten up their standards. The background check is only a start. You have a problem with this?


Currently, about 75% of the pilots responding to your poll have a problem with 'this', Mark. In 45 years as an EAA member, I've not run across one who I believe would willingly put kids in danger....that's an opinion, of course. YMMV.

Jim

[CraigCantwell]

If kids are in danger, yes. Otherwise, EAA should continue to tighten up their standards. The background check is only a start. You have a problem with this?

Great, advocating another pile of regulations for the program. Add few more items and you will kill the program due the crushing weight of rules, regs and bureaucracy.

[dusterpilot]

I made a couple of early comments in this thread, but have mostly lurked about taking it all in.

I am our Chapter YE Coordinator. I’ve been flying YEs for nearly 20 years. Some of my YEs have flown fighters and tankers for the USAF in Afghanistan, some are flying for airlines, most are not flying as a career, but all remember the thrill of that first flight experience.

The Youth Protection Policy has NOT been rolled out smoothly. (Quite an understatement!) But, I suspect it’s here to stay. We can either offer constructive suggestions to improve it or we can tell EAA to “Stuff it!” Personally, for the value that youth receive from this great program, I’m going to try to figure out how to work with it.

The following is MY interpretation of how the program will impact our Chapter and YE activities. It may not be entirely accurate, but it’s a condensed version of how we can operate.

The on-line training takes no more than 15 minutes. We have some “seasoned” members who don’t do computers. I asked Michelle, and she replied that we could conduct the training in a classroom style setting, document the trainees, and forward a list to EAA HQ to document the training. So, we’ll ask all our members to complete the on-line training, but also conduct the training at or before a regular Chapter meeting for those without computer access or skill.

We work together with our local air museum, college, and airport fire department and often have our YEs fly their simulators and participate in various activities with their volunteers, before or after their flight.

The background check is free to the individual and does NOT require a SSN or other sensitive information. Those non-EAA volunteers who are essential to the youth’s experience can create an on-line account as a guest and complete both the training and the background check. I’ve spoken to many of those non-member volunteers and they have no objection to complying with the process.

How do I know who has completed the requirements? I’ve asked each member to forward the e-mail with their completion certificate to me, their YE coordinator, and to our Chapter Secretary. We both maintain spreadsheets of essential member information. It’s easy to add one more column to our spreadsheets. If a guest pilot shows up on the day of a rally, I can use my smartphone to call up the on-line master list and verify that a pilot or ground volunteer has been cleared. (Remember, a ground volunteer does not HAVE to be trained or cleared unless it’s not their 4th time to volunteer in a year and you are going to limit their volunteering to less than a 4-hour shift. We’ll probably make Youth Protection procedures a part of our volunteer briefing at the start of each day.)

Additional recordkeeping and trained supervisors are a new requirement we have to determine how to easily implement. Yes, we’ll have to plan in advance to make sure we meet the two-supervisor requirement, but I think it is doable. The ground volunteers are the most important people participating in a rally and are necessary for safety. I hope I won’t have any problem gaining the support of our Chapter officers and other frequent volunteers to complete the training and check.

We have a couple of very active minor members. Our Chapter Secretary keeps good meeting minutes. The names of minors in attendance at our meetings can be included in the minutes.

I see the easiest way to meet all the recordkeeping requirements for minors is to create a “Training File” for each minor member. The file folder will be maintained in our Chapter meeting room. It will include a form that we will create that will contain parent and emergency contact information and a signed acknowledgment that the parent has received a copy of the youth policies and procedures, any applicable permission slips, a record of attendance at each EAA related program or event, and a sign-in/out log. We’ll ask each minor member to be responsible for entering information in their personal “Training Folder” at each meeting or event. We’ll use that folder as a training tool to help them understand the responsibilities they can expect to face when they are expected to manage their own training folder and event currency in the future if they pursue an aviation career.

I see no new record keeping requirements or significant changes for YE flights since HQ will maintain those records after we send them in. Two-place aircraft continue to be fine for YE flights. We must simply make the parent or guardian aware that the YE will be flying in a 2-place aircraft.

Bottom line…for me, I see nothing that is significantly unacceptable to prevent me from continuing to support EAA and the YE program. I’m not offended that I’m being asked to do all this. I AM offended that we live in a world that makes some think it is necessary, but I have no control over others’ actions. Two of the most important lessons I taught my kids are that life isn’t always fair and not everyone else is a good person. I don’t mind a little extra effort to protect them from that not-so-good person.

Yes, my ruffled feathers have settled down a bit now and I will definitely continue to fly as many Young Eagles as I can.

[Floatsflyer]

I believe they do check medical and possibly airplane registration and airworthiness.

DON'T THEY?

No wonder I feel so strongly that EAA Young Eagles definitely SHOULD tighten up it's eligibility requirements. That is why I believe all pilots should be willing to comply with the background check, and yes, maybe EAA needs to do more to ensure the safety of the kids.

Ya know the only 2 guarantees in life? Death and taxes. There's now a third! When Mark puts fingers to keyboard, his remarks will spark a firestorm of outcry, controversy and criticism.

So now you also believe that completing the YE background check is the cure-all for pilot proficiency and aircraft airworthiness. You are fast becoming the 21st century equivalent of a snake oil salesmen/shill.

Wanna cure your cancer? Complete the YE background check.
Wanna solve your debt problems? Complete the YE background check.
Wanna do well on LSAT? Complete the YE background check
Looking to resolve the 5776 years old Middle East conflict? Complete the YE background check.
World peace? Yup, complete the.............


"By all means be controversial. If you get a good response, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a crazed philosopher"
--Socrates

[TomBush]

To Mark van Wyk,

For the edification of the forum, please educate us as to why you are acting as a de-facto spokesperson for this Youth Protection Policy initiative. Serious. Inquiring minds want to know.

Your friend,
Tom Bush

[lutorm]

Make that "the unthinkable happened a second time." Our chapter had YE fatalities about ten years ago.


So that means two fatalities (that we know of) from flying accidents over the last 10 years, compared with, as far as we've heard in this thread, zero cases of sexually inappropriate behavior against kids. Note that I'm not saying that as an argument for adding more checks of pilot proficiency, only to note that the possibility of an accident is currently judged as an "acceptable risk" by the organizers and participants in the YE program, without requirements on pilot proficiency, etc.

My personal opinion is that the accident risk is large enough that it might be reasonable to me to institute some type of additional check, maybe having a "buddy system" where another chapter member has to sign off that they are comfortable with someone flying the kids around. I have not seen any evidence that a corresponding risk exists for the things the new "protection program" attempts to protect against, so I can't but think that it seems like hysteria.

I also have a personal opinion about background checks: That when someone who has committed a crime has received their punishment, they should from then on be assumed innocent until proven guilty like the rest of us. I also don't think that it's right that people are put on public sexual offender lists for the rest of their lives, when you get put on these lists for bs like teenagers sending explicit text messages and pictures to each other if one of them happens to be underage. If it was only hardened, repeat pedophiles that were put on them, maybe, but the current system has lost all semblance of common sense.

/Patrik J.

[Copapilot]

Well...

I've been mostly lurking around this discussion, reading the opinions of others and waiting for logic to catch up to my emotional response.

My initial reaction was that the EAA could wrap their new policy around a broken beer bottle and stuff it, broken end last, where the sun doesn't shine.

After 10 days of careful consideration, I have calmed down, studied the policy carefully, and made the difficult decision to stop doing any YE flights after 01 May 2016. (FYI, I am just shy of having personally flown 500 flights. Maybe I can break 500 before May 1st.)

I am glad that the EAA has seen fit to make providing the SSN optional, because that would have been the end of my YE flights, in and of itself.

However, I find that it is impossible for me to reconcile my personal liability and flight safety policies with that of the new Youth Protection Policy, and I will not forego personal protection or flight safety to comply with arbitrary "kid safety" rules.

1) Per Policy Statement 8.a.: " In some situations, a staff member or volunteer may need to assist the Youth participant. If possible, the staff member or volunteer should encourage the parent to be present and acknowledge that the touching might occur. These situations might include: helping a Youth climb into an airplane, assisting a Youth with buckling his or her seatbelt in an airplane, ..." My airplane uses a 4-point restraint system with integral airbags at each seat. It is nearly impossible for someone unfamiliar to get the buckle's latches secured and the belts snug, so I HAVE to do it myself, to insure proper security. It's not something I can entrust to another volunteer either, as I am the PIC. (See 14 CFR 91.3). In addition, I have a low-wing airplane. Small people who can't reach the step and hand-hold have to be assisted up onto the wing in order to get into the door. However, after two incidents where over-enthusiastic parents did thousands of dollars of damage to the plane, my policy is that no parent is allowed within 20 feet of my aircraft during loading and unloading. I am too busy paying attention to the safety of the kids and pre-flight ops to keep an eye on stupid, inconsiderate "helicopter parents". (One gouged a window with an SLR camera lens so deeply that the window cracked, requiring it to be replaced; another literally JUMPED up onto the wing to take a close-up picture after I closed the door and landed squarely on the flap, bending it and the actuator arm so severely that they had to be replaced. BTW, both walked off without so much as an "I'm sorry", much less an offer to pay for the damage). I'll certainly tell parents that I will be buckling their child's seatbelt, but I'm not going to invite them to be present, to the contrary I'm going to insist that they stay well AWAY from the plane. No exceptions.

In addition, if I had my way, parents would not even be allowed outside on the ramp area during a rally. I have seen MANY close calls between parents inattentive of their surroundings that run around like squirrels vs spinning props / planes in motion.

2) Per Policy Statement 8.b.: I can no longer take video or still photography of YE participants. I ALWAYS record both audio and video using time-keyed in-cockpit video cameras and voice recorders, from engine start to engine shut-down, for my own PERSONAL liability protection. I do not tell parents I am doing this, it's none of their business (my state has one-party wiretap laws, it's being recorded inside my personal conveyance, and it's not for commercial use, so it's legal). If parents were to complain about it, their kid would be out of my plane so fast they'd probably leave a smoke trail. I will not stop protecting myself just to suit the EAA's need for protection.

3) Per Policy Statement 7.a.: No physical force or violence: Luckily it has only happened once in a decade, but I have had to use "violence" to physically shove a kid into his seat and HOLD HIM DOWN while I turned the plane around and taxied back to the ramp after he took off his seatbelt, climbed over the seat, and started wrestling with another kid over some (racial) insult they exchanged via headset during my run-up. ( I couldn't just shut down the plane and sit at the hold-short line of a towered airport, nor could I make the kid get out of the plane right there, we were in the secure area. My only options were to declare an emergency and call for the airport police or taxi back to the ramp. I chose the latter. ) THEN, His parent had the audacity to yell at me about aborting the flight. She didn't stop verbally abusing me until I threatened to call the Federal Marshall's Office and officially charge the kid with violating 14 CFR 91.11, 18 USC 32, and 49 USC 46504 ... AND THAT I HAD THE VIDEO EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, yet it's against the new rules.....(but then, it might be covered under Policy Statement 9: "Discipline" -- but who makes that decision and do I get "blackballed" if some legal eagle who wasn't there decides I wasn't justified in my actions as PIC? - after all, no video allowed now (can you say Catch-22?).

Lastly, I am a flight instructor. I occasionally violate Policy Statement 6: "...extend their relationship with any Youth to other activities" and "...communicate directly with Youth via telephone, email, social media or other means outside of EAA-related programs and events" because those young people and / or their parents call me to start formal flight training as a DIRECT RESULT of having participated in a Young Eagles flight with me. I see no logic in having to turn down an opportunity to instruct or having to route appointment times, weather discussions, ground school and pre-flight assignments, etc. through the parents of a 17-year-old just because I once gave him or her a Young Eagles ride. ( BTW, I now have received a legal opinion that I could sue the EAA for restraint of trade over this particular policy if they ever tried to enforce it against me, but it just isn't worth the time and hassle to worry about "ifs and buts".)

So, in summary, I really like doing YE flights. I really enjoy seeing the joy on a kid's face and hearing it in their voice when he / she gets to actually fly my plane and then when they report that to mom or dad afterward. I think it's a great way to "give back" for my privilege to fly. I think it's a great way to encourage aviation as a career and to build bridges between aviators and the general public. But, as others have said before:

It's MY plane,
It's MY time,
It's MY money,
It's MY liability,
It's MY responsibility.

Therefore YE flights are on MY terms or NOT AT ALL. If my terms and the EAA's terms match then good, but if not then too bad. Life is too short to whine. The EAA loses. Period. I'm letting my wallet and my Wa [ 和 ] speak. I won't let the door hit my ass on the way out. I'll find other avenues by which to encourage aviation in the community and young people population. Thank you for reading this.

[Antique Tower]

EAA has been a holdout to a simpler, more rational America than the place we live in today. At Oshkosh we enjoy being among like minded individuals whose major addiction is Aviation. We live in a decent world in which our dedication is to a wholesome endeavor, figuratively and literally aspiring to a higher plane of human existence. Now we find that the sludge of modern life will reach out and drag even us down into the mire as well.


This is the best post so far.....

I heard Paul P. speak about 1997. He said that EAA was about much more than aviation. It was about a better way of life, and that his goal was to spread that way of life, through the membership, to the community at large.

This policy is the opposite.... the intrusion of the world into the EAA culture. The camel's nose under the tent. Imagine all the other risks that the EAA takes - at Airventure, for instance - that the outside world would never tolerate.

[combahee]

We had yet another meeting of our chapter officers yesterday. Out chapter after March will no longer support or conduct YE flights under EAA.
A question I have asked but not received an answer to is this; If a pilot completes the background check, and the online course, takes a youth flying and later a complaint is filed against him or her, what steps will the EAA or their insurer do to defend the pilot?
My understanding from reading the insurance and the waiver is the EAA will not get involved unless the EAA directly is sued and the EAA will only defend itself. Correct? So what good is any of this to the pilot?

[Mark van Wyk]

...snip...The Youth Protection Policy has NOT been rolled out smoothly...snip...I’m going to try to figure out how to work with it...snip...The background check is free to the individual and does NOT require a SSN or other sensitive information....Bottom line…for me, I see nothing that is significantly unacceptable to prevent me from continuing to support EAA and the YE program. I’m not offended that I’m being asked to do all this...snip...I don’t mind a little extra effort to protect them from that not-so-good person...snip...I will definitely continue to fly as many Young Eagles as I can.
BRAVO! You, sir, are my hero. Good on you and your group.

[tomkk]

We had yet another meeting of our chapter officers yesterday. Out chapter after March will no longer support or conduct YE flights under EAA.
A question I have asked but not received an answer to is this; If a pilot completes the background check, and the online course, takes a youth flying and later a complaint is filed against him or her, what steps will the EAA or their insurer do to defend the pilot?
My understanding from reading the insurance and the waiver is the EAA will not get involved unless the EAA directly is sued and the EAA will only defend itself. Correct? So what good is any of this to the pilot?


I'd like to see an answer to that myself ...

[Skipp Burns]

Personally, after may 1, I will no longer participate in the young eagles program if the current 'policy" is in force. It saddens me that after 21 years and over 12k kids flown and sponsored over 150 kids to camp @osh (as a group) that this wonderful program has become ridiculously intrusive to our privacy with no consideration on their part FORCING me to no longer be part of it. That said, I intend to continue to introduce the youth to aviation and fly as many as possible. In lieu of the Young Eagle certificate, I'll simply provide a AOPA First Flight Certificate.
https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Pilot-Resources/Aviation-Resources-for-Youth/Join-AOPA-on-the-PATH-to-Aviation/FirstFlightCertificate.pdf
5328

[Tom Downey]

Personally, after may 1, I will no longer participate in the young eagles program if the current 'policy" is in force. It saddens me that after 21 years and over 12k kids flown and sponsored over 150 kids to camp @osh (as a group) that this wonderful program has become ridiculously intrusive to our privacy with no consideration on their part FORCING me to no longer be part of it. That said, I intend to continue to introduce the youth to aviation and fly as many as possible. In lieu of the Young Eagle certificate, I'll simply provide a AOPA First Flight Certificate.
https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Pilot-Resources/Aviation-Resources-for-Youth/Join-AOPA-on-the-PATH-to-Aviation/FirstFlightCertificate.pdf
5328
This is the only way to stop all this BS from EAA, simply stone wall them and refuse to cooperate.

[Brent]

I have no idea why EAA has insulted its members with this unnecessary program. Now, I am being told I can no longer be an officer of my Chapter if I don't comply!

[lyleapgmc]

I was mistaken when I went to Beenverified to check my record. Apparently the site doing the checks is, BackChecked. Go to their site and take the tour. Take a look at the screen that shows the invoice. $420.00! What is the depth of a $5.00 background check?

The incidents mentioned in previous posts would not have been uncovered by a background check. There was no record of the perpetrators action since they had not been charged or convicted.

Aside from the background checks, the onerous and overbearing requirements of the operational rules will require far too much paper work and record retention to make the plan work.

Question1: What is the status of non-chapter members who want to participate in a chapter Young Eagles Rally?

Question 2: What is the status of a chapter and EAA member who participates in an airport activity held by EAA members and that involves a number of youth?

Lyle

[tomkk]

I did not like the requirement to enter my social security number for a background check and I think many of the provisions of the program will be awkward to implement at best. I've been involved with developing programs like this, though, and know how difficult it it is. You're usually dealing with a committee whose opinions vary from "protect the kids at all costs" to "why do we need to do anything" and everything in between. Programs like this seem to be a sign of the times, though, and I can sympathize with the problems of putting one together.

Anyway, be that as it may, it seems to me that, once the requirement for SSN was dropped, what we're faced with are simply issues of inconvenience. In my view, while those are certainly not insignificant, I'm personally not willing to tank the entire YE program just because we don't have the latitude we once did.

It's not a matter of whether we're trusted, or trust worthy, it's simply a reflection of the times. Programs like this are not going away but implementation should make sense and be as painless as possible. This program has not increased our risk nor has it exposed us to liability issues that didn't previously exist in YE.

There are no longer issues of privacy, identity theft or anything of that sort so I don't really understand penalizing the kids because we don't want the additional inconvenience. I like taking anyone, kids or adults, into the air and will participate in YE if I chapters continue to offer it. I hope chapters who are pulling out of YE will reconsider.

I do think that whoever is responsible for the program needs to look at it again, though. There are way too many holes, contradictory provisions, things that are just too hard to implement, etc. as pointed out by many of the posts here.

[Gilmore]

I believe it is a good thing to introduce young people to aviation, but I'm free to do so without the YE program. As bad as the rollout of this onerous requirement has been, where the heck is a response from EAA to the firestorm of negative opinion? Is anyone monitoring this thread? Damage control is required ASAP, or close the YE office Monday.

[cub builder]

Numerous Young Eagles Coordinators and Chapter Presidents have resigned and are stepping down. Those decisions are not likely to be undone. Many chapters are cancelling or suspending their Young Eagles programs and a significant number of members are cancelling or planning to allow their memberships to lapse. If the EAA leadership chooses to act aggressively, some of this damage can be headed off. The EAA leadership response to the crisis they created is to stonewall the membership and watch the damage happen. Wow.

[Floatsflyer]

Numerous Young Eagles Coordinators and Chapter Presidents have resigned and are stepping down. Those decisions are not likely to be undone. Many chapters are cancelling or suspending their Young Eagles programs and a significant number of members are cancelling or planning to allow their memberships to lapse. If the EAA leadership chooses to act aggressively, some of this damage can be headed off. The EAA leadership response to the crisis they created is to stonewall the membership and watch the damage happen. Wow.

Like Nero watching Rome burn! Who's our Nero?

[CraigCantwell]

There are no longer issues of privacy, identity theft or anything of that sort so I don't really understand penalizing the kids because we don't want the additional inconvenience. I like taking anyone, kids or adults, into the air and will participate in YE if I chapters continue to offer it. I hope chapters who are pulling out of YE will reconsider.

I do think that whoever is responsible for the program needs to look at it again, though. There are way too many holes, contradictory provisions, things that are just too hard to implement, etc. as pointed out by many of the posts here.

For smaller chapters, the sheer number of people required to carry out an event under this policy makes it unworkable. For an event with 30 kids, you will have to have at least 12-14 cleared volunteers, even before you start counting pilots. For us, that's half the active chapter. You might have some chapters that get together to hold an event, but thin it becomes a logistical nightmare and a paperwork monster.

[rwanttaja]

http://www.wanttaja.com/cabin.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[CraigCantwell]

Very true Ron. More and more avenues of opportunity we enjoyed as kids and teenagers are going down this route. It's looking more like some kind of sci-fi world every year....have a kid and put them into a padded cocoon isolation chamber until they are 18 and then turn them loose and wonder why they are so screwed up....

[tomkk]

For smaller chapters, the sheer number of people required to carry out an event under this policy makes it unworkable. For an event with 30 kids, you will have to have at least 12-14 cleared volunteers, even before you start counting pilots. For us, that's half the active chapter. You might have some chapters that get together to hold an event, but thin it becomes a logistical nightmare and a paperwork monster.

Yeah, I agree. But that's a not a reason to withdraw from the program but rather one to try to work out the kinks. I've seen a lot of good suggestions here and a lot angry ones. I wish EAA would indicate some willingness to listen and work out the problems to make this workable. Their silence is resounding ...

[TomBush]

Scrapping the unneeded, unnecessary, undesirable, intrusive, insulting, impractical, unwanted, deleterious, damaging, and just plain BAD program is the only viable solution. There is no 'working out the kinks,' as the entire program is one big 'kink.'

I've now used my adjective quota for the day. . . :)

[dusterpilot]

For an event with 30 kids, you will have to have at least 12-14 cleared volunteers, even before you start counting pilots.
Please explain your math.

I assume your counting all the kids under 10 years old and assuming they're all there at the same time. That requires 6 trained volunteers. (2 for 10).

Are all the kids going to be there at the same time? Are all the volunteers going to work more than 4 hours or volunteer more than 4 times a year? If not, you don't need 6. Six can handle registration, marshalling, escort and other duties. 2 of those are the roving supervisors who can also do some escorting as part of their roving duties. What are the other 6-8 people doing and why are they required?

I contend that you could legally run a small rally with only 3 trained volunteers. Parents, scout leaders, etc. bring their kids to the airport and stay with them, supervising them until it's their turn to fly. One cleared volunteer accepts the completed registration form and hands the minor off to a cleared volunteer escort who is your roving supervisor. The escort walks across the ramp to the cleared pilot and assists getting the kid strapped into the plane. The registration person can see the escort walking across the ramp (2-deep leadership is intact) and the pilot and escort see what's going on at the plane (2-deep leadership.)

Sure only 3 would be extreme, but no more extreme than claiming 14 are needed. How about a little reality check, folks?

[TomBush]

Ya' know what's also 'legal?' A pilot getting in an airplane with 'X' number of kid(s) in order to demonstrate to them the joy and wonder of flight. EAA / YE program not required. That is simply what it's going to be for most folks.

[Jeff Point]

Please explain your math.
While your math is sound, your logic is flawed. There is no way to predict how many kids will show up for any given event. We get anywhere from 30 to 80 at our monthly events. How are we supposed to plan for that with a limited number of vetted volunteers? Do we close the door when we reach some arbitrary ratio?

The way these requirements are written, it makes one wonder if the authors have ever even attended a YE event.

[FlyingRon]

While your math is sound, your logic is flawed. There is no way to predict how many kids will show up for any given event. We get anywhere from 30 to 80 at our monthly events. How are we supposed to plan for that with a limited number of vetted volunteers? Do we close the door when we reach some arbitrary ratio?

The way these requirements are written, it makes one wonder if the authors have ever even attended a YE event.

Agreed. Typically unless this is part of a larger event like a fly-in, they typically all show up at the beginning and we churn through them as fast as we can. I can't see doing it with 3 ground volunteers. Typically we have two just doing the registration and paperwork alone, plus a few controlling access to the ramp/escorting to the planes.

[CraigCantwell]

Please explain your math.

I assume your counting all the kids under 10 years old and assuming they're all there at the same time. That requires 6 trained volunteers. (2 for 10).

Are all the kids going to be there at the same time? Are all the volunteers going to work more than 4 hours or volunteer more than 4 times a year? If not, you don't need 6. Six can handle registration, marshalling, escort and other duties. 2 of those are the roving supervisors who can also do some escorting as part of their roving duties. What are the other 6-8 people doing and why are they required?

I contend that you could legally run a small rally with only 3 trained volunteers. Parents, scout leaders, etc. bring their kids to the airport and stay with them, supervising them until it's their turn to fly. One cleared volunteer accepts the completed registration form and hands the minor off to a cleared volunteer escort who is your roving supervisor. The escort walks across the ramp to the cleared pilot and assists getting the kid strapped into the plane. The registration person can see the escort walking across the ramp (2-deep leadership is intact) and the pilot and escort see what's going on at the plane (2-deep leadership.)

Sure only 3 would be extreme, but no more extreme than claiming 14 are needed. How about a little reality check, folks?

Duster: Ours come in a group, and it's not a come and go event. 30 kids or more with an unknown under 13 years old requires 6 cleared just to deal with the kids. Now you need 2 roving supervisors. They are not allowed to do anything else per the policy. That's 8 people now. It will take 2 to handle all the paperwork, now 10 people. If we use any 4 seat aircraft, it's 2 people to get them to and from the plane and loaded so as to minimize our ground time. That's 12 right there. Due to the layout of the airport we use, that might not be enough people due to the amount of non YE traffic. It's possible that we would have to utilize parking airplanes completely out of direct sight of where the kids and the adults are. We get slammed too on the hours/times thing as we have several chapter members that are under 18. Until national actually says anything different and puts it in writing, you have to read the policy in worst case form. As it is, we are now less than 90 days from the implementation of the policy and there hasn't been a peep out of them yet, despite all the problems and concerns the membership has voiced.

[dusterpilot]

I think many of you are reading far too much into the requirements.


we are now less than 90 days from the implementation of the policy and there hasn't been a peep out of them yet, despite all the problems and concerns the membership has voiced.
Agree completely. EAA HQ leaders should be involved in this dialog, should be announcing changes (deletion of the SSN requirement was not announced...what other changes have we missed?), should be holding webinars, and lots of other proactive discussions. We have certainly lost confidence in their leadership!

"Two-deep leadership" and "staff-to-youth ratio" are two totally separate things, both included under the general topic of "Supervision." (If I'm not interpreting the policy correctly, EAA leadership should be here straightening out the misconceptions.)

"Staff-to-youth ratio" has nothing to do with training and background checks. It means you must have 2 adults for every 10 kids under 13. Those adults can be one-time volunteers. If I have a group coming together (a school class, scout group, club, etc.), I would expect some adults (parents, teachers, group leaders, etc.) to be driving the cars that got them there and I expect those adults to be providing some supervision of their group. If I meet them and explain the process, procedures, limitations, and restrictions to the adult leaders, I will count those adult leaders as part of my 2 for 10 staff-to-youth ratio. However, I fully expect to have other EAA members present to help them and those other members may, or may not, need to be trained depending on their frequency and duration of volunteer duty.


Now you need 2 roving supervisors. They are not allowed to do anything else per the policy.

Not true! "Two-deep leadership," according to the policy, means that a minimum of 2 adults who have completed the EAA process will be in attendance as supervisors at all times. It does not say they are not allowed to do anything else. It simply says they must be "present and actively circulating through the areas." I can still help a parent fill out a form and escort some kids out to an aircraft as I am "actively circulating" around the area. I don't have to just stand and watch and do nothing.

I also don't see that it says anywhere that your two trained supervisors have to be the two same people only doing that all day. In fact, I interpret it to allow much flexibility. It even specifically says, "For chapter Young Eagles rallies" the supervisors "may include Young Eagles pilots on the ground." If I've got multiple pilots, as long as I have one of them on the ground meandering around between trips, I've got one of my two supervisors.


If we use any 4 seat aircraft, it's 2 people to get them to and from the plane.
Why does it take 2 unless your taking them totally out of site of everyone else? You should be visible by the pilot at the aircraft and other people on the ramp. And, they don't have to be trained and cleared!


Until national actually says anything different and puts it in writing, you have to read the policy in worst case form.
No I don't. We're supposed to be mature adults with common sense. If I'm smart enough to be pilot-in-command making life-or-death safety decisions, I should be able to interpret and implement a written policy without a lot of additional written guidance to interpret the written guidance. (Granted, it would be a whole lot simpler if they would have provided some examples and would be here involved in the discussions.)

After more thought, I'm convinced you could run a rally for 100 kids, with only 2 trained and cleared members (not including the pilots who must also be trained and cleared.) All the other volunteers could be people who are doing it less than 4 times a year and less than 4 hours at a time.

EAA STAFF, WHERE ARE YOU?

[Floatsflyer]

Please explain your math.

I assume your counting all the kids under 10 years old and assuming they're all there at the same time. That requires 6 trained volunteers. (2 for 10).

Are all the kids going to be there at the same time? Are all the volunteers going to work more than 4 hours or volunteer more than 4 times a year? If not, you don't need 6. Six can handle registration, marshalling, escort and other duties. 2 of those are the roving supervisors who can also do some escorting as part of their roving duties. What are the other 6-8 people doing and why are they required?

I contend that you could legally run a small rally with only 3 trained volunteers. Parents, scout leaders, etc. bring their kids to the airport and stay with them, supervising them until it's their turn to fly. One cleared volunteer accepts the completed registration form and hands the minor off to a cleared volunteer escort who is your roving supervisor. The escort walks across the ramp to the cleared pilot and assists getting the kid strapped into the plane. The registration person can see the escort walking across the ramp (2-deep leadership is intact) and the pilot and escort see what's going on at the plane (2-deep leadership.)

Sure only 3 would be extreme, but no more extreme than claiming 14 are needed. How about a little reality check, folks?

You are totally unaware of this, but what you have done here is to wonderfully expose all the evidence required to reinforce and support all the cogent arguments in favour of cancelling this new YE policy. You have proven just how unworkable, time consuming and how your mathematical and logistical nightmare scenario is just not worth the aggravation.

You have also proven how the policy is unweilding, unnecessary and overtly burdensome.

WHY do the organizers and planners have to go through these mathematical and logistical hoops. I'm pretty sure most of them are not math profs, logistical consultants and 'just in time' experts. The YE program is not Fedex or Amazon although EAA seems hell bent on aspiring to them. WHY indeed. No justification except perhaps early onset stupid.

YE participants are involved and active because it's fun and a labour of love. EAA and by extension your scenario takes out all the fun and only leaves laborious.

[CraigCantwell]

Duster: Section 4 (a) (i):

“Attendance as supervisors” requires that the person must be present and actively circulating through the areas in which services are being provided, in order to monitor all activities for appropriate behavior.

The key words are "actively circulating through the areas" if they are doing any other task, then they are not actively circulating or observing. Their task is supervision and nothing else. If you are helping parents with paperwork, you are not supervising or circulating and not in observance of what is going on.

Where we do our events, there is very limited aircraft parking. We have to share it with the fueling area, the restaurant transient parking, auto parking, the junction of three taxiways and the entrance to the runway. We have had to park aircraft on the far side of the main taxiway due to space limitations and in some of those areas, it is completely out of sight of the meeting location due to the sheer number and size of aircraft. Taking multiple kids on the ramp while at the same time loading, unloading and being sure they are safely belted in takes more than one set of eyes outside the aircraft besides the pilot. 16-18 year olds, not as much watching is necessary.

The Staff to Youth ratio tells me that is the number required to deal with that number of kids, and nothing else. Every where I've ever been that has any type of staff/kid ratio policy, it has been the practice that the number is the requirement just to oversee the kids and that is their primary responsibility.

You may feel that the policy gives you lots of freedom, but I don't see it that way. I read and have to understand compliance orders and directives every day in my job. If you don't have written guidance giving you more latitude, then to protect yourself you had better adhere to the strictest interpretation, otherwise when there is a problem, he-said she-said is not going to be in your favor.

[dusterpilot]

Like I said in post #317, I think you are reading too much into the requirements.


if they are doing any other task, then they are not actively circulating or observing. Their task is supervision and nothing else.

That's not what the policy says. "Supervision and nothing else" are YOUR words and YOUR interpretation, not EAA's.

I will readily agree that you can't be supervising if you are sitting at a table with your head in the paperwork. However, I firmly believe that I can occasionally escort a few kids to an airplane while I'm circulating, observing and supervising. Until HQ leadership comes out of their bunker and joins in the discussion and provides some additional clarity, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Every where I've ever been that has any type of staff/kid ratio policy, it has been the practice that the number is the requirement just to oversee the kids and that is their primary responsibility.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe there is any intent that staff/kid ratio policy implies the number of baby sitters required. To me, the staff-to-youth ratio suggests the number of volunteers who should be actively engaged with administration, operation, supervision, and all the other activities.


I read and have to understand compliance orders and directives every day in my job. If you don't have written guidance giving you more latitude, then to protect yourself you had better adhere to the strictest interpretation.

Do you work for the FAA? (Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up!)

[Jim Rosenow]

I think we're spinning our tires here, guys! Valid questions and concerns have been raised, and EAA Corporate has indicated they would respond either last week (sarcasm), or next. Let's see what they come up with and each of us can decide whether we choose to continue affiliation with YE and/or EAA. Your sand lot EAA!!

Jim
EAA 64315 (since 1-1-71, recently expired)

Edit- Enjoying seeing all the new and fairly new posters in these threads. Thanks for coming aboard!

[Funflyin]

I would like to make a few points about what I've been reading in this forum. It saddens me of the distain that I see for the EAA and its employees in this thread. All over the concerns of the Youth Protection policy which for the most part are valid however the reaction to them I feel are too extreme. It has resulted in useless mudslinging and jabs causing discontent among this group of members. And the more members that read this may also become discontent with various members on this forum and then eventually with EAA as well. Is this really productive?

I don't feel that the senior leadership team lays awake at night wondering how they can make the lives of the membership more difficult nor do they have "low regard" for its membership. As you all have valid concerns about the policy and the way it was implemented, EAA also has concerns for our youth and the overall health of the organization for which we are all a part of. Other youth groups have variations of this policy and their programs are movingly along just fine. Unfortunately this policy is a necessary evil.

It's sad to see that many of you, who have spent an enormous amount of time and resources to promote EAA, the Young Eagle program, and aviation in general have decided to pick up your ball and jacks and go home. Supposedly it stems solely from the issues raised from the Youth Protection Program. It seems to me a bit extreme that you would just drop your membership and involvement over this one policy. This one policy that granted needs some clarification and adjustments but has very workable solutions.

I am confident that HQ will work out the bugs and formally communicate these changes. Like any organization implementing a new program or policy, it's never perfect out of the gate. And many times it's never 100% but as Brett stated it's dynamic and changes will be made as required. It's obvious that HQ is listening since they've address some concerns in this forum and have already made some changes. But it appears for some that this is not good enough because it's either all or nothing. I'm afraid this is not a mature way to handle issues and conflicts.

The point that people are missing the boat on is that this policy is intended to mitigate risk or some have said, "CYA". It will not prevent 100% of the potential child abuse but it will help lower the chances of it happening. As one poster stated, we pilots are the best at mitigating risk. Just because we cannot find an incident of child abuse during a YE flight by doing a "Simple Internet Search", doesn't mean it hasn't happened or it won't happen. Thinking that since this program has such a good track record that we have nothing to worry about is not seeing the big picture. Would you not preflight or maintain your plane because it's never failed in flight before? No. You do everything possible to make sure that your plane will run as expected to maintain safe operation. Doing nothing to protect the kids, the membership, and the organizationis being complacent and you're asking for trouble.

I believe as a group we can work with EAA to make this policy successful. I've seen some good ideas that we can build on. Unfortunately I've also seen that some people are convinced that the EAA and the YE program will soon be dead and buried. This couldn't be farther from the truth. This organization hasn't lasted for 63 years by chance. Have they made mistakes along the way, absolutely. Again, what organization hasn't? But to immediately write off the program and organization rather than thinking of ways to work through problems and issues is truly sad and for those people I hope your solo endeavors are successful.

In closing I'd liketo say that I'm very grateful Paul did not have the "This won't work, Can't and won't do it, it's going to die" attitude as many of you have. If that were the case, we would not be here having this discussion nor would we have many of the privileges that we enjoy in GA today.

Safe flying everyone.

-Chuck

[Floatsflyer]

How long is reasonable to wait for a response? Despite the knuckles and feet dragging, I 'd like the EAA tall foreheads to, at the very least, take a look at and consider the COPA for Kids Aviation Program in their deliberations to reconsider what they have unleashed, if in fact you are doing such a thing. In light of you going completely dark on us, we don't know what you're thinking or doing.

https://www.copanational.org/files/GuidetoCOPAForKids.pdf

In the Guidelines to the Program, you will find 3 fundamental principles within the Duty Of Care Regarding Children that drive this subject:

"Trusted adults are expected to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety and well-being of children...."

"In order to keep COPA for Kids events from being overburdened with organizational requirements, COPA does not require background checks...."

"Common sense dictates that if there is any suspicion of a participants intent, he or she should not be permitted to participate."

[Acronut]

I would like to make a few points about what I've been reading in this forum.......

Hello to fellow Y.E pilots and volunteers. I don’t usually frequent the aviation forum sites, but figured this issue might highlight some interesting points of view, so I checked in.


I too am concerned about SSN/personal info issues, and as many of you have already pointed out, it is a risk you take when absolutely necessary. The rest of the requirements can be improved and made more reasonable.

So to me, it was a risk worth taking to ensure I can continue to support YE. The joy that this gift brings to the kids, and the reaction after the flight is our personal reward, as you all have experienced. Introducing the next generation(s) to the freedom of flight is something I am very passionate about. It’s my chance to give back. The best way to do this, is in an organized, well publicized event like EAA Y.E.

As for the poll with very few participants, I have my doubts as to the validity of results, since most of us are busy with our daily life, make our go/no-go decisions and move on (the silent majority, maybe). I think the number of volunteers participating in the training and background checks far exceeds what is represented on this poll. Just a thought and nothing to back it up with. Except for our event organizer and few others volunteers have already done both the training and background check.

EAA will have to make some changes to the requirements as part of the learning curve by listening to the constructive comments from all the members. I am sure it is anticipated, but it could've done better.

So don’t get rid of that seat booster cushion just yet.

In closing I'd liketo say that I'm very grateful Paul did not have the "This won't work, Can't and won't do it, it's going to die" attitude as many of you have. If that were the case, we would not be here having this discussion nor would we have many of the privileges that we enjoy in GA today.

Safe flying everyone.

-Chuck



Well said.

[dusterpilot]

Well said.
Ditto! You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Mike M]

The salvation of Y.E. is - NO ADULTS!

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/01-28-2016-young-eagle-younger-pilot?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokuK%2FJZKXonjHpfsX54% 2B8vX6Cg38431UFwdcjKPmjr1YEDS8Z0aPyQAgobGp5I5FEBS7 DYT6V1t6UKWA%3D%3D

[rv builder]

Other youth groups have variations of this policy and their programs are movingly along just fine. Unfortunately this policy is a necessary evil.
...
The point that people are missing the boat on is that this policy is intended to mitigate risk or some have said, "CYA". It will not prevent 100% of the potential child abuse but it will help lower the chances of it happening. As one poster stated, we pilots are the best at mitigating risk. Just because we cannot find an incident of child abuse during a YE flight by doing a "Simple Internet Search", doesn't mean it hasn't happened or it won't happen. Thinking that since this program has such a good track record that we have nothing to worry about is not seeing the big picture. Would you not preflight or maintain your plane because it's never failed in flight before? No. You do everything possible to make sure that your plane will run as expected to maintain safe operation. Doing nothing to protect the kids, the membership, and the organizationis being complacent and you're asking for trouble.


I'm sorry, but this is just flat nonsense, and I feel compelled to respond. The new policy smacks of lawyers dictating terms to a highly-risk averse organization: "You better do X, or someone might someday sue you!" This despite a glaring lack of *actual* risk in the first place. Time and time again I've seen this sort of organizational behavior...fear, fear, FEAR all the time, better CYA or else, won't somebody think of the children?! And over and over I've seen the people *theoretically* in charge of an organization kowtow to the lawyers, rather than treat them as they should: as House *Counsel*, emphasis on the word "counsel"...as in, they provide advice and you decide which of it to accept and which to decline, and the reasons for it. Instead, if the lawyers tell you that you just gotta have an invasive background check and unworkable policy, well By God that's what we'll do. Stupid.

And as yet another victim of the OPM disaster, I can tell those of you who whimper about "what do you have to hide" or other bromides: just wait until YOU have to worry about your personal financial and other data for the rest of your life. Then come and talk to me about how it's "no big deal".

In the end, I'll bet dollars to donuts that this policy is here to stay, regardless of any complaints or loss of YE programs. Why? Because the lawyers run the show, the "people in charge" have made their decision and won't reverse it lest they look stupid, and enough people will "go along to get along" and surrender their personal information and subject themselves to these stupid rules to keep the program limping along. And yet another organization takes another step down the "All Fear All The Time" panty-waist path that America is taking. Won't SOMEONE please think of the CHILDREN?

EAA is nearly worthless to me anymore...a big airshow that caters to Boeing and Cessna and Mooney, print media that seems like a carbon copy of Flying magazine, zero credibility on legislation (the PBOR2 is worthless, merely a different version of a Class III medical with a form no sane General Practicioner will ever sign), and an ever-decreasing emphasis on the *E* in EAA.

[Byron J. Covey]

It saddens me of the distain that I see for the EAA and its employees in this thread. -Chuck


Chuck:

It saddens me that so many of you newer members never experience the earlier day of the EAA. If you had, you would be very very sad at what the EAA has become.


BJC
EAA [774386 before you]

[combahee]

OK lets do be logical about this. 15 days since the date of the letter and not one peep from HQ with the exception of an admin on here. No one other than other members is answering any questions or concerns. This policy will do zero to protect the pilots, that's right zero. Why have such a draconian "fix" where there wasn't a problem to begin with? Want me to jump through hoops, then protect the chapters and pilots as well.
What will happen is; management will dig their heels in and some members will dig their heels in and we will lose some chapters, programs and pilots. I doubt the first lawyer or management will leave. So the net result is, the kids will suffer. Less programs, less pilots, less exposure to aviation. Who are the winners in all this? There are none. All for a perceived future problem.

[Copapilot]

The new policy smacks of lawyers dictating terms to a highly-risk averse organization: "You better do X, or someone might someday sue you!" This despite a glaring lack of *actual* risk in the first place.

EXACTLY! This is the "actual versus perceived risk" fallacy that statisticians have been warning against for years. There have been entire textbooks written on the subject. (For a light hearted, easy-read treatment of the subject, pick up a copy of "Life: The Odds" by Gregory Baer.)

Politicians use perceived risk to keep the populace frightened and controlled. Lawyers use perceived risk to sway juries into ludicrous verdicts. Law-enforcement uses perceived risk to turn citizens into snitches. Drug companies use perceived risk to sell drugs with dubious efficacy. Social reformers use perceived risk to foster and feed distrust among ethnic groups. Environmentalists use perceived risk to turn people into tree-hugging luddites. Etc., ad nauseum. All it takes is success at obfuscation of the ACTUAL risk by demonizing anyone who insists on pointing to real data showing that the actual risk is minuscule (or in some cases non-extant).

Talk-show pundits like to refer to individuals that can be easily swayed by perceived risk arguments as "sheeple". I guess the lawyers got to the sheeple running the EAA these days.

The EAA's leadership SHOULD have instead followed Robert Heinlein's sage advice: "What are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future, facts are your single clue. If it can not be expressed in numbers, it is an opinion, not fact."

[ssmdive]

To Mark van Wyk,

For the edification of the forum, please educate us as to why you are acting as a de-facto spokesperson for this Youth Protection Policy initiative. Serious. Inquiring minds want to know.

Your friend,
Tom Bush

A GREAT question.

Still waiting on my question to the EAA. What are they going to do if my personal information is stolen because of the requirements they MADE me provide? Are they going to pay to repair my credit? What did I get in response from HQ when I emailed them? SILENCE.

This is also a GREAT question.... "If a pilot completes the background check, and the online course, takes a youth flying and later a complaint is filed against him or her, what steps will the EAA or their insurer do to defend the pilot?
My understanding from reading the insurance and the waiver is the EAA will not get involved unless the EAA directly is sued and the EAA will only defend itself. Correct? So what good is any of this to the pilot?"

So what is the EAA going to do to protect the pilot? Or is this just about the EAA protecting itself at our cost?

Basically.... What benefit is all this BS for the pilots?

[Mprogers]

Here's what our YE coordinator had to say about the new policy:


Ladies and Gentlemen,


I finished the EAA review on Youth Protection last night and completed the online request for background check last night just to see what all this would entail - the information is very similar to the Boy Scouts of America Youth Protection guidelines - takes about 15-20 minutes to review - and I believe anyone involved with the Young Eagles program should complete the review. It is a good review to prevent problems as well as just to open our eyes how our actions might be perceived. Let's go into this education with the interest of those youth we attempt to serve as our focus.


We can set this up on Apple TV for group review but each of us will still have to grant background check individually.


Young Eagles Coordinator Chapter 1540


I've always been proud to be in EAA, and even prouder of the EAA chapter at KEVU! No fuss, no bother, just fill out the form, answer some questions, and go flying!

Mike

[vaflier]

Here's what our YE coordinator had to say about the new policy:



I've always been proud to be in EAA, and even prouder of the EAA chapter at KEVU! No fuss, no bother, just fill out the form, answer some questions, and go flying!

Mike
Sure wish that was all there is to it Mike, unfortunately it is not that simple in todays world.

[bookmaker]

While I agree the Young Eagle Youth Protection Policy is a disaster, I have to take exception to those that say EAA is just about the big iron, spam cans and YE. I am not a long time member, but joined EAA a few years ago when I started my build project. I joined one local chapter that was a nice group, but not really interested in building, so I joined another chapter. The second chapter has a lot of builders and projects going on. I have learned a lot from these members. Oh, they also have Young eagle events. The last one flew 132 kids. I personally flew 8 groups.

I have also participated in almost all of the EAA's builder workshops and have learned a ton as well as meeting several new friends. I have met Charlie Becker from the EAA staff and can tell you he is definitely a promoter of building and sharing information. Additionally, while I have only met him a couple of times, the last time I saw him he remembered my name.

The monthly magazine appears to have added back more builder information, projects ant tips.

While yes, a big part of EAA national is Airventure, and working with groups that you might not commonly associate with, please don't make a blanket statement that they are abandoning the base of EAA.

Dale

[rv builder]

Still waiting on my question to the EAA. What are they going to do if my personal information is stolen because of the requirements they MADE me provide? Are they going to pay to repair my credit?

I can tell you the answers to those: Absolutely nothing, and No.


This is also a GREAT question.... "If a pilot completes the background check, and the online course, takes a youth flying and later a complaint is filed against him or her, what steps will the EAA or their insurer do to defend the pilot?
So what good is any of this to the pilot?"

A: Nothing, and none whatsoever.


So what is the EAA going to do to protect the pilot? Or is this just about the EAA protecting itself at our cost?

Basically.... What benefit is all this BS for the pilots?

Nothing, yes, and none.

Unless EAA agrees to defend an individual pilot in the event of an allegation, either criminally or civilly, the pilot is on their own. This isn't like a workplace requirement where the company will (in many cases) provide legal defense for employees if they followed the written rules (e.g., Export Control regulations come to mind). EAA *might* provide legal defense for a chapter, but I'm quite sure the individual pilot would have to fight any criminal or civil action against them all on their own.

[saber25]

I’ve been mildly amused by this thread for the past two weeks. It’s quite simple… for those that see a need to fly youngsters, go fly them and assume all the risk one takes anytime you take up a passenger. For those that insist on this activity under the umbrella and protection of the EAA,take the required course, background checks and what not and collect yourpoints, be happy!

The argument that we’ll grow pilots, mechanics and airtraffic specialists by giving rides does not compute. Based on a reply I received last year from EAA to my query on how many rides have actually progressed beyond that, well, let’s just say if a farmer planted a section of land and the result was a handful of strawberries he’d probably find a day job.

If a young person really wants to jump the hoops he’ll show an interest and have the initiative to show up. Maybe even build and fly an R/Cmodel, something within their financial scope. Some of us started with U control way back before RC became inexpensive enough for the masses. Even Paul Poberezny did not get a free ride but had to rebuild a glider before he could fly.

My advice to youngsters is, build and fly something you can afford. Then, if this aviation thing really rings your bell, move up to full size if finances allow. The ladder to being a professional pilot has many rungs and ambition to go that route requires time and more money. If one plans on making aviation a hobby it still requires money and I suggest finding a career that will support that habit.

I’ve long been a proponent of taking small steps and doing that which builds a base for the next step. It’s much like building your homebuilt aircraft. Taking someone for a ride may titillate for the moment but rarely does it provide the next step or direction. Better take them to your local RC field with AMA members who’ll give him some dual on a buddy box and he’ll actually fly while learning the fundamentals of aerodynamics and mechanics involved.

My thoughts are based on 48 years as aviator with military,airline and sport flying background to include building an RV4 and flying a Pitts. In those years I have given rides to youngsters and adults that expressed an interest and did so without the EAA program.

I did get my first flight as a ten year old in a Waco biplane for which I paid out of my lawnmowing, snow shoveling and paper route earnings.

Cheers Hans

[combahee]

Hans while I agree with you partially, the YE program is much more than turning out pilots and mechanics.
By giving YE rides and exposing youngsters to aviation we are not only opening their eyes to aviation careers, we are giving them the beginnings of a sensitivity to GA and local airports.
While I doubt a tiny fraction go on to any aviation career, these same kids will be the city council, mayors, state officials of tomorrow. They will be the aviation friendly citizens in their community. If there is a threat to the local airport, or some restrictive bill at the State House or city council, maybe these now grown kids will, because of their good feelings about aviation, defend us.
In addition many of the kids because of these flights go on to join the US Air Force, study science and math and become future leaders and professionals. My chapter deals with many groups like the Navy ROTC, Air Force ROTC, aviation day camp, aviation clubs at schools. We also deal with many at risk kids. Kids that that one simple flight can turn their lives around.
So even though I am against this new policy, and will not subject myself or my chapter to it, as we believe it is unnecessary, overly burdensome, and unworkable, that doesn't mean we will stop flying kids. We will simply withdraw from the EAA program and run our own.
I would never trash EAA. They are a fine organization with many great programs, people and support for GA. I think they just screwed up on this one, lets see if they can turn it around.

[S_Van]

EAA Chapter 1029 met this past Saturday, January 30th, and agreed to make every effort to keep our Chapter's Young Eagles activities going. The Youth Protection Program will certainly stress our largest YE activity (we do several each year) in terms of getting enough volunteers, but we do have options, such as splitting it into two parts. We know we are going to have some extra work, but the feeling clearly was that we are going to continue the EAA YE program. Note: By the time we held our meeting, most of us were aware of the negative arguments such as those posted on this forum. We are going forward thinking positive.

[Mark van Wyk]

EAA Chapter 1029 met this past Saturday, January 30th, and agreed to make every effort to keep our Chapter's Young Eagles activities going. The Youth Protection Program will certainly stress our largest YE activity (we do several each year) in terms of getting enough volunteers, but we do have options, such as splitting it into two parts. We know we are going to have some extra work, but the feeling clearly was that we are going to continue the EAA YE program. Note: By the time we held our meeting, most of us were aware of the negative arguments such as those posted on this forum. We are going forward thinking positive.
Thank you, S_Van!

[TomBush]

Thank you, S_Van!

So Mark, given that you seem to be uninterested in telling the membership what your involvement is with this new program, and the fact that you clap and bark like a Seal every time someone indicates they or their chapter will comply, I can only assume you to be one of its architects. You're trying to polish the turd just as hard and fast as you can, but it just won't develop a shine. . . :D

Anyway, assuming the poll you started in that other thread has any scientific merit to it with only 84 respondents, it looks like you'll now only have about 21.83% of the people you used to have involved with the YE.

Fail. Epic Fail. . .

[Mark van Wyk]

So Mark, given that you seem to be uninterested in telling the membership what your involvement is with this new program, and the fact that you clap and bark like a Seal every time someone indicates they or their chapter will comply, I can only assume you to be one of its architects. You're trying to polish the turd just as hard and fast as you can, but it just won't develop a shine. . . :D

Anyway, assuming the poll you started in that other thread has any scientific merit to it with only 84 respondents, it looks like you'll now only have about 21.83% of the people you used to have involved with the YE.

Fail. Epic Fail. . .
The poll is unscientific. Numerous people have posted to say that they are complying and continuing their Young Eagles programs, meaning if they took the poll would choose the first option. But, they don't seem to be taking the poll. My guess is that the "sour grapes" people are skewing the results, but it's hard to say. I personally hope EAA does not back down and keeps the background check program. I don't think it's out of line. Those who do not want to comply are free to stop flying Young Eagles. I am glad to see many people choosing to continue to fly kids via the EAA Young Eagles program.

[Byron J. Covey]

. I personally hope EAA does not back down and keeps the background check program. I don't think it's out of line.

Given a choice, I would prefer to see a pilot skill assessment rather than a background check.


BJC

[tomkk]

Given a choice, I would prefer to see a pilot skill assessment rather than a background check.


BJC

I thought we already had one, it's called a BFR. Not saying that catches all the bad pilots but are you sure you want to advocate for more flight reviews?

[Byron J. Covey]

I thought we already had one, it's called a BFR. Not saying that catches all the bad pilots but are you sure you want to advocate for more flight reviews?

I would not let my granddaughter fly with someone that I did not know but who had completed a BFR within the past 24 months. Would you?


BJC

[tomkk]

I would not let my granddaughter fly with someone that I did not know but who had completed a BFR within the past 24 months. Would you?


BJC

Probably not, but a lot of YE parents in that past apparently don't have that problem. And, if you were a YE parent, how would you determine that? How has the new program changed that situation?

[Byron J. Covey]

Probably not, but a lot of YE parents in that past apparently don't have that problem. And, if you were a YE parent, how would you determine that? How has the new program changed that situation?

As they say, "Ignorance is bliss."

The new criteria has not changed that situation. My point is that the greater risk to the kids and the program may well be pilot skills. Just a comment about the YE program; not a proposal. I have quit flying YEs, but I will give rides to select people.


BJC

[Copapilot]

Has anyone other than me noticed that the EAA has yet again made changes to the rules / information / explanations regarding the YE Youth Protection Policy and background checks?

Of course, they didn't bother TELLING anyone that they had done so, they just quietly updated the web pages. Some of the changes are quite subtle...
If their rules are going to be this fluid, being changed without prior notice and with mere days between iterations, perhaps EVERYONE should stand down from doing YE activities until the corporate gooks can get their act together.

Here are screen grabs of the various web page creation statistics. Check the "date modified" entry for each.

[Rick Rademacher]

Well...

I've been mostly lurking around this discussion, reading the opinions of others and waiting for logic to catch up to my emotional response.

My initial reaction was that the EAA could wrap their new policy around a broken beer bottle and stuff it, broken end last, where the sun doesn't shine.

After 10 days of careful consideration, I have calmed down, studied the policy carefully, and made the difficult decision to stop doing any YE flights after 01 May 2016. (FYI, I am just shy of having personally flown 500 flights. Maybe I can break 500 before May 1st.)

I am glad that the EAA has seen fit to make providing the SSN optional, because that would have been the end of my YE flights, in and of itself.

However, I find that it is impossible for me to reconcile my personal liability and flight safety policies with that of the new Youth Protection Policy, and I will not forego personal protection or flight safety to comply with arbitrary "kid safety" rules.

1) Per Policy Statement 8.a.: " In some situations, a staff member or volunteer may need to assist the Youth participant. If possible, the staff member or volunteer should encourage the parent to be present and acknowledge that the touching might occur. These situations might include: helping a Youth climb into an airplane, assisting a Youth with buckling his or her seatbelt in an airplane, ..." My airplane uses a 4-point restraint system with integral airbags at each seat. It is nearly impossible for someone unfamiliar to get the buckle's latches secured and the belts snug, so I HAVE to do it myself, to insure proper security. It's not something I can entrust to another volunteer either, as I am the PIC. (See 14 CFR 91.3). In addition, I have a low-wing airplane. Small people who can't reach the step and hand-hold have to be assisted up onto the wing in order to get into the door. However, after two incidents where over-enthusiastic parents did thousands of dollars of damage to the plane, my policy is that no parent is allowed within 20 feet of my aircraft during loading and unloading. I am too busy paying attention to the safety of the kids and pre-flight ops to keep an eye on stupid, inconsiderate "helicopter parents". (One gouged a window with an SLR camera lens so deeply that the window cracked, requiring it to be replaced; another literally JUMPED up onto the wing to take a close-up picture after I closed the door and landed squarely on the flap, bending it and the actuator arm so severely that they had to be replaced. BTW, both walked off without so much as an "I'm sorry", much less an offer to pay for the damage). I'll certainly tell parents that I will be buckling their child's seatbelt, but I'm not going to invite them to be present, to the contrary I'm going to insist that they stay well AWAY from the plane. No exceptions.

In addition, if I had my way, parents would not even be allowed outside on the ramp area during a rally. I have seen MANY close calls between parents inattentive of their surroundings that run around like squirrels vs spinning props / planes in motion.

2) Per Policy Statement 8.b.: I can no longer take video or still photography of YE participants. I ALWAYS record both audio and video using time-keyed in-cockpit video cameras and voice recorders, from engine start to engine shut-down, for my own PERSONAL liability protection. I do not tell parents I am doing this, it's none of their business (my state has one-party wiretap laws, it's being recorded inside my personal conveyance, and it's not for commercial use, so it's legal). If parents were to complain about it, their kid would be out of my plane so fast they'd probably leave a smoke trail. I will not stop protecting myself just to suit the EAA's need for protection.

3) Per Policy Statement 7.a.: No physical force or violence: Luckily it has only happened once in a decade, but I have had to use "violence" to physically shove a kid into his seat and HOLD HIM DOWN while I turned the plane around and taxied back to the ramp after he took off his seatbelt, climbed over the seat, and started wrestling with another kid over some (racial) insult they exchanged via headset during my run-up. ( I couldn't just shut down the plane and sit at the hold-short line of a towered airport, nor could I make the kid get out of the plane right there, we were in the secure area. My only options were to declare an emergency and call for the airport police or taxi back to the ramp. I chose the latter. ) THEN, His parent had the audacity to yell at me about aborting the flight. She didn't stop verbally abusing me until I threatened to call the Federal Marshall's Office and officially charge the kid with violating 14 CFR 91.11, 18 USC 32, and 49 USC 46504 ... AND THAT I HAD THE VIDEO EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, yet it's against the new rules.....(but then, it might be covered under Policy Statement 9: "Discipline" -- but who makes that decision and do I get "blackballed" if some legal eagle who wasn't there decides I wasn't justified in my actions as PIC? - after all, no video allowed now (can you say Catch-22?).

Lastly, I am a flight instructor. I occasionally violate Policy Statement 6: "...extend their relationship with any Youth to other activities" and "...communicate directly with Youth via telephone, email, social media or other means outside of EAA-related programs and events" because those young people and / or their parents call me to start formal flight training as a DIRECT RESULT of having participated in a Young Eagles flight with me. I see no logic in having to turn down an opportunity to instruct or having to route appointment times, weather discussions, ground school and pre-flight assignments, etc. through the parents of a 17-year-old just because I once gave him or her a Young Eagles ride. ( BTW, I now have received a legal opinion that I could sue the EAA for restraint of trade over this particular policy if they ever tried to enforce it against me, but it just isn't worth the time and hassle to worry about "ifs and buts".)

So, in summary, I really like doing YE flights. I really enjoy seeing the joy on a kid's face and hearing it in their voice when he / she gets to actually fly my plane and then when they report that to mom or dad afterward. I think it's a great way to "give back" for my privilege to fly. I think it's a great way to encourage aviation as a career and to build bridges between aviators and the general public. But, as others have said before:

It's MY plane,
It's MY time,
It's MY money,
It's MY liability,
It's MY responsibility.

Therefore YE flights are on MY terms or NOT AT ALL. If my terms and the EAA's terms match then good, but if not then too bad. Life is too short to whine. The EAA loses. Period. I'm letting my wallet and my Wa [ 和 ] speak. I won't let the door hit my ass on the way out. I'll find other avenues by which to encourage aviation in the community and young people population. Thank you for reading this.

Having flown over 400 YE flights and many kids before the start of the YE program, I too am very sad to see these changes to a fine program. A large EAA chapter, who’s leaders I respect, are scrambling to address these changes in such a way that they can successfully proceed. As I now only fly a Piper Cub, I am also not sure how I will comply with all the new EAA YE mandates. I may just do my own thing as I did before the start of the EAA Young Eagles program. I will be sorry to leave if I must do so.

[Brent]

Sure wish that was all there is to it Mike, unfortunately it is not that simple in todays world.
We make today's world by accepting this kind of assault on our values. Come on folks. Do you all live in Madison Wisconsin or are you from Oshkosh?

[rwanttaja]

As they say, "Ignorance is bliss."
Actually, a rather common misquote. The actual quotation is, "WHERE ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." It doesn't claim that ignorance is actually bliss. Just that if you're in a situation where ignorance is rewarded, you might as well go with the flow.

I think most parents of Young Eagles assume that their pilot is appropriately qualified. Most other situations where they turn transportation of their kids over to some other entity are the same way... how many times have you seen a parent check the license of a bus driver?

Because it's so prevalent these days, I suspect many YE parents already assume the pilots/volunteers are screened, too.

Ron Wanttaja

[TomBush]

We make today's world by accepting this kind of assault on our values. Come on folks. Do you all live in Madison Wisconsin or are you from Oshkosh?

F'in eh!

[rwanttaja]

So Mark, given that you seem to be uninterested in telling the membership what your involvement is with this new program, and the fact that you clap and bark like a Seal every time someone indicates they or their chapter will comply, I can only assume you to be one of its architects. You're trying to polish the turd just as hard and fast as you can, but it just won't develop a shine.
Well... I don't agree with Tom, but that's a bit harsh. Just because he feels that the new changes don't really make a major difference doesn't mean he's a shill for the EAA.

Heck, people have accused ME of being a shill for the EAA. I suspect it's no more true for Tom than it is for me.

The survey is interesting, but the fact is, that sort of thing generally draws the "anti" crowd. It's in no way scientific. Most people who believe the changes don't matter probably aren't that passionate about it, and are ignoring the threads.

The basic fact is, EAA has applied right-hand torque to the canine: This was a panicked implementation of a new policy; it sounds like some lawyer type claimed that EAA was in a huge liability and had to solve the problem FAST. As the saying goes..."You want it bad, you get it bad." There are better approaches they could have taken...in fact, with an unwarned, draconian implementation with no coordination, one could probably say they picked the worst. They've apparently compounded it with unannounced changes that mean that folks don't know WHAT the current requirements are.

They've apparently not thought out the impact on AirVenture as well...will the same requirements apply to volunteers THERE? After all, children are present. AirVenture is tough enough to run *now*...what'll it be like if 25% or 33% of the volunteers refuse to serve?

When your computer or other electric device get this hosed, there's only one real solution: Turn it off, and turn it back on again.

I'd suggest that EAA immediately suspend the Young Eagles program, and rescind all the policy letters and registration. Work with the YE coordinators, Chapter presidents, and the membership to find a solution that meets legal requirements. Maybe it'll end up where it is now. But at least the membership will feel that their organization *involved* them, rather than treated them like paid employees instead of the willing volunteers they are now.

And folks, I'm just as against this policy as many of you. But perhaps we can calm down the rhetoric. Let's discuss policy, not personality.

Ron Wanttaja

[Brent]

The poll is unscientific. Numerous people have posted to say that they are complying and continuing their Young Eagles programs, meaning if they took the poll would choose the first option. But, they don't seem to be taking the poll. My guess is that the "sour grapes" people are skewing the results, but it's hard to say. I personally hope EAA does not back down and keeps the background check program. I don't think it's out of line. Those who do not want to comply are free to stop flying Young Eagles. I am glad to see many people choosing to continue to fly kids via the EAA Young Eagles program.

Mark, I don't appreciate your name calling. I am not a sour grapes person but a long standing EAA MEMBER who has spent much time and effort supporting EAA values. You should apologize for making personal attracts on your fellow EAA members.

Today the Board of Directors of our Chapter reluctantly voted unanimously to suspend all YE activity. We had events scheduled in April and May to fly over 70 participants. As Board members we no longer feel comfortable accepting liability for the program when the YPP rules are so onerous and specific. Our Chapter will not endorse YE events or support individual members providing flights in our name until we are convinced we have no liability this program seems to impose on us.

Being an an officer of a Chapter seems now to have much more legal liability. If any of our members break any of these very specific and impractical restrictions, we have no protection. This is not a risk that should be imposed on chapter officers. It will be difficult to find people willing to expose themselves to the additional personal liability this program imposes on Chapter leaders.

[ysifly2]

.... reading far too much into the requirements.
.... All the other volunteers could be people who are doing it less than 4 times a year and less than 4 hours at a time.
EAA STAFF, WHERE ARE YOU?

IF you are able to hold a Young Eagles Rally, with enough different volunteers to not exceed the 4 hours at a time... you are in a much bigger, or better supported chapter than our current. Unfortunately, for us to hold a Rally, not only means that those that help out work the four hours, the pilots are pretty much flying non-stop for that same four hour period.
hmmm loop hole option .... hold 3 hour Rally's 3 times per year. ;-)


Bryan

[Brent]

IF you are able to hold a Young Eagles Rally, with enough different volunteers to not exceed the 4 hours at a time... you are in a much bigger, or better supported chapter than our current. Unfortunately, for us to hold a Rally, not only means that those that help out work the four hours, the pilots are pretty much flying non-stop for that same four hour period.
hmmm loop hole option .... hold 3 hour Rally's 3 times per year. ;-)


Bryan
Your statement just provided evidence to lawyers that you are conspiring to abuse children.

[FlyingRon]

Probably not, but a lot of YE parents in that past apparently don't have that problem. And, if you were a YE parent, how would you determine that? How has the new program changed that situation?

Well, I've had an engine failure with YEs aboard. Two of the three sets of parents waited at the site much longer than was necessary (I spent some time with the State Police helping him fill out the accident report) to thank me for bringing their kids back safe. Got a nice letter from the YE office thanking me for not killing any young eagles.

[ssmdive]

The poll is unscientific. Numerous people have posted to say that they are complying and continuing their Young Eagles programs, meaning if they took the poll would choose the first option. But, they don't seem to be taking the poll. My guess is that the "sour grapes" people are skewing the results, but it's hard to say. I personally hope EAA does not back down and keeps the background check program. I don't think it's out of line. Those who do not want to comply are free to stop flying Young Eagles. I am glad to see many people choosing to continue to fly kids via the EAA Young Eagles program.

Still didn't answer why you are a fanboy of the new program. I can only surmise that you have a personal interest somehow.

[Floatsflyer]

The groundhogs came out today and saw their shadows. That means 6 more weeks of EAA silence.

[Gunslinger37]

This issue and our Forum discussion has made the Aero News Network.
Article link:

http://www.aero-news.net/GetMoreFromANN.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35cf157a-3260-4f19-9f79-a3aa1685685d

[rwanttaja]

The poll is unscientific. Numerous people have posted to say that they are complying and continuing their Young Eagles programs, meaning if they took the poll would choose the first option. But, they don't seem to be taking the poll. My guess is that the "sour grapes" people are skewing the results, but it's hard to say.
You're right about the unscientific nature of the poll, but "Sour Grapes" is the wrong metaphor. If you recall your Aesop, the fable is about a fox who wanted some grapes hanging overhead, but couldn't reach them. He then claimed the goal wasn't worthwhile (the grapes were probably sour, anyway). Not the case here...most of the people complaining about the policy change have been supporting YE for years.

This is more like the goose who laid the golden eggs. EAA's taking a knife to the volunteers have been providing the "eggs" in the form of their time, aircraft, and avgas, which has the result of making the supply dry up.

While the poll is unscientific, we can see how much this has upset members by the number of people joining the EAA forums to participate in this discussion. Note the low posting-count for many of them. These people have apparently joined the Forum specifically over this issue, and most of them are expressing dismay regarding the new policies.

Ron Wanttaja

[jimbob]

I believe it was Franklin who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty for the illusion of safety deserve neither." I understand EAA's liability concerns, but this is getting ridiculous. At some point, people must stand up and say, "Enough!"

I dropped out as a mentor in my chapter's airplane-building project with a local private high school because of the "background check/fingerprinting" requirement, even though I've been through a dozen background checks in applying for medical licenses in various states over the years.

Now I will be opting-out of further EAA Young Eagles flights. I understand that AOPA has a similar program, so I'll check it out. But it macht nichts either way; I will be flying local children as the opportunity arises, and - horror of horrors - I will be TOUCHING THEM as I help them into and out of the airplane and secure the seat belts/shoulder harnesses and headphones. Aside from the necessity in these cases, nobody is willing to say the obvious: not only is it OK to touch children; children NEED to be touched; I have six; I know. They want the assurance the touch of an adult provides when they are nervous - like when they are taking their first flights, for example. That is a GOOD thing. What the hell is wrong with us?

It's very sad that EAA has also succumbed to that creeping cancer we call the American Trial Lawyer in his never-ending quest for income. But, as they say, actions have consequences, and in America we are still free to make decisions in response to such nonsense. I have made two so far. My next decision will be when my EAA membership - held since 1977 - comes up for renewal. I'll probably renew, but we'll see...

Sad in Virginia
Jim Wills
EAA# 167788

[Jim Rosenow]

I believe it was Franklin who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty for the illusion of safety deserve neither." I understand EAA's liability concerns, but this is getting ridiculous. At some point, people must stand up and say, "Enough!"

I dropped out as a mentor in my chapter's airplane-building project with a local private high school because of the "background check/fingerprinting" requirement, even though I've been through a dozen background checks in applying for medical licenses in various states over the years.

Now I will be opting-out of further EAA Young Eagles flights. I understand that AOPA has a similar program, so I'll check it out. But it macht nichts either way; I will be flying local children as the opportunity arises, and - horror of horrors - I will be TOUCHING THEM as I help them into and out of the airplane and secure the seat belts/shoulder harnesses and headphones. Aside from the necessity in these cases, nobody is willing to say the obvious: not only is it OK to touch children; children NEED to be touched; I have six; I know. They want the assurance the touch of an adult provides when they are nervous - like when they are taking their first flights, for example. That is a GOOD thing. What the hell is wrong with us?

It's very sad that EAA has also succumbed to that creeping cancer we call the American Trial Lawyer in his never-ending quest for income. But, as they say, actions have consequences, and in America we are still free to make decisions in response to such nonsense. I have made two so far. My next decision will be when my EAA membership - held since 1977 - comes up for renewal. I'll probably renew, but we'll see...

Sad in Virginia
Jim Wills
EAA# 167788

From one Jim to another....well said! Welcome to the forum!

Jim

EAA# 64315 (since 1/1/71, recently expired and patiently waiting)

[S_Van]

Is the EAA YE program fatally damaged? No, but it certainly has been hurt. And its not only because of those who have decided to no longer participate in the YE program. Those of us who want to continue with the program will find, at the very least, that our costs will be going up. Where we could have flown 3 Young Eagles in our 4-seat aircraft, it will now be 2. OK, every flight we didn’t have all 3 seats filled, but you get the point. To fly the same number of Young Eagles, our pilot costs can increase up to 150% of our current costs because we will have to make more flights. It also means a longer day and there is a certain fatigue issue that may set in. Reduce the number of available pilots, even marginally, and for those of us who remain, its even more flights. There can come a point where we just burn out. And I’ve not even got around to the ground volunteer needs. Even assuming that no pilots dropped out of the program, which will not be the case, because of the limitation of just 2 Young Eagles in a 4 seat aircraft, its going to be more challenging, more expensive and more fatiguing.

Did the EAA need to adopt a Youth Protection Program? Yes. Several who have posted have noted that they have worked in other youth organizations and have already participated in their program. So have I, but to a much greater extent. I want to tell you about my experience because, and I mean this nicely, that its obvious that many who have posted here see their required participation in aYouth Protection Program as an affront to their integrity. I understand this, because I’ve seen it before, and its true, for the vast majority of us, we are no risk to children.

When I was in what was then called Jr. High, I joined a youth organization. In the 60s, it was the largest fraternal organization for young men in the country. I was away from it during college, etc., but then came back to it as an adult volunteer in the 70s. In the 80s, I was fortunate to join the adult leadership and for the last 30+ years I have been on the organization’s national council.

About 25 years ago, everything hit the fan. At the time, I was serving on the organization’s Insurance and Risk Management committee. Our liability policy got cancelled because of youth protection claims issues. Yes, think the worst. We had to go into a nationwide stand down of activities. We had no choice. When the smoke cleared, and we eventually got coverage back, we had gone from a $10 Million policy to a $100,000 policy, and it cost a lot more.

During this time, I participated in the creation of our Youth Protection Program. Even initially, it was more extensive than what EAA has just implemented. And our initial program had holes in it that we didn’t recognize at first. Was there a need for the program? Absolutely.

The thing is, up until a few weeks ago, the YE program, may have been the only youth serving program in the country of its size without a Youth Protection Program. My initial response, was “What too you so long?” Yes, I did email EAA with a lot of questions and concerns based on my prior knowledge of Youth Protection Programs.

EAA’s greatest mistake? See my next post.

[Mark van Wyk]

Great post. S_Van. I'd hate to see the end of YE and hope the program does not need a one year stand down that you refer to. Looking forward to your next post.

[S_Van]

What big mistake did EAA make in their new Youth Protection Program?

Not keeping the volunteers in the loop, starting even before the first word of the program was written.

We are volunteers. We are not employees. Employers have a certain definite control over employees and how those employees perform their work.

Organizations that depend on volunteers need to keep those volunteers, for lack of a better word, happy. That has not happened here.

EAA has yet to expressly say why they have written and adopted a Youth Protection Program. Had EAA done this last summer or last fall, the degree of unhappiness among volunteers, especially pilots, likely would have been far less. In a prior post, I noted I was involved in writing a program for a fraternal youth organization. We were up front with our volunteers. As a result, we lost only about 5% of them. For new volunteers coming into that organization, only about 5% decline to complete registration for the Youth Protection Program (and therefore fail to be accepted as a new volunteer). I’m thinking that as of right now, EAA will be losing a lot more than 5% of volunteer pilots. It could have been a lot less if the need for the program had been communicated to us before the program was written and distributed. Essentially, we have been treated like employees and not volunteers. There is a heck of a difference.

I don’t know why EAA adopted this program at this time. I can give a range of possibilities, with any combination in between.

First, lets assume that EAA has had no liability claims for molestation of youth. I find that unlikely, given just how pervasive such conduct is, but its possible. It could have been that someone in EAA questioned why there was no program and recognized a need for it. Please, don’t deny the need. If you had any knowledge at all about just how pervasive such abuse is not only in this country but around the world, you wouldn’t be denying the need. Another possibility is that EAA’s insurance carrier had an underwriter that said coverage would be excluded if such a program were not put in place.

Second, lets assume the worst. There have been lots of claims and EAA’s insurance was about to be cancelled. EAA may have been told to get a program in place, quick and dirty if need be, in order to maintain coverage.

Conveying this information to the volunteers, in general terms, would have made the program far more acceptable to the volunteers. Yes, some pilots would have dropped out, but a lot less than is probably going to happen now.

How much should we have been told, or hopefully told not? Not all that much. Just general terms. IF there have been claims, we don’t need numbers, and certainly no details. Just a general statement that yes, there are problems.

A question that may not have been directly asked before on this forum is if the new program will prevent any unwanted events. There is a moving answer to that question. Those youth organizations that have adopted similar policies have not eliminated 100% of their problems. But typically, the number of problems they have, have been greatly reduced. It should be clear that these programs do not stop pedophiles. What these programs do is tend to drive pedophiles out of the organization. They then migrate to other youth programs that do not have youth protection programs. These programs also make it less likely for pedophiles to want to join as a new volunteer.

[jimbob]

I think we all know where the problem really lies: the US Congress' perennial inability to pass real liability reform. Reform language was originally included in the cynically-titled "Affordable Care Act," but Senator Harry Reid noted that the thing was so unpopular that they would be very "lucky to pass it at all, and (they) were certainly not about to take on the American Trial Lawyers Association."

Sometimes an old house is so rickety that the only thing to do is to bring it down and start over. I believe we are at that point. It will not happen when the Good Guys keep knuckling under and making accommodations to a corrupt system that is crippling the whole country - it will happen when people simply stop.

It stops here. Look for me at the airport. I'll be flying children as always, but EAA will have nothing to do with it.

All best,
Jim Wills
Farmville, VA
EAA 1202

[Mike Switzer]

We are volunteers. We are not employees. Employers have a certain definite control over employees and how those employees perform their work.

Organizations that depend on volunteers need to keep those volunteers, for lack of a better word, happy. That has not happened here.

In the past few years I left a couple organizations I had been a member of for many years because in both cases the board president began treating me (and some of the other board members) like employees. As I get older I just don't feel like putting up with that. This is one of the biggest mistakes the leaders of any volunteer organization can make.

[Mark van Wyk]

I wanted to pass on something I heard the other day that turns my stomach, but also may explain EAA's rationale. At the church I go to, the "child care" volunteers are being warned about a new scam. Parents are showing up to churches -- first time -- with kids and putting their kids into the "kid's care" babysitting areas. Then, the parents are apparently filing lawsuits alleging sexual abuse and blackmailing churches. Church volunteer babysitters everywhere are being expected to take training and getting background checks. So, don't say it can't happen in YE. Maybe it already has.

[Floatsflyer]

Sometimes an old house is so rickety that the only thing to do is to bring it down and start over. I believe we are at that point. It will not happen when the Good Guys keep knuckling under and making accommodations to a corrupt system that is crippling the whole country - it will happen when people simply stop.

It stops here. Look for me at the airport. I'll be flying children as always, but EAA will have nothing to do with it.

All best,
Jim Wills
Farmville, VA
EAA 1202

And here JimBob(I like saying this). Come on everyone, you know you want to do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM

[S_Van]

In the past few years I left a couple organizations I had been a member of for many years because in both cases the board president began treating me (and some of the other board members) like employees. As I get older I just don't feel like putting up with that. This is one of the biggest mistakes the leaders of any volunteer organization can make.

Some volunteers give a lot, some give a little. But no matter a little or a lot, they all need to be told Thank You ! It should always be kept in mind what you get from a non-volunteer ............

[fidot]

Okay, finally a response from EAA: it should be in everyone's inboxes by now... let me know if you want me to copypaste it here verbatim..

Lots of Damage Control. They admitted to removing SSN requirement :)

Most useful part is this: http://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/eaa/educationresources/youtheducation/youth%20protection%20policy/what%20it%20means%20for%20ye%20rallies.pdf?mkt_tok =3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokuKrLZKXonjHpfsX76u0vW6%2Bg38431UF wdcjKPmjr1YECTcV0aPyQAgobGp5I5FEBS7DYT6V1t6UKWA%3D %3D

Read it all: it looks like it addresses most of the questions raised here, albeit not always satisfactory (IMO).

[Mark van Wyk]

Okay, finally a response from EAA: it should be in everyone's inboxes by now... let me know if you want me to copypaste it here verbatim..

Lots of Damage Control. They admitted to removing SSN requirement :)

Most useful part is this: http://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/eaa/educationresources/youtheducation/youth%20protection%20policy/what%20it%20means%20for%20ye%20rallies.pdf?mkt_tok =3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokuKrLZKXonjHpfsX76u0vW6%2Bg38431UF wdcjKPmjr1YECTcV0aPyQAgobGp5I5FEBS7DYT6V1t6UKWA%3D %3D

Read it all: it looks like it addresses most of the questions raised here, albeit not always satisfactory (IMO).
For those who did not receive the email, here it is the text of the email in its entirety.

Hi, everyone:

EAA's youth initiatives speak for themselves. For instance, the Young Eagles program this year will fly its two millionth young person since 1992. It is the largest youth aviation education program ever created and has an incredibly positive public reputation, thanks to the dedication of EAA members.

To that point, I want to pass along a few thoughts about the Youth Protection Program we formally introduced to the general EAA membership in late January. It had been previewed in a broad sense to Young Eagles pilots, chapter coordinators, and field representatives in newsletters last year and at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2015. It is a program similar to many now required in numerous national organizations that work with youth, including local sports leagues, church groups, and scout troops.

The introduction of this policy is not an indictment of any EAA member or chapter working with young people. However, any instance or accusation of child abuse within EAA's youth programs would be devastating for all involved. We must keep up with best practices and maintain the high standards EAA has displayed since Paul Poberezny founded the organization in 1953.

I appreciate the feedback we've received since the program's announcement. AmericanChecked, the accredited company EAA selected to assist with the Youth Protection Program, is renowned for its work and its high level of information security. It has also been flexible in working with EAA and our members. Based on your input we worked to remove the requirement that a Social Security Number be a mandatory part of a background check (it's now optional – if you provide it, it provides for higher accuracy and prevents misidentification), although in a limited number of instances additional information may be needed. EAA members have also generated other ideas to make the process better, and some of them are underway while maintaining the highest priority on information security.

To make sure the system works for our members, I personally took the training and completed the background check, as did our Young Eagles chairman, Sean D. Tucker, and EAA staff members who work with youth. We found it fast, simple, and efficient. More than 30 percent of the thousands of Young Eagles pilots and volunteers we contacted have already completed the necessary steps. Thanks to all of you who have already completed the process.

I also want to commend the work of our Young Eagles office. They handled an enormous number of calls and e-mails after the initial announcement and put in some very long days. Their leadership and patience made us proud of their work, instituting a program put in place by EAA's board and senior leadership. The Young Eagles office has also completed a briefing sheet on any effect this will have on the typical Young Eagles rally.

We will continue to keep you updated on any additional developments as they occur. This promises to be a tremendous year for EAA's youth programs, including flying the 2 millionth Young Eagle. Thank you for being a part of it.

Jack Pelton, EAA CEO/Chairman

[rv builder]

Please, don’t deny the need [for the program].

I'll deny it. Seems like decades of experience in the program have demonstrated no need for it. I still assert this is lawyering at its worst (CYA) and the ubiquitous FEAR FEAR FEAR of American society today.

Let's have some evidence of a problem first, THEN talk about solutions.

[AcroGimp]

Just read Jack's letter and I am done with EAA.

Totally fails to acknowledge any actual comprehension of or sympathy for the real and substantial issues many expressed and is still basically just saying 'our way or the highway' - well, highway it is.

Life is too short, time is too precious, money is too hard earned, and my reputation and character are too long established to put up with this - EAA did not make my aviation life, I did. It is my time, my money, my airplane, my skill, and my commitment - I am a volunteer, not an employee and I will not be treated in this way.

My commitment to EAA has survived a lot including the P-51 scandal, the nepotism, the whole EAA is Airventure development, and the recent AOPA-esque evolution - I have been in EAA since 1988, have served on Chapter BOD's, have volunteered at airshows and the YE program (ground and pilot), but this is the straw that breaks this camel's back.

Part of what has always been so great about EAA is that it represented the best of us, freedom, creativity, trust and camaraderie - the sharing of the last great adventure left to us - it represented a simpler, better and more innocent time.

This program has shattered that and shown it to be a lie, an illusion and rather than make substantive changes to address the concerns shared, EAA has instead sided with all that is wrong with our current world, and worse it has shown that far more of our fellow EAA'ers are equally willing to toss those of us who won't comply under the bus than I would have ever expected and I find that terribly disheartening. I don't think Brown Shirt is too strong a term to describe some of the cheerleading for this overreach demonstrated in this thread.

I am deeply saddened, outraged and discouraged and see no other path forward than to depart this organization that has been such a positive part of my life for almost 30 years.

When we are left with only two choices, comply or leave, voting with our feet is all we can do on principle. I will also have to leave IAC since EAA owns it as well, I simply cannot remain a part of any organization that treats its own members this way.

John Knolla
EAA Member 1988-2016
Chapters 88 and 14 (as member/BOD/volunteer), others when travelling/consulting
IAC since 2012
AOPA
Red Star Pilots Association

[CraigCantwell]

Fidot: I read the clarification and I saw several places where it directly contradicts the written policy. It appears that whomever wrote it either did not completely read the policy as written, or failed to understand the meaning of what was written. Here is one example and there are others:

From the memo: Chapters have no responsibility to retain any records from YE activities.

From the policy: EAA chapters and other operators of EAA-related programs and events will maintain orderly and accessible records for each Youth participant in chapter activities. The maintenance period will be not less than three (3) years. See the attached Waiver & Permission Slip Matrix. These records will include: .....

So which is it? Did anyone proof this against the written policy before it was sent out? And HQ wonders why they have a credibility problem and an angry membership?

To: Mr Pelton: How about lets scrap this policy as it's written, spend some time looking at those policies that are in place with other organizations and that work. Then design ours so that it will work for Chapter needs and the organization as a whole. This one is a mess, unworkable for many Chapters and it's rushed implementation has become a very divisive and destructive item that is rapidly destroying what has been up to now, a very successful and well run activity.

[Mike Switzer]

I would advise that EAA take a good look at the policies used by YMCA in their local youth sports leagues & those in place with AAU teams. They are nowhere near as onerous & they work.

[fidot]

I am deeply saddened, outraged and discouraged and see no other path forward than to depart this organization that has been such a positive part of my life for almost 30 years.



So I've been mulling over this for as long as the thread runs...

I still like AirVenture: yes, it's a "tradeshow", but there's still "grassroots" there. There's a bunch of (mostly BiplaneForum, Gimp ;) ) folks that I like to meet there that are so widespread over the country that I wouldn't see in one place otherwise..

5336

There are a lot of new folks not involved in "politics" (I was one of them just in 2013; and Airventure had a lot of value for me then (I learned welding and met all the welding shop guys: now it's my "homebase" for airventure... I looked at a bunch of biplanes and talked to some of them... Attended some really good seminars by Lycoming guys, Budd D., and a few others, etc etc etc yada yada: just a sheer concentration of aviating folks makes it easier to connect to information / people you are seeking)..

So, I still want to go to Oshkosh...
Buying a ticket to AirVenture basically gives you automatic EAA membership unless you already have one..

Our Chapter is still okay-ish.. Some really interesting folks I met thru being in a chapter. Some really interesting folks that came on by searching "Austin EAA Chapter". (being it's webmaster helps ;) ).

I think there's probably still value in being an EAA member, though in a funny ways: not via an overall value you receive from the HQ; but rather being under the "umbrella of a keyword" if that makes sense....

Participating in background checks CYA BS? Thanks; but no: there, I am 100% with you.

[fidot]

....where it directly contradicts the written policy....

Yep. The whole rollout is messy, feels smelly, and done very unprofessionally: this contradiction just being the most recent one (technical implementation of checks.. "silent", under the rug removal of SSN requirement... no communication / input from YE coordinators and pilots...).

Yes, the only proper, mature, and correct response would be "sorry guys, we fudged up: let's look back at this and make this right" (optionally, suspend the program effective immediately until workable policies and procedures are in place if necessary to CYA). Otherwise this makes me not want to touch anything YE or EAA/youth related with a 10-foot pole.

[AcroGimp]

So I've been mulling over this for as long as the thread runs...

I still like AirVenture: yes, it's a "tradeshow", but there's still "grassroots" there. There's a bunch of (mostly BiplaneForum, Gimp ;) ) folks that I like to meet there that are so widespread over the country that I wouldn't see in one place otherwise..

5336

There are a lot of new folks not involved in "politics" (I was one of them just in 2013; and Airventure had a lot of value for me then (I learned welding and met all the welding shop guys: now it's my "homebase" for airventure... I looked at a bunch of biplanes and talked to some of them... Attended some really good seminars by Lycoming guys, Budd D., and a few others, etc etc etc yada yada: just a sheer concentration of aviating folks makes it easier to connect to information / people you are seeking)..

So, I still want to go to Oshkosh...
Buying a ticket to AirVenture basically gives you automatic EAA membership unless you already have one..

Our Chapter is still okay-ish.. Some really interesting folks I met thru being in a chapter. Some really interesting folks that came on by searching "Austin EAA Chapter". (being it's webmaster helps ;) ).

I think there's probably still value in being an EAA member, though in a funny ways: not via an overall value you receive from the HQ; but rather being under the "umbrella of a keyword" if that makes sense....

Participating in background checks CYA BS? Thanks; but no: there, I am 100% with you.And there's the rub, want to go to OSH, must support the org, want to compete in IAC, must support the org, want to fly YE, must support the org.

The guys aren't the problem, the chapters aren't the problem (although IAC 36 has some serious politic BS going on but that is another story). The org is the problem and it only speaks one language, money.

Unless and until the org hears a message, in the only language it understands, and at a volume it can't ignore, it has now clearly stated it doesn't care what we mere peons think down in the hinterlands, so long as our tribute continues to flow.

Well I for one am done with complying and submitting and participating in any further erosion of my freedoms (more than enough of that going on everywhere else already) and that includes subjecting myself to this background check and training, in order to (sort of) protect the org - it does absolutely nothing for me as a volunteer.

And anyone who thinks EAA being able to point to this program is going to keep them out of a suit for any real or imagined molestation that may eventually happen, someday, somewhere, somehow, is deluding themselves.

This literally does nothing for the org, and nothing for us as volunteers - worse, it is overly burdensome and self-contradictory as has been pointed out on multiple occasions.

'Gimp

[Chris In Marshfield]

From the memo: Chapters have no responsibility to retain any records from YE activities.

I must have missed that part. Where was that written in the memo? That's the one thing left that I don't care for.


How about lets scrap this policy as it's written, spend some time looking at those policies that are in place with other organizations and that work.

Which programs are those? I've been a Boy Scout leader for a long time, and their program is very similar, complete with background checks for leaders and merit badge counselors. Also, if I want to chaperon any of my kids' activities at school, I'm also subject to a background check.

Just looking to see what I might be missing out there.

~Chris

[Copapilot]

Read Pelton's missive. Reads like a political campaign speech. Parsed it for actual information. Semantic content is null.

Read the media file last night. While it does address some sticking points specific to YE rally activities, it does NOT address the majority of the issues / questions raised here.

Net output = nothing constructive has changed from last week. Still an unacceptable situation.

[cub builder]

And there's the rub, want to go to OSH, must support the org, want to compete in IAC, must support the org, want to fly YE, must support the org.

The guys aren't the problem, the chapters aren't the problem (although IAC 36 has some serious politic BS going on but that is another story). The org is the problem and it only speaks one language, money.

Unless and until the org hears a message, in the only language it understands, and at a volume it can't ignore, it has now clearly stated it doesn't care what we mere peons think down in the hinterlands, so long as our tribute continues to flow.

Well I for one am done with complying and submitting and participating in any further erosion of my freedoms (more than enough of that going on everywhere else already) and that includes subjecting myself to this background check and training, in order to (sort of) protect the org - it does absolutely nothing for me as a volunteer.

And anyone who thinks EAA being able to point to this program is going to keep them out of a suit for any real or imagined molestation that may eventually happen, someday, somewhere, somehow, is deluding themselves.

This literally does nothing for the org, and nothing for us as volunteers - worse, it is overly burdensome and self-contradictory as has been pointed out on multiple occasions.

'Gimp

I'm afraid I have to agree with 'Gimp. This whole thing has been ugly. Lest someone misinterprets this, I think everyone on this thread is in favor of protecting children. The argument has been; 1) The program doesn't do as advertised (protect children); 2), It it overly intrusive; and 3), It is downright insulting. Many point at the Boy Scouts and Churches and says "They do it, so we should do the same." Why? There is a huge difference between a 15 minute plane ride vs spending an evening a week plus some overnight or camping trips with kids.

Rather than being overly intrusive and insulting to the volunteers without actually protecting children, let's do something that might actually make sense. Sex crimes are crimes of opportunity. So let's remove the opportunity. All it takes is a simple set of rules that are included as part of pre-rally briefing. Always have a second adult accompany children to and from the plane. In our chapter, we always included a parent and a ground worker. For flight line safety, a ground worker always escorts the parent(s) to and from the plane both before and after the flight. The worker and parent stay nearby, certainly in sight, until the aircraft is started. Then the worker escorts the family members back to the waiting area. After the flight, a ground worker escorts the family back out to the plane. We usually don't unload until the parent is there as they always want pictures of the kids in the plane anyway. (The smiles are much bigger after the flight!)

One time I held my own rally flying a number of Cub Scouts (in a 2 seat plane). I had parents on the ground plus one Scout leader act as my second and ground worker. It was a simple process that protected me as well as the kids. This really isn't rocket science and doesn't require a rigid bureaucratic nightmare to do successfully.

As has already been stated, background checks only filter out those accused or convicted. It does nothing to catch those without a record, which is what we really need to protect against. Those convicted and registered know better than to participate in youth activities lest they be exposed and gain more publicity as registered offenders. The registries are public information and a number of people check them. The background checks are nothing more than an intrusive way to make it look as if the EAA cares while accomplishing nothing to actually protect children. It's all show and is about legalities rather than actual security.

A number of years ago, my then 7 year old son was molested by a vetted and cleared school principal. This was an event that thoroughly screwed up his life, and cost us as a family a great deal of anguish as well as many tens of thousands of $$ in counseling for my son. Those that haven't been through this can't imagine the family nightmare this one event kicked off that lasted for decades. If I thought the background checks, vetting and rigid rules held any value to prevent this from happening, I'd be on board. I am not. And believe me, after my family's experience, I do take this issue quite seriously. A better solution is to simply eliminate the opportunity for such events to happen with the presence of a second adult as well as parents whenever possible. These are common sense solutions that might need to be re-emphasized during the pre-rally briefing at each rally.

This whole rollout has been ugly and insulting to the membership. Much like 'Gimp, it seems clear the EAA HQ only understands $$. I've already been told that if I walk away, my membership is insignificant. But I simply can not go along with the theatrical semblance of security. So, this former Tech Counselor, Flight Advisor, Newsletter Editor, Chapter Web Master, Chapter VP, and long time Chapter President has shut off the auto-renewal on his membership, and unless a real solution and some common sense comes to the forefront, will allow his 27 year membership to expire. The EAA has been a big part of my life, and it has been a fun ride. But I simply can not stomach what the EAA is becoming.

-Cub Builder

[PA12Flyer]

As President of Chapter 67, I have been following the posts concerning the Youth Protection Policy. Needless to say this has been a hot topic within our Chapter. A little background about our Chapter. When I was elected as President 7 years ago, membership was at it lowest point in years. The Chapter needed help and a new direction. I made some changes and with the help of the members we brought the Chapter back. The Chapter Pancake Breakfast Fly In's grew from having a few hundred people show up to now where we have close to 1600 people show up. The proceeds we made from the Fly In's has allowed us to send 3 kids a year to the Air Academy. Through the hard work of our Young Eagle Coordinator and our members, we have regularly flown 200-250 kids per year. Our Chapter has made promoting aviation to the kids, the next generation and the future of aviation, our main goal. So now, what has this new policy done to our Chapter? It has destroyed everything I and the others in the Chapter have worked so hard build. Gone will be the 250 kids we have given Young Eagle rides to. Why? not enough pilots and volunteers willing to complete the required checks and training. Gone will be the Fly In's that the local community has looked forward to attending each year. Why? not enough members left in the Chapter to be able to put them on. Gone will be the kids that we send to the Air Academy each year.

I beg and plead to the leadership of EAA to STOP this policy and work with the Chapters and the members to come up with a program that we can actually work with. Not this program that is killing the EAA I used to know. It is very hard to see this chapter falling apart due to this one ill conceived program.

[jimbob]

Jack, you are a nice guy trying to do the right thing, but I think maybe you don't get it. I shall enlighten you.

I will speak only for myself: I am TIRED. Tired of being shoved around. Tired of being considered a molester-in-prospect until proven otherwise. Tired of jumping through hoops to provide imagined protection for others, whom I already pay so that I can be part of their club. Tired of having people stand in front of me with their hands out, asking me to donate my time, my airplane, my efforts, and being rewarded with more paperwork so I can prove that I am not dangerous or a pervert.

Now hear this: My time is my own. So is my airplane. I will, or will not, donate it as I see fit. If those who wish to benefit from my generosity are worried about my possibly molesting their children (when in my experience I should be MORE worried about their assaulting ME), then as my mother said, "If you don't like my company, then it takes less of it to suffice."

If EAA wants the benefit of my attention, you may have it on my terms. Otherwise, it takes less of me to suffice. Discussion over.

[Copapilot]

If EAA wants the benefit of my attention, you may have it on my terms. Otherwise, it takes less of me to suffice. Discussion over.

+1!

[RickG]

This whole thing has been ugly. Lest someone misinterprets this, I think everyone on this thread is in favor of protecting children. The argument has been; 1) The program doesn't do as advertised (protect children); 2), It it overly intrusive; and 3), It is downright insulting. Many point at the Boy Scouts and Churches and says "They do it, so we should do the same." Why? There is a huge difference between a 15 minute plane ride vs spending an evening a week plus some overnight or camping trips with kids.
I'm with you, Cub Builder. Parents seem to have no issue trusting us to take their children flying and return them safely to the ground. Is this "youth thing" even on their minds? It will be now. There are few (if any) checks in place with regards to the pilot's competency or the aircraft's maintenance. Seems like the youth protection issue is now more important than core safety.

It would be one thing if the EAA proactively suggested we watch the video for our own education. Not a bad idea. In fact, add it into the Wings program for when flying with kids. The background checks (SSN or not) is another story.

Q: How is it that a CFI can spend countless hours alone with a minor in a cramped C150 (ie impossible to avoid physical contact), yet the FAA has never seen cause to require these types of background checks for instructors?

I joined the EAA specifically to participate in the YE program as I love sharing the wonderment of flight. I have nothing to hide but disagree vehemently with these policies and will let my membership expire.

I was hoping to be swayed by Pelton's email. It read like a response from "Siri" and was just as demeaning.

[Mark van Wyk]

OK, I think we all got it now. Many EAA volunteers are not happy with the new policy. My bet is that it is not going away. I think the choice is pretty clear: comply with it or stop participating in YE. That simple.

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif
http://i.imgur.com/cOMj3.gif
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/540/655/439.gif

p.s. To Tom and Ronald -- no I am not a shill for EAA. Just a realist.

[CraigCantwell]

Mark: Why are you so insistsant that those members that disagree with national, roll over and become submissive to them? My understanding is that national is subservant to the membership through the BOD. We, the membership are the reason it exists. Why has national becomes dictatorial to it's membership and is unresponsive to us? Right now, on this subject, national no longer serves us, but demands we serve it. How long will it survive with that attitude towards those that are the body of the organization. Not a single person that has posted on this subject over the last 10 days or so has advocated doing away with policy in it's entirety. Instead we have called for rewriting the policy into a logical, workable and effective one that is an asset to EAA instead of something that creates more problems than it will help.

[Mike M]

Possibly off what some think is the topic, so beware of stupid if you read on:

Last night I attended a meeting filled with drug addicts, convicted felons of all persuasions, alcoholics, various sex offenders including child molestors, compulsive gluttons and bulemics. Some of the attendees couldn't stay for the entire meeting because their parole officers enforced a 9pm curfew. My daughter was with me because we didn't get a sitter.

Where was I?

Celebrate Recovery. In a church. Practicing parental responsibiity.

[vettdvr]

I have completed all the checks and bless by EAA. However I am totally unsatisfied with the background check. I just worked with Sheriff's office and they did a full background check. Why couldn't the EAA just do a follow up vs looking for another way to lose my information.

Now about the wives that cook during a YE event. They are members by marriage to members of our chapter. They WILL NOT submit to background check and therefore apparently can't be cooking in the kitchen at the public airport when a minor comes into eat breakfast. All the EAA has to do now is convince them. Never happen I can assure you. How about older members way over 65 that are honorary members in the chapter, they wont' do it either.


I understand that society and news agencies look to make a quick buck at someone else expense but somewhere there needs to be tort reform so that in a law suit if you lose you pay damages. We let the lawyers and easy money makers off easy and everyone else pays with back ground checks, permits, loss of freedom and on.

My guess is our chapter will stop YE flying and do a wait and see until all this sorts out but wont' know for sure until next meeting.

I can summarize this all up in one word,, NUTS!

[PA12Flyer]

Exactly my feeling. Nuts! This is also the sentiment of the majority of our Chapter members.

[PA12Flyer]

Mark, this goes far beyond just effecting Young Eagles. It effects how we deal with the great young members we have in our chapter. I personally will not have our chapter basically put up an unwelcome sign to the next generation of aviators. That is what this policy is doing.

[Jim Rosenow]

OK, I think we all got it now. Many EAA volunteers are not happy with the new policy. My bet is that it is not going away. I think the choice is pretty clear: comply with it or stop participating in YE. That simple.

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif
http://i.imgur.com/cOMj3.gif
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/540/655/439.gif

p.s. To Tom and Ronald -- no I am not a shill for EAA. Just a realist.


For once we agree, Mark. My choice, and apparently that of others, is leave EAA, unless there are major changes.

The new YE demands were the final straw, but I believe that for many of us older members (for reference, I attended my first EAA National fly-in in RFD in 1962, age 14) there is a greater issue. It's EAA's slide from a confederation of like-minded, aviation-enthused individuals, to a Corporate entity. EAA has made a primary focus of promoting itself to the public. One way it does this is thru an airshow catering to the lowest common denominator....concerts, huge non-aviation exhibits, buy a 'membership' at the gate and we'll let you and your six kids out among airplanes that may be the life-long accomplishment of the builder/restorer, etc. I believe EAA has lost sight of the 'Association' portion of their name. Because of that I choose to no longer associate.

I believe everyone at EAA Corporate is acting in good faith. I am also a firm believer in the concept of unintended consequences, which I predict will have repercussions throughout EAA. PHP would NOT be happy!

As an active pilot and multiple-aircraft owner, I will continue to promote aviation in any way I can, including kids' rides.

Jim
EAA #64315 (1971-2015...the membership, not me!)

[ssmdive]

+1!


I am a MEMBER, not an employee.

[rwanttaja]

I am a MEMBER, not an employee.
Another way of putting it is that we are CUSTOMERS, not employees. We pay money to belong. If a price rises too high (either in the fiscal or other sense) we can take our custom elsewhere.

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

I can summarize this all up in one word,, NUTS!

Good word. Better words, FUBAR! and Hubris. By the time EAA recognizes that a bulldozer was not required to kill a knat, it might be too late to fix. Just add this great lie to, the cheque is in the mail and, "I promise I won't....."

[Chicoduster]

As the president of Chapter 427, we will have to probably stop all YE fights. Most of our volunteers and pilots will not go through the checks.
We usually fly between 110-125 kids sometime later in the fall and don't get our setups done until close to the event. We have used the local Boy Scout troop for a lot of our "labor" in the past and the young boys are really good. They, I guess , won't have to fill out background checks. But the real truth of the matter is maybe it is just time to fold the chapter and get on with life. I personally give lots of people and kids rides in my open cockpit biplane year around and that won't change.
I am truly amazed and disappointed in the response from HQ on the issue. This is prolonging the issue, especially on this forum. I don't agree with all the comments on here but really believe you guys all at least care.

[S_Van]

For what its worth, you might want to read:
http://www.aero-news.net/ANNTicker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35cf157a-3260-4f19-9f79-a3aa1685685d

Its a bit long, but its written to fill an on online column. The author reviews many comments made in this thread, but most important of all he speculates, because he has no actual documentation, regarding events that may have occurred. Speculation is risky because it may or may not be true, and if untrue, breeds rumors. (That's why EAA should come clean on this. If there have not been any molestations, then say so ! If there have, then EAA just needs to day "Yes, but we're not giving out details to protect the minor(s) involved.")

The author also states "I have been advised and confirmed documentation that has provided some basic warnings from headquarters of the impending need for this, for a number of months via online/written communications that were sent to those involved in these programs."

Q: What's a basic warning?

Q: Sent to those involved? Define that. Our YE coordinator throws away nothing. Ever. He reads everything. Asked him if had received anything prior to January 15th, and he said that he had not.

[Byron J. Covey]

For what its worth, you might want to read:
http://www.aero-news.net/ANNTicker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35cf157a-3260-4f19-9f79-a3aa1685685d

Its a bit long, but its written to fill an on online column. The author reviews many comments made in this thread, but most important of all he speculates, because he has no actual documentation, regarding events that may have occurred. Speculation is risky because it may or may not be true, and if untrue, breeds rumors. (That's why EAA should come clean on this. If there have not been any molestations, then say so ! If there have, then EAA just needs to day "Yes, but we're not giving out details to protect the minor(s) involved.")

The author also states "I have been advised and confirmed documentation that has provided some basic warnings from headquarters of the impending need for this, for a number of months via online/written communications that were sent to those involved in these programs."

Q: What's a basic warning?

Q: Sent to those involved? Define that. Our YE coordinator throws away nothing. Ever. He reads everything. Asked him if had received anything prior to January 15th, and he said that he had not.

You might want to research the writer's background.


BJC

[Bret Steffen]

Once again, while EAA attempts to allow you full freedom to express your opinions here, in the interest of clearing up a few misconceptions let me add a few more things to the conversation.
The following three links are the newsletters that went out to YE pilots, YE coordinators, and EAA volunteers respectively
http://spirit.eaa.org/youngeagles/newsletters/9-21-15-ye-coordinator-field-rep.html (September 2015)
http://spirit.eaa.org/youngeagles/newsletters/5-18-15-ye-pilot.html (May 2015)
http://spirit.eaa.org/volunteerinfo/newsletter/1504v2.html (April 2015)
This is the text of the article that appeared in each of these newsletters:
EAA's Youth Protection Program
EAA staff is creating a Youth Protection Program for our members and volunteers actively engaged in youth programs. The main goal is to provide a consistent organizationwide program that creates awareness and provides education to volunteers on the best practices of working with youth. As an organization that actively engages in youth activities, EAA feels it is important to ensure our volunteers have the appropriate training and knowledge to effectively work with this audience.

The program will be introduced in greater detail to the volunteer chairs and chapter leaders in the next few months. We have volunteers assisting in the implementation and testing of the program. We look forward to sharing the tools with you soon. If you have a specific youth program you are working on, let us know. We want to hear your ideas as we create this program.
In addition, we talked about it at the YE luncheon and the Chapter Leader’s breakfast during AirVenture. We chose these venues because they reach the people who are impacted the most by the policy. We did receive feedback from folks after these went out.

[Bret Steffen]

Further clarification for you all:

http://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/eaa/educationresources/youtheducation/youth%20protection%20policy/what%20it%20means%20for%20ye%20rallies.pdf

This PDF is a great guide for you on how YE is and is not impacted by the policy.

No additional paperwork for chapters beyond what you already do for Young Eagles -- the policy clearly calls this out. Additional paperwork is only for chapters who do additional youth programming (youth builds for example) and that paperwork is definitely there to protect the chapter.

[CraigCantwell]

You might want to research the writer's background.


BJC

If Zoomer told me I was on fire, I would require an independent, disinterested observer to verify it. Should one not be available, any nearby alien lifeform would suffice.

[rwanttaja]

If Zoomer told me I was on fire, I would require an independent, disinterested observer to verify it. Should one not be available, any nearby alien lifeform would suffice.
Friends, you know where my opinion falls, and normally I don't object to thread drift, but I'm willing to bet that EAA would MUCH rather we not discuss this subject here....

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Further clarification for you all:

http://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/eaa/educationresources/youtheducation/youth%20protection%20policy/what%20it%20means%20for%20ye%20rallies.pdf

This PDF is a great guide for you on how YE is and is not impacted by the policy.

No additional paperwork for chapters beyond what you already do for Young Eagles -- the policy clearly calls this out. Additional paperwork is only for chapters who do additional youth programming (youth builds for example) and that paperwork is definitely there to protect the chapter.
Thanks, Bret, that's a great help.

I'd like to throw a out a suggestion: While the point of closest contact between a YE and an EAA member is during the flight, the abuse itself is NOT like to occur at that time. The plane's return is usually met by parents and YE ground personnel; an upset child will be immediately noticed. It'd take an extremely stupid predator to try something during that 20 minutes.

So background checks on the pilots aren't going to help much. The pilots are the heart-and-soul of YE; they're shelling out a batch o'bucks to fly kids; if there's no direct risk, why antagonize them?

On the other hand, the ground crew are the folks most likely to detect a problem. I think the *training* (not the background checks) should be required for them as well. I'm presuming the training covers how to detect potential predation, and is not just a summary of EAA policy.

There should be a pre-event briefing for the ground crew and pilots that re-caps the key points to watch out for.

Just a few thoughts. Appreciate you providing the additional information.

Ron Wanttaja

[combahee]

Bret, I did see the notices, however no where did it spell out any of the proposals, certainly not the need or thought of a background check. Many of us do not attend Oshkosh so we were not privy to what happened there.
If the EAA wants to produce a video and make it available for all the chapters to review with their volunteers, that would be great, maybe we could use some education. Give us best practice information. But keep in mind each event is different from others and doesn't even address non rally YE rides. The way the policy and it's implementation is written is ambiguous, confusing and unnecessarily restrictive to the Chapters, the pilots, and volunteers and could even lead to even further problems.
For the Chapters that do builds or have minor members the policy makes it almost unworkable.
This whole roll out has been a disaster, and is unworkable.
Bret since you work for EAA how about please explaining in detail why the need for this policy, why so restrictive and where the EAA got this policy? Please don't put the blame back on the Chapter coordinators for not seeing the earlier notices, which by the way were neither mailed nor e-mailed but were part on an online notification if we looked at the "newsletter".

[fidot]

Bret, you guys have told us this:

EAA staff is creating a Youth Protection Program for our members and volunteers actively engaged in youth programs. The main goal is to provide a consistent organization-wide program that creates awareness and provides education to volunteers on the best practices of working with youth. As an organization that actively engages in youth activities, EAA feels it is important to ensure our volunteers have the appropriate training and knowledge to effectively work with this audience.


How does "providing program that creates awareness and provides education to volunteers" match to "we'll background check you and make sure you pick correct 1-out-of-3 answers after showing you a paragraph of our policy N times"?

I've seen policies; trainings; etc. We have a very exhaustive "ladder training" @ NVIDIA (10K+ people, multinational company). Some dude managed to hurt himself on a ladder and everyone now is supposed to have it: while silly; it's actually very well done (that is, assuming you need to be taught ladder safety and basic physics :) ).

I've done the EAA's training: it's literally done to just claim it exists, nothing else. It does not *educate* you on abuse detection, proper behavior, etc: instead, it shows you one paragraph of the policy, and then asks a question of it. It's kinda like showing you a 2-by multiplication table, asking "what's 2*2" and then declaring that you know math.

I can almost see some lawyer making a claim that EAA did this not to Truly Protect Kids; but to CYA: and winning that argument.

EAA official responses on the forum, Jack's email, etc are insubstantial. The whole reaction to backlash and a decision to *silently* drop SSNs doesn't add confidence (ie, "oh shit.. oh well, some folks are pissed, but most of them haven't done it yet: so we'll sweep SSN requirement under the rug and hope no one pulls that rug to look under it").

[lyleapgmc]

The early notices were very vague. There were no indications of the depth and breadth of the proposed Youth Protection Plan. It was created by EAA staff with no input from those most able to provide information about how any of the activities actually operated. It was a knee jerk reaction to a virtually non-existent problem.

The one incident that I am somewhat familiar with involved an EAA member who had not been charged or even investigated before the events became public. It was not disclosed whether any victims were contacted through the Young Eagles program. No amount of background checking would have disclosed his past activities. The media tried to implicate everyone in sight. Lets's see how many people we can cast a dark shadow over.

I want to hear an in depth explanation of what "best practices" are and who determines what they are. Who in this world is qualified to determine what will ultimately be a best practice or THE best practice.

I suspect the staff at EAA spent a lot of time looking at every other organization's alleged best practices and took from them what sounded good. Have there been any real studies to determine the effectivness of those programs. After picking and choosing from a number of programs and throwing them in the pot the stew may not turn out to be as good as expected.

Can anyone on EAA staff explain how each rule or guidance proposed will be effective?

Did anyone look at the George Carlin Youtube video titled, "Qestion Everything."

There was some grafitti on a wall somewhere that said, "question everything." Someone added, "Why?" It should go on and on from there with many pertinent questions asked.

Lyle

[jimbob]

I will just speak for myself: The nuts and bolts of the policy and its implementation are not the problem. What crawls up my nose is the very premise itself - the premise that such a program is needed.

These sorts of "good ideas" are anything but. They are, in reality, a subtle form of bullying - like that of liberal colleges that want to force all freshmen men to take "rape-awareness" training - the unspoken message being that there is a Darned Important Problem, and that it is called, "men," and that Each And Every One Of Them needs to be schooled - and in the process, warned - to not rape, because, well, you know - they ARE men, after all.

Show me that there is a problem, and then we can talk. Otherwise, fly the kids yourself; I need a good break from all my community-mindedness, and perhaps some time to pick up a new rating or even wax my plane. I have plenty else to do.

Au revoir, Young Eagles. See you on the other side of insanity.

[rwanttaja]

Bret, I did see the notices, however no where did it spell out any of the proposals, certainly not the need or thought of a background check. Many of us do not attend Oshkosh so we were not privy to what happened there.
That bothers me a bit, too. Mr. Pelton's letter says this was circulated to some extent prior to the letter being released last month...but there's a lot of people here who were apparently blindsided by the whole thing. Obviously the information hadn't got out to the rank and file.

If only there was an EAA-wide publication that could be used to inform members about pending actions like this, something that's mailed to the members every month.

Oh, wait. There is. It's called "Sport Aviation," and it's the official magazine of EAA. Odd that a draft wasn't published a month or two ago, and the members invited to comment prior to the formal implementation of the program.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike Switzer]

This forum needs a like button. I would click it for Ron's last post.

[rwanttaja]

I will just speak for myself: The nuts and bolts of the policy and its implementation are not the problem. What crawls up my nose is the very premise itself - the premise that such a program is needed.

Well...oddly enough, I'm not arguing that some sort of policy is not needed. Just about all youth-oriented programs require some sort of checks like this. EAA has to protect itself if anything actually *does* happen; they have to show that they were aware of the possibility and took steps that were in line with what other organizations do. I am reminded of the FBI a few years ago. Most people in intelligence-related jobs have to undergo periodic lie detector tests. But not FBI special agents...oh, no, these are trusted people who the FBI brass would never insult by making them take a lie detector test.

Then FBI Special Agent Robert Hanssen decided to sell secrets to the Russians.

All it takes is one case, and EAA is in a world 'o hurt. So I see the need to implement a policy. EAA needs to protect itself, and I understand that.

It just seems that the membership was blindsided by this. Maybe this was discussed with the chapter YE coordinators...but they didn't mention it at any of my chapters. There are a lot of outraged people here, many of them apparently joining the forums just to air their disgust. Note that no one has been posting, "Sure you were warned, remember the XXXXXX". EAA is telling us, after the fact, that we had been adequately warned of this policy change...but I'm not really seeing any sign of adequate promulgation, here. If there had been, the registration process wouldn't have required the SSAN at first and then be modified to eliminate it after the outcry.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bret Steffen]

I think all of the staff involved in the development and communication of the policy will agree that we could have done things differently folks. I don't want to high jack your conversations here, but I do want you to know that there is no easy way to bring something like this forward, and nobody was looking forward to the reactions we knew we would have to weather. There was much agonizing over when to share with the general membership and frankly we got it wrong. I sincerely hope that our kids continue to have amazing role models to introduce them to flight.

[rwanttaja]

I think all of the staff involved in the development and communication of the policy will agree that we could have done things differently folks. I don't want to high jack your conversations here, but I do want you to know that there is no easy way to bring something like this forward, and nobody was looking forward to the reactions we knew we would have to weather. There was much agonizing over when to share with the general membership and frankly we got it wrong. I sincerely hope that our kids continue to have amazing role models to introduce them to flight.

Thanks, Bret. It's not easy being the corporate interface at a time like this, and I appreciate your candor and willingness to respond.

Just don't have the tar and feathers waiting for me when I come to Oshkosh in April, 'k? :-)

Ron "I bruise easy" Wanttaja

[combahee]

Bret, thanks, now lets get this thing right and back on track. Read the 400 posts and look at the suggestions and the problem areas. Involve the YE coordinators. Listen to the chapters as to how they operate and how we can work with EAA to allow us to do what we do, and give protection to the kids. For now suspend this program and lets work together to build a workable program.

[Antique Tower]

I'm still waiting to hear how this "EAA-wide" policy will be implemented at Airventure.

Specifically, the use of minors as volunteers.

[Jeff Point]

There was much agonizing over when to share with the general membership and frankly we got it wrong.
Brett,

I don't think we've ever met, and I certainly don't envy you your job these past couple of weeks. I don't blame you personally for any of this, as I don't think it was your doing. Having said that, allow me a couple of points.

1. It's not just that you (and I'm referring to the collective you at HQ) got it wrong, it's that you continue to compound the mistake. The silence has been deafening for two weeks, and the tepid responses (including Jack's) have been devoid of any real substance. What changes have been made (removing the SSN) have been done in darkness, blunting the positive effect they might have.

2. This message that "we told you about this in advance" is a myth, and you loose credibility every time you say it. The vague references that you cite did not hint of anything on this scale, and furthermore essentially said, "more info to follow shortly..." followed by nine months of nothing, then the program dropped with no warning.

3. Who are these mythical volunteers who helped develop this program? Curious that we've not heard from any of them in 42 pages of responses.

4. I believe that there was a deliberate effort to keep this tightly under wraps for fear of repercussion. I submit as an example- it was told to me by our chapter YE coordinator that she happened to be at HQ (on unrelated EAA business) the day that the letters came out. Our chapter is fairly local to EAA, and we flew 349 kids last year. While there, she had conversation with your staff about YE. Oddly, there was no mention of this program at all, not even a "just a heads up, you'll be getting a letter in the mail today." Nothing. She was shocked to come home and see the letter, having just spoken mere hours ago to one of it's signers.

5. Understand this- while things have improved over the last few years, this organization still suffers from a lingering "Hightower hangover." There is a significant amount of distrust that simply did not exist five years ago. You need to understand the environment that you operate in and realize that you may not get the benefit of doubt that you once enjoyed. Trust takes time to rebuild, and requires openness and honesty. Im afraid this issue, if not fixed, will set the organization back even further.

[vaflier]

Brett, While I doubt this will happen there is a quick and easy way to restore faith in leadership and actually turn this into a positve for the organisation. It simply would take Mr Pelton to annouce that this new policy is being placed on hold pending review and alteration due to the many problems with it that have been pointed out by the membership. This will immediately restore the faith of the membership and give the cooling off time needed to revamp the program into something which meets the need to provide proper protections for the kids and is actually workable. We all want to provide a safe and enjoyable experience for the young people we fly and it is true that we live in a time when there are many who would harm them. Educate us to know how best to care for those in our charge and let us help design a program that will do so. We are here to help even more so than to complain. Try it ,the applause from the members will be loud and long. We really do care about the young ones and our organisation. I suspect that most will understand what is like to get something wrong while trying to do the right thing. Much respect can be gained by standing up and owning the mistake and then setting out to make it right.

[VA Maule]

The road to HELL is paved with good intentions, and EAA Hq has built an interstate highway.

I'm chapter president EAA 1202 and I'm recommending to our group that we have our last Young Eagles rally in April before the deadline so we have enough help to get it done, as it appears we won't have any volunteers ( including myself) after May , however I'm sure we'll still fly the kids just under a different " Brand "


Youth Protection Plan mission statement: WE ARE NOT HAPPY UNTIL YOUR NOT HAPPY !!!!!!

E M Dunnavant 1099291 life member ( wondering if I could get a refund about half of it is not used up yet ? )

[rwanttaja]

It just seems that the membership was blindsided by this. Maybe this was discussed with the chapter YE coordinators...but they didn't mention it at any of my chapters.

News flash! The policy WAS available for us to review. It was in the third sub-basement of headquarters, in a disused storeroom behind a pile of rusty ol' Szekely engines, in a file cabinet marked, "Beware of the Leopard."

But they WERE available for review....

Ron "Mostly Harmless" Wanttaja

...who is guessing only 10% or so will get this.....

[Copapilot]

...who is guessing only 10% or so will get this.....

Are you implying that the policy was actually written by Prostetnic Vogon Pelton?

...I guess I'm a "10%er"...:D

[Chick]

Glad to have my towel!

[AcroGimp]

News flash! The policy WAS available for us to review. It was in the third sub-basement of headquarters, in a disused storeroom behind a pile of rusty ol' Szekely engines, in a file cabinet marked, "Beware of the Leopard."

But they WERE available for review....

Ron "Mostly Harmless" Wanttaja

...who is guessing only 10% or so will get this.....Don't Panic!

[fidot]

... which cabinet hasnt been opened for a while due to it being faintly smelly (possibly due to a said leopard having died of boredom). There was a continuous struggle for who opens it first: the Archivist or the Cleaning Lady. Archivist, obviously, had a thin hair attached to a viscous splurt of Aeroshell grease, bridging a drawer with the Policy to the cabinet's frame, thus assuming that the hair will get detached if the cleaning lady ended up opening the cabinet...

.. little did he know that there was another hair attached just in the same manner to a different splurt of grease, that one belonging to the cleaning lady.

[Jeff Point]

There was a terrible silence.
There was a terrible noise.
There was a terrible silence.
The Young Eagles program drifted away into space.

(Thanks for the comedic interlude. I'm going to read some poetry now.)

[Dave S]

...who is guessing only 10% or so will get this.....

That you Mr. Dent? :D

[Antique Tower]

Glad to have my towel!

That reminds me... do the powers that be realize we have showers on the property at Airventure? That minors go in there?

The dichotomy blows my mind.... A minor's visit to a Young Eagles day requires background checks, volunteer training and a ten-page policy PDF.

That same youth can camp at Airventure, walk solo into an association-owned community shower and disrobe.....

[vettdvr]

1) It's my Plane
2) I pay for it
3) I am aircraft commander
4) My Physical is current
5) My insurance is paid
6) My plane annual is current
7) My panel data base at $1000/yr is current
8) I make the decisions who fly in my plane.
9) I can chose or chose not to fly anyone
10) I don't' have to be a member of EAA
11) I have flown more people enjoying flying first time flights than any YE number I have flown in the past 50 yrs of flying
12) I take my flying responsibility very serious
13) Today I am flying with FAA rep

Nuff said.Period

[deej]

Like many others on here, we've had several of our long time YE pilots announce that they aren't likely to fly any more kids, and with the small size of our Chapter, that is very likely to mean that we won't have enough pilots to hold another YE rally. I don't think there is any question at this point that EAA National got this one massively wrong. Rather than simply walk away in disgust, I'd like to try to get things back on track. Let's come up with a reasonable policy, and see if we can move forward.

In my opinion, a workable policy would be:

1) Required annual sensitivity course for anyone working around youth, preferably provided by EAA via the web.

2) Provide full name and EAA Member number to allow a personalized certificate to be printed out to verify completion of the course. Certificate must be on your person during any EAA event that involves youth.

3) Always have at least 2 adults within sight of any youth at any event. Possibly have one of them required to have taken the sensitivity training course.

4) Always have a second adult present when loading the kids into the airplane and buckling the seatbelts, etc., and always have a second adult meet the aircraft after landing to unload the kids from the airplane.

That is effectively all it takes. Easy to do, not cumbersome, and provides for the protection of the young ones at events.

There is no need for a background check, and in reality they are somewhat useless. If someone has been convicted of a sexual crime, they are already required to be registered as a sex offender. The background check is pointless to tell us something we would already know. If someone hasn't been convicted, the background check won't tell us anything. The key is to provide an environment where the sexual predators simply do not have any opportunities, which is most easily and effectively accomplished by requiring a second adult to be present, as noted above.

The pilot community is fairly small, and our YE pilots are people that we already know. We aren't going to let some random person show up and take kids flying.

I would even go so far as to recommend that each pilot install a Go Pro camera or similar inside the cabin so that a complete record of events inside the plane exists in the unlikely event that any accusations are made. I would not make that part of the official policy, but is perhaps a good idea to protect the pilots.

Thoughts?

[cub builder]

Thoughts?

Since you asked (which the EAA has not done)... Personally, I'd skip the certificate and simply make it a part of the pilot/ground crew briefing before a rally. Our chapter requires the preflight/ground crew briefing before participation anyway. It will only take an extra 5 - 10 minutes. If someone comes in late, the YE Coordinator gives them a private briefing.

The other things you propose are simply common sense (and I am in full agreement), but should be re-emphasized during the pre-rally briefing. A ground worker and hopefully parent(s) accompany the child(ren) to the plane and are present (we call it a photo op for the parents) as they are strapped in. A ground worker and parent(s) meet the plane (again for photo ops of the kids in the plane) before unloading. Opportunity for evil things to happen is eliminated. Bottom line for all activities is that at no time, other than during a flight, is a child alone with an adult. That protects everyone.

A number of people are proposing this. I'm just not so sure the EAA wants to hear it. I suspect the HQ people have their lawyers whispering in the other ear demanding certification and rigid rules.

-Cub Builder

[ssmdive]

. I sincerely hope that our kids continue to have amazing role models to introduce them to flight.

If they don't, then you only have yourself to blame. I for one will not comply and wish I didn't have to support the EAA and its airshow to be an IAC member.

[Byron J. Covey]

Thoughts?

Yes; Society should not punish innocent people for the offenses of a few. The offenders should be punished.

First offense of child sexual abuse should carry a mandatory punishment of surgical removal of the criminal's sex harmone producing organs.

Second offense should result in the criminal's permanent removal from society.

I do not want to be forced to live my life under the assumption that, without "training" or "education" I will do some evil thing. Punish the criminal, not the rest of us.


BJC

[TomBush]

Like many others on here, we've had several of our long time YE pilots announce that they aren't likely to fly any more kids, and with the small size of our Chapter, that is very likely to mean that we won't have enough pilots to hold another YE rally. I don't think there is any question at this point that EAA National got this one massively wrong. Rather than simply walk away in disgust, I'd like to try to get things back on track. Let's come up with a reasonable policy, and see if we can move forward.

In my opinion, a workable policy would be:

1) Required annual sensitivity course for anyone working around youth, preferably provided by EAA via the web.

2) Provide full name and EAA Member number to allow a personalized certificate to be printed out to verify completion of the course. Certificate must be on your person during any EAA event that involves youth.

3) Always have at least 2 adults within sight of any youth at any event. Possibly have one of them required to have taken the sensitivity training course.

4) Always have a second adult present when loading the kids into the airplane and buckling the seatbelts, etc., and always have a second adult meet the aircraft after landing to unload the kids from the airplane.

That is effectively all it takes. Easy to do, not cumbersome, and provides for the protection of the young ones at events.

There is no need for a background check, and in reality they are somewhat useless. If someone has been convicted of a sexual crime, they are already required to be registered as a sex offender. The background check is pointless to tell us something we would already know. If someone hasn't been convicted, the background check won't tell us anything. The key is to provide an environment where the sexual predators simply do not have any opportunities, which is most easily and effectively accomplished by requiring a second adult to be present, as noted above.

The pilot community is fairly small, and our YE pilots are people that we already know. We aren't going to let some random person show up and take kids flying.

I would even go so far as to recommend that each pilot install a Go Pro camera or similar inside the cabin so that a complete record of events inside the plane exists in the unlikely event that any accusations are made. I would not make that part of the official policy, but is perhaps a good idea to protect the pilots.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

That no program whatsoever is needed - that's my thought. Lemme see - the YE program has been around for about 24 or 25 years now without a 'policy,' and without a single incident of molestation or related lawsuit levied against it. Why do we need one now? We don't. . .

That anyone who 'needs' - or even thinks they would benefit from 'training' that shows them the 'best practices' of how not to grope a youth needs to be permanently removed from the gene pool. Period. . .

That complete repeal of this solution in search of a problem is the only acceptable answer. . .

Period.

[lutorm]

Yes; Society should not punish innocent people for the offenses of a few. The offenders should be punished.

First offense of child sexual abuse should carry a mandatory punishment of surgical removal of the criminal's sex harmone producing organs.

Second offense should result in the criminal's permanent removal from society.


Surely you are aware that there is such a thing as false convictions? I can't support any punishments of this irreversible kind when I know that there will be innocent people subject to it. The Innocence Project have shown, using DNA testing, that a significant fraction of people on death row have been falsely convicted.

Few things in life are black and white, and criminal justice surely is not one of them.

[Mayhemxpc]

Wow. I go away for a week and a half and look what happened. I was post#2 and thought it would end or fizzle out like many of these strings. So, now after having gone through all 44 pages, and the survey string, and that my wife thinks I abandoned her on a Friday night I have just a few comments to offer. (Or as someone else once said: almost everything has been said by everyone, but not everyone has said it.) Does there need to be some sort of training? Yes, but I am a big believer in training. What should that training consist of. Don't know. We still do not have a clearly defined problem that the training is supposed to solve. That said, there are a lot of good ideas posted here -- none of them involving background checks. Which would I recommend? Don't know. Need to define the problem -- and that does not seem to have been done, or at least fully explained. Lots of conjecture in the thread, but nothing official. (The official answer of everyone else is doing it does not suffice as defining the problem.)

A few words about the background checks. Yes, most of us have undergone many of them to various degrees of intrusion (like the ones some of us do every five years.) Are the consequences of possible exposure severe? In some cases very severe -- destroying your whole life kind of severe. Yes, the Chinese seem to have gotten them anyway. But we don't need to add to the risk. We are all pilots here and supposed to have a basic understanding of risk management. Risk = exposure and consequences. The more often you expose yourself to a risk, the greater the likelihood of something bad happening. So what EAA management did, whether they thought of it or not, was decide that the risk they face of a possible undesirable event is more important than the risk EAA members face by repeated exposure of personal information.

What do I recommend? Stop everything. Revaluate. Identify the end state. Define the risk to achieving that end state (exposure and consequences.) Identify and objectively evaluate possible risk treatment measures and then choose the SIMPLEST approach to reduce exposure and mitigate effects to an acceptable level of risk. Risk to the organization, risk to the children, risk that the chosen course of action will jeopardize the continuation of the YE program.

Until that happens, I will defer participation in a program that will increase my personal risk without measurable benefit. I take enough risks as it is -- like the risk I take every time I let someone other than a family member into my airplane.

[Sam Buchanan]

I have to wonder if EAA's insurance carrier is driving the background check requirement. The last time we renewed our church's insurance policy the carrier was really clamping down on probationary periods (background checks) and policies for those involved in children's education programs. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is in play with the EAA.

[Byron J. Covey]

Surely you are aware that there is such a thing as false convictions? I can't support any punishments of this irreversible kind when I know that there will be innocent people subject to it. The Innocence Project have shown, using DNA testing, that a significant fraction of people on death row have been falsely convicted.

Few things in life are black and white, and criminal justice surely is not one of them.

I am. That is why I support the relatively innocous punishment for convicted first offenders.


BJC

[rv builder]

Thoughts?

That no program whatsoever is needed - that's my thought. Lemme see - the YE program has been around for about 24 or 25 years now without a 'policy,' and without a single incident of molestation or related lawsuit levied against it. Why do we need one now? We don't. . .


EXACTLY. As someone else pointed out just above, my money is on either the lawyers or the insurance company, or both, driving this "solution".

[rwanttaja]

EXACTLY. As someone else pointed out just above, my money is on either the lawyers or the insurance company, or both, driving this "solution".
Probably a pretty good guess, since the only other option is that someone highly-placed at EAA headquarters was kicking back with a drink one night and thought, "Gee, we have to do SOMETHING to tick off a large proportion of the membership....."

Ron Wanttaja

[cub builder]

Probably a pretty good guess, since the only other option is that someone highly-placed at EAA headquarters was kicking back with a drink one night and thought, "Gee, we have to do SOMETHING to tick off a large proportion of the membership....."

Ron Wanttaja

I don't think anyone on here thinks the EAA staff has bad intentions, but rather badly misguided good intentions as evidenced by creating a program in a vacuum without including those that it will affect the most. But the end result may be the same. A badly damaged program, a loss of membership, and a general distrust of the EAA leadership.

-Cub Builder

[Floatsflyer]

I have to wonder if EAA's insurance carrier is driving the background check requirement. The last time we renewed our church's insurance policy the carrier was really clamping down on probationary periods (background checks) and policies for those involved in children's education programs. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is in play with the EAA.

I speculated this very thing back on page 24, Post 237 setting out 2 scenarios.

[rwanttaja]

Out of curiosity, I took the training.

I found the format and content acceptable, and it seemed to cover the ground adequately. Some of the questions were just basic regurgitation of the content just presented, but others weren't and did require a small amount of consideration. I even got a couple of questions wrong.

The presentation covered what was acceptable contact...a concern to me since I often hoist the littlest kids into the cockpit of my single-seat airplane when they're too young to fly as Young Eagles. This, thankfully, is still allowed.

I have to take a lot of corporate online training at work (Government procurement policies, business courtesies, ethics, security, hazardous waste handling, clean-room operations, etc.), and this was similar. Some of that training does ask questions right after each section of the material, like the YE training does.

Some suggestions:

1. The training needs to lead off with WHY it's necessary. Thankfully, there aren't any Young Eagles examples to use, but EAA needs to define the basic reason training became necessary. Something along the lines of, "Revelations of child abuse at several large organizations has shown the need for formal policies and training to protect the children. While there have been no reports of such abuse during Young Eagles events, EAA management has recognized the need for heightened awareness...."

2. The training needs some "DO" and "DO NOT" lists to provide easier-to-remember summaries of key aspects of the policies. These lists could also then be made available to members as a refresher just before an event.

3. There's a section on reporting abuse, where the first line is that any suspected activities must be reported. The trouble is, it doesn't say to WHOM. It does provide the data later in the section, but that was my big question when starting to read the page. I'd add the words "as described below" to the line that says reporting is required.

4. The presentation is visually uninteresting. It needs a photo or graphic to go with each section, rather than a "wall of words." Show a volunteer buckling a kid into a seat when the section talks about appropriate touching, show a kid in a two-seat airplane when talking about the two-seater policy, etc. The pictures can be generic, but images would give a little more life to the thing. EAA had six months to put this together...supposedly.... so it should be more professional.

5. On the same note, would it kill ya to use a larger font?

The training itself just took 5-10 minutes, so folks don't need to be too concerned about it. I *still* wouldn't agree to the background check, but owning a single-seat aircraft, the issue is moot.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I don't think anyone on here thinks the EAA staff has bad intentions, but rather badly misguided good intentions as evidenced by creating a program in a vacuum without including those that it will affect the most. But the end result may be the same. A badly damaged program, a loss of membership, and a general distrust of the EAA leadership.
Well said.

So, what will be needed for the leadership to regain members' trust?

Ron Wanttaja

[Sam Buchanan]

I have to wonder if EAA's insurance carrier is driving the background check requirement. The last time we renewed our church's insurance policy the carrier was really clamping down on probationary periods (background checks) and policies for those involved in children's education programs. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is in play with the EAA.

I spoke this morning with an individual who is in EAA management and was told insurance carriers are not driving this train. He gave me some background info but I prefer not to comment on it publicly.

[Byron J. Covey]

I spoke this morning with an individual who is in EAA management and was told insurance carriers are not driving this train. He gave me some background info but I prefer not to comment on it publicly.

Then why did you mention it?


BJC

[rwanttaja]

I spoke this morning with an individual who is in EAA management and was told insurance carriers are not driving this train. He gave me some background info but I prefer not to comment on it publicly. Then why did you mention it?

Well... Sam's a solid dude, and has been here for quite a while. I trust him. It's a interesting bit of information...though it does get the little curiosity antennas wiggling a bit.

A previous poster mentioned (waaaay back in this thread) a close call involving a YE event, it's possible the policy is stemming from that.

Ron Wanttaja

[Byron J. Covey]

Well... Sam's a solid dude, and has been here for quite a while. I trust him. It's a interesting bit of information...though it does get the little curiosity antennas wiggling a bit.

A previous poster mentioned (waaaay back in this thread) a close call involving a YE event, it's possible the policy is stemming from that.

Ron Wanttaja

I'm not suggesting that I don't trust him; I don't even know him.

I just don't like posts that tease "I know something about it (the subject being discussed) but I can't tell you". Better to have left it out of the post.


BJC

[Sam Buchanan]

Then why did you mention it?


BJC

The point of my post was to retract what I had posted earlier about insurance carriers being a driving force. 'Nuff said.

[rv builder]

The point of my post was to retract what I had posted earlier about insurance carriers being a driving force. 'Nuff said.

Thus leaving the lawyers as the driving force.

[rwanttaja]

Thus leaving the lawyers as the driving force.
Well... I tend more to think that people at headquarters became concerned of a potential problem, and took steps to bring the organization in line with other youth-oriented activities. I'm sure legal counsel was consulted, but probably wasn't the primary driver.

Let's take a look at some good postings from the past that tend to support this. First, Jim Cunningham, in Post #124:

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.

Geyen has flown with more than 100 Young Eagles.

Mark provided a full link at: http://www.twincities.com/2014/01/22/ramsey-man-faces-more-charges-in-sexual-abuse-case/

So, with the knowledge of these events, EAA Staffer Bret Steffen's explanation has the strong ring of truth (Post #93):

There have been incidents in the past three years where YE pilots have been accused of illegal activities regarding youth outside of the program. While not directly linked to the program this has highlighted the fact that EAA has not kept step with the current practices of vetting people who have contact with children. The need for a youth protection policy became an obvious need and was not driven by any single factor, lawyer, or insurance company.

So, I think it's reasonable for EAA to implement such a program.

I think (and Bret confirmed it in a later posting) that EAA *really* dropped the ball in implementing this. In addition, I believe EAA seriously compounded the problem by claiming that membership had been warned this was coming. The outrage expressed here shows that the coming policy had not been adequately discussed with the membership prior to release, as is the dearth of mentions of the coming changes in the organization's official publication.

Finally, we come to the background investigation issue. It's ironic to note the differences in the two cases above. In the case described by Mr. Cunningham, a background investigation may have revealed the previous convictions...except the person involved did not participate in Young Eagles, anyway and no investigation would have been made. The Geyen case Mr. van Wyk referenced involved an active predator flying Young Eagles... except it was, apparently, the first time he was caught and the background investigation would have given him a clean bill of health!

Many people, such as myself, do not like continued intrusion into our lives and losses of privacy. We chose not to cooperate; not to hand our private data over to an outside entity that collects it solely for profit and gives us no insight or control into what's done with the data afterwards. It's a matter of conscience, and a decision that should be left to each member without argument.

It's obvious the new policies are going to drive some formerly-dedicated participants out of the Young Eagles program. That this would happen should have been perfectly predictable. But I am deeply concerned that the EAA didn't anticipate this, and seems surprised by the reaction. Just because we're the "rank and file" doesn't mean we're smelly and as rough and dumb as an iron bar. When you're going to make major changes, please let us in on the planning.

Ron "I am not a number!" Wanttaja

[vettdvr]

Each time I try to read a response by clicking on it or reply Norton which is current running W10 pops up and says virus prevented.What's up on this site.Now back on topic. If the VA can loose millions of pieces of data on people, schools hacked into, and credit cards sold or stolen. Convince me that someone saying pleasegive us your SS, and all your ID,, trust us we won't let it get stolen.This is still the big crux of the issue that many have difficulty. I just completed a full background check for the LASP and then EAA wants another. Next it will be insurance co wants same info. SS number should only be used forSS purposes and not ID, it was never intended for identification or background checks.We have an obligation to protect the innocent. This means if we can't protect kids at ANY event, park, mall, EAA doesn't matter where. we need to look at our values.If someone at an EAA event is in any way injuring children and someone knows and doesn't stop it immediately they are guilty of the act.I have NO tolerance for child abuse, but find it offensive to provide all my ID info for a 2nd background check in the same month. There should be a way to just verify background in one place and not require it every time I buy a candy bar at the store.Ok venting a bit. I have completed the EAA requirements and kept the proof of that completion to fly YE's. But I don't like the background check and probably won't do another.

[TedK]

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

[Mayhemxpc]

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?)

[rwanttaja]

Ron- you are closer to seeing the workings of HQ than the rest of us hoi polloi.

Not any more... like I mentioned a few posts back, I'll probably have to lie low on my next visit. :-)


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?
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

[CraigCantwell]

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 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

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.

[rv builder]

The organization DID have to mature with the times
....
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

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".

[jimbob]

'"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.

[Byron J. Covey]

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?



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/article/misunderstood-crimes/


BJC

[rwanttaja]

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?
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

[rv builder]

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.


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.

[rwanttaja]

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?"

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

[vaflier]

The only way to eliminate all risk with the Young Eagles program is to make it go away, yep looks like they are well on their way to eliminating the risk !!!!!!. I will call this what it is " Politically Correct BS ". And I for one am completely sick of it. I have no problem with education and awareness training , the background checks are another matter entirely.

[rv builder]

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

Yeah, but all it takes is *one* jury, right? After all, I'm quite sure that many more people have been killed in their EABs than have been molested by YE pilots (based on the data available, it's apparently whatever-to-zero).

[rv6mike]

Our chapter had a YE event yesterday, we flew 30+ kids with 4 airplanes (6 in my 6A). With the new requirements it would not have been possible because of the number of adults needed. After all the discussion on this board I was careful how I belted them in and helped them out. The parents did come out to the airplane for photos but once I started belting them in the parents left. This made the whole experience not fun. I would take the training but not the back ground check so I am out. I believe this policy will make the parents nervous having to sign this and that and wondering why?

Mike

[ssmdive]

I spoke this morning with an individual who is in EAA management and was told insurance carriers are not driving this train. He gave me some background info but I prefer not to comment on it publicly.

Well, the EAA sure as hell should provide this info to THE MEMBERSHIP. This is another example of how the EAA does not care about the membership as members and treats us as workers.

[Byron J. Covey]

Well, the EAA sure as hell should provide this info to THE MEMBERSHIP. This is another example of how the EAA does not care about the membership as members and treats us as workers.

Workers get paid; EAA members pay to volunteer.


BJC

[Byron J. Covey]

I don't have a specific date, but I would say sometime this week, if not early next!

Gloria:

Did I miss the promised update on how this issue will be resolved?

I did see Pelton's memo, but that does little to resolve the issues.

Thanks,


BJC

[ssmdive]

Anyone else find it ironic that the EAA forums are now under attack?
The forum is hosted by a vendor and now currently fighting off an attack... Just like many of us were afraid that our personal information given to another vendor would be subject to attack and compromise.

Folks truth is always better than fiction. This just reinforces the argument of why we don't want to give the EAA or anyone our personal information.

[djenders]

Anyone else find it ironic that the EAA forums are now under attack?
The forum is hosted by a vendor and now currently fighting off an attack... Just like many of us were afraid that our personal information given to another vendor would be subject to attack and compromise.

Folks truth is always better than fiction. This just reinforces the argument of why we don't want to give the EAA or anyone our personal information.

I would like to correct the misinformation, our site is not currently under attack. That is a mischaracterization of some of the login issues we've seen that pop up from time to time with each individual's virus / malware protection. It can happen with the big sites, as much as smaller sites like ours.

As virus and malware definitions are always being updated they can trigger issues with websites, message boards, forums, etc.

There is no attack on our forums, and the login issue is completely unrelated to our Youth Protection Policy.

We continue to work with our internal team, and external partners to resolve such issues. Most go completely unnoticed, or are a result of an individual's software configuration on their machine.

Thanks,
Dennis

[smutny]

And this all boils down to...


This made the whole experience not fun.

Flying YE is not our civic duty. It's not like helping at the shelter, donating blood or even helping that stranded motorist at the side of the road. We do it to promote the love of our hobby.

[dusterpilot]

I believe this policy will make the parents nervous having to sign this and that and wondering why?
There is nothing additional to sign and the parents would never notice a difference. The YE registration form is the only form that needs to be signed.

[rwanttaja]

I believe this policy will make the parents nervous having to sign this and that and wondering why?There is nothing additional to sign and the parents would never notice a difference. The YE registration form is the only form that needs to be signed.
There is, IIRC, some sort of warning required before flying their kids in a two-seat airplane. This may attract their attention. Not only are most experimentals two-seaters (giving a reduced choice of aircraft), from my long-ago experience with YA, most kids WANT to fly in the two seaters (because they'll probably get to fly the plane).

I would suggest the YE form be modified to include a permission block for the parent to check off if they're OK with the kid flying in a two-seater.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike Switzer]

OK, something I don't fully understand - if in a 4 seat plane is the thought to have another adult present? If so I don't think that will work unless everyone is flying at least a 182. I know my instructor & I were at max gross weight in the 172R by ourselves.

[rwanttaja]

OK, something I don't fully understand - if in a 4 seat plane is the thought to have another adult present? If so I don't think that will work unless everyone is flying at least a 182. I know my instructor & I were at max gross weight in the 172R by ourselves.
From the EAA Youth Protection policy:

"...a minimum of two adults who have completed the EAA Youth Service Standards process described above will be in attendance as supervisors of all Youth at all times....'Attendance as supervisors' requires that the person must be present and actively circulating through the areas in which services are being provided, in order to monitor all activities for appropriate behavior."

"....Due to the nature of some EAA-related programs (e.g., Young Eagles aircraft rides), there are times when it will be impossible or impractical for two (2) adults to be present in an activity involving a Youth. In such cases, the staff member or volunteer should take particular care to ensure that the Youth and their parents are aware of the circumstances."

A 172 should be able to carry two adults with a small child in the back seat. So it's not "impossible or impractical" to carry two adults on the flight, just very, very inefficient. And probably not as much fun for the kid, who won't even see much of the instruments.

In short, we need a definition of "impossible or impractical". If the policy had been as thoroughly vetted with the membership as EAA has claimed, this issue probably would have come up long ago.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

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/article/misunderstood-crimes/


BJC
According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the recidivism rate for all violent offenders is 61.4%, which theoretically makes sex offenders significantly less likely to commit a similar crime again. Not that I am advocating NOT keeping an eye on people who have a track record of having done bad things. Forgive, but don't forget. In any case, the process proposed by EAA should be more than sufficient to limit exposure (opportunity for and undesirable event.)

Ron, agreed that as written the one or two adult per plane is unclear. CAP initially had similar language when it instituted its Cadet Protection Program. It was quickly amended to allow single adult to cadet contact for flight training and orientation flights. It is amazing that this lesson learned was not incorporated into the initial EAA policy.

[Copapilot]

There is nothing additional to sign ...

After 01 May 2016 there will be at least three additional documents that the attorney-in-fact for each minor I fly will be required to sign and have notarized on behalf of the minor child prior to arriving at the YE rally. They are (1) A specific performance personal services contract, (2) a subrogation and indemnification agreement naming the EAA as the exclusive sole defendant party for all actions, and (3) an MPAA / CSA /SAG compliant unlimited still and video photography rights release.

Of course, unless the EAA changes the YEYPP drastically between now and then, this requirement will never be enforced because I will simply refuse to continue my participation in this debacle.

[Mark van Wyk]

I have been informed that the EAA Chapter 62 Young Eagles event at San Martin Airport (E16), scheduled for May 13, 2016 will proceed as normal. I do not know how many pilots have completed the background check and training. The event normally flies as many as 200 kids. I must say I am confused about the policy for 4-seater airplanes. Do there need to be 2 adults in the plane for each flight?

[rwanttaja]

I have been informed that the EAA Chapter 62 Young Eagles event at San Martin Airport (E16), scheduled for May 13, 2016 will proceed as normal. I do not know how many pilots have completed the background check and training.
According to the FAQ, each volunteer should receive a printable wallet card via email that establishes they meet the requirements. Only thing I can think of is to call your pilots ~1 month out and ask if they have it.

As for the 2 Adults per aircraft issue, I'm hoping they answer that quickly. Average ten-year-old boy weighs half the FAA-standard for an adult. The math isn't good.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

After 01 May 2016 there will be at least three additional documents that the attorney-in-fact for each minor I fly will be required to sign and have notarized on behalf of the minor child prior to arriving at the YE rally.
Assuming the "C" in your handle stands for "Canadian" you don't have a problem:

"At the publication date of this Policy, EAA is not yet able to provide background checks in Canada because of unique Canadian laws."

Those pesky Canadian privacy laws, apparently. Us 'Mericuns don't have to worry about those.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dhelsper]

I attended our regular chapter meeting yesterday afternoon. This issue has definitely set off an angry firestorm among our members. Of the four regular YE pilots in attendance (one being me) , three of them most likely will not comply. This will essentially kill our YE program, and perhaps the very existence of our chapter. We have a small chapter, and the cohesive force holding it together was the YE program. I now fear this will be our demise. What is so hard for me to believe, is that nobody at headquarters had any inkling what this would do? That is scary in itself. One members suggestion was for us to form a private club, and essentially run the same program under it's banner. I think that may get some traction.

Dan Helsper
Puryear, TN

[rwanttaja]

Ron, agreed that as written the one or two adult per plane is unclear. CAP initially had similar language when it instituted its Cadet Protection Program. It was quickly amended to allow single adult to cadet contact for flight training and orientation flights. It is amazing that this lesson learned was not incorporated into the initial EAA policy.

"Must....keep....from posting....another....snarky....comment......about ....how much....this was....supposedly coordinated with membership...."

Ron "Self-control R Us" Wanttaja

[dusterpilot]

After 01 May 2016 there will be at least three additional documents....
"Young Eagles and EAA’s New Youth Protection Policy
"This short document is intended to help you understand how Young Eagles is impacted (or not impacted) by the new policy at EAA....
"The only waiver necessary for a YE rally or flight is the standard YE form, which is sent back to Oshkosh after the flight. Chapters have no responsibility to retain any records from YE activities. Parents also do not need to receive any more information than the regular YE flight registration. Further, there is no need for a sign-in sheet for YE rallies."


As for the 2 Adults per aircraft issue, I'm hoping they answer that quickly.
Can't find the quote right now, but no, you can fly 3 kids in a 4-place aircraft. No need to take another adult along.

[nesincg]

Chapters have no responsibility to retain any records from YE activities. Parents also do not need to receive any more information than the regular YE flight registration.This person you quote did not read the Youth Protection Policy correctly.

[rwanttaja]

"Young Eagles and EAA’s New Youth Protection Policy
"This short document is intended to help you understand how Young Eagles is impacted (or not impacted) by the new policy at EAA....
"The only waiver necessary for a YE rally or flight is the standard YE form, which is sent back to Oshkosh after the flight. Chapters have no responsibility to retain any records from YE activities. Parents also do not need to receive any more information than the regular YE flight registration. Further, there is no need for a sign-in sheet for YE rallies."

Dunno, Dusty. The new EAA Youth Protection Policy is linked DIRECTLY from the Young Eagles page:

EDIT: Found the document Dusty was referring to. See next post.

11. Recordkeeping
EAA chapters and other operators of EAA-related programs and events will maintain orderly and accessible records for each Youth participant in chapter activities. The maintenance period will be not less than three (3) years. See the attached Waiver & Permission Slip Matrix. These records will include:

a. Parent contact information and other emergency contact information.
b. Acknowledgement of receipt of policies on discipline, prohibited activities, and sign-in/sign-out procedures.
c. Activity-specific permission slips, dated and signed.
d. Attendance record of the dates on which the Youth participated in EAA-related programs and events.
e. Conduct and behavior issues and resolutions.
f. Incident reports.

Maybe I'm missing something, that somehow this isn't applicable to Young Eagles. But it certainly does seem require record-keeping beyond just the standard Young Eagles waiver.

If it's NOT true, then EAA staff need to clarify it.

Just as an aside, this tidbit in the Policy is interesting: Young Eagles doesn't require it, but there's some dandy fine print about waivers on Page 10 for those cases where a kid visits any other type of chapter event:

"Keep longer if required by your State’s Statute of Limitations"

Ohhhhhkay........


Can't find the quote right now, but no, you can fly 3 kids in a 4-place aircraft. No need to take another adult along.

If that's true, a lot of folks will be relieved. But it does seem to conflict with the "Two Deep Leadership" concept on Page 4 of the EAA's new policy. Please post when you find the quote. Keep in mind that an informal statement (Forum posting, FAQ, etc.) would not supercede the official EAA Youth Protection Policy, which requires "Two Deep Leadership".

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Dunno, Dusty. The new EAA Youth Protection Policy is linked DIRECTLY from the Young Eagles page:

Doing some digging, I did find the source of Dusty's quote:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program

It's the "What it Means for YE Rallies" link on the left. It does state that "Two Deep Leadership" is NOT required in the aircraft, and that only the waivers are required.

The problem is, it still conflicts with the official EAA Youth Protection Policy. If there are exemptions for Young Eagle events, it should be stated in the policy, not in unlabeled, undated side documents.

Ron Wanttaja

[ssmdive]

After 01 May 2016 there will be at least three additional documents that the attorney-in-fact for each minor I fly will be required to sign and have notarized on behalf of the minor child prior to arriving at the YE rally. They are (1) A specific performance personal services contract, (2) a subrogation and indemnification agreement naming the EAA as the exclusive sole defendant party for all actions, and (3) an MPAA / CSA /SAG compliant unlimited still and video photography rights release.

Of course, unless the EAA changes the YEYPP drastically between now and then, this requirement will never be enforced because I will simply refuse to continue my participation in this debacle.


Since I seem to work for the EAA now, how do I get the EAA to start covering part of my insurance and MX? See when a company starts to dictate HOW a person can do a job, that organization now becomes an employer. "In this case, the Ninth Circuit said that FedEx controlled the drivers and that they were independent contractors in name only." http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/06/16/fedex-settles-driver-mislabeling-case-for-228-million/#321e50a15f5a

And Google and Uber are facing the same situation. What was basically decided was that when an organization starts dictating how a person can do the job, they are no longer independent.

Makes me wonder if a lawsuit is needed? I think the better option is just to abandon the YE program and start a program outside of EAA. Call it Young Phoenix... I rises from the ashes of the YE program. Maybe the AOPA should get involved?

[cub builder]

Seems pretty simple to me. I can comply or not. I choose not. The EAA can modify their program to meet my requirements as a volunteer or not. Apparently they choose not. If so, then I don't fly kids under the YE program.

I know within our chapter the YE coordinator has stepped down and cancelled his membership. Very few, if any, of our pilots will comply with the new edict. So the YE program in our chapter is dead. That cancels rallies at airports in 4 different communities that are not likely to view their airports or the EAA in the same positive light as in the past. A number of the chapter members have shut off the auto-renewal of their memberships and are waiting to see how this plays out. Unless the EAA acts very soon, a year from now, this small chapter will be much smaller, if it even continues to exist. This scenario is playing out nationwide.

The YE programs at many airports will cease to exist. The EAA loses a lot of community good will towards the airports and the EAA as a group. EAA is losing memberships and chapters over this issue, but their lack of meaningful response indicates that they have their heads cut in that come hell or high water, this is what they are going to do. The EAA isn't likely to implode over this event, but it will no doubt become a significantly smaller organization. I know of a number of members (myself included) that have stopped the auto renewal on their memberships and are waiting to see how this plays out. I know a few that simply cancelled theirs as they don't want to be a part of an organization with the current thinking and attitude of the EAA HQ.

The lack of response from EAA HQ makes their preference obvious. They have a big event every summer that creates members with the gate access fees. They apparently don't need the nationwide membership and chapters anymore. The lack of leadership and lack of willingness to communicate and work with the chapters has left many chapters and many members feeling disenfranchised. That is the message being delivered from EAA HQ. It's going to take a lot of work to change that message IF it's not the message intended from HQ.

-Cub Builder

[combahee]

All of the YE pilots that regularly fly in our chapter, 6, will not participate after May 1. We have three others that fill in and they won't either. We will continue to fly but outside the EAA. We have another meeting this Saturday where we will decide whether to even stay in the EAA as a chapter. Doesn't look good. Either way if we don't fly YE in EAA then the EAA will lose most of the pilots as they join to fly YE.

[PaulDow]

Just as an aside, this tidbit in the Policy is interesting: Young Eagles doesn't require it, but there's some dandy fine print about waivers on Page 10 for those cases where a kid visits any other type of chapter event:

"Keep longer if required by your State’s Statute of Limitations"


I see in Connecticut that, depending on how a potential accusation is prosecuted, the statute of limitations is 30 years after their 18th birthday (Same for civil actions). If it prosecuted as a Class A felony, there is no time limit.

For our filing system, we're going to need a lot more mayonnaise jars to keep on Funk & Wagnalls' front porch.
(Yes, I've been watching Johnny Carson reruns lately.)

[Mark van Wyk]

According to the policy:
----
4. d. Flight Programs. Due to the nature of some of EAA-related programs (e.g., two-seat Young Eagles aircraft rides), there are times when it will be impossible for two (2) adults to be present in an activity involving a Youth. In such cases, the staff member or volunteer should take particular care to ensure that the Youth and their parents are aware of the circumstances.
---
This clearly implies that if it's a four seater, an adult COULD and SHOULD be present. RIGHT? If so, I must say that's a deal killer.

EAA? Can you please clarify?

[rv6mike]

Where is the EAA with all the answers? Seems like the only responce comes when someone complains about this site. It is becoming more obvious everyday that this policy was not well thought out. Hopefully they are trying to fix it since they are not answering our questions.

Mike

[rwanttaja]

Where is the EAA with all the answers? Seems like the only responce comes when someone complains about this site. It is becoming more obvious everyday that this policy was not well thought out. Hopefully they are trying to fix it since they are not answering our questions.
Well...one has to remember that the EAA staffers who occasionally hang around this place (Glory, Charlie, Tom, Bret, etc.) do not, themselves, define policy. They are not allowed to publicly interpret EAA's position on our policy questions. This has to be done at a higher level, and they have to get permission before passing policy interpretations along..

In short: Don't blame the worker bees.

Ron "But watch out for them damn drones" Wanttaja

[lutorm]

Since I seem to work for the EAA now, how do I get the EAA to start covering part of my insurance and MX? See when a company starts to dictate HOW a person can do a job, that organization now becomes an employer. "In this case, the Ninth Circuit said that FedEx controlled the drivers and that they were independent contractors in name only." http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/06/16/fedex-settles-driver-mislabeling-case-for-228-million/#321e50a15f5a

Lol, nice try! I'm pretty sure that only applies if they actually pay you, though... Since they don't, they can require whatever from you, since they have no leverage to actually make you do it. :rollseyes:

[rwanttaja]

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?
Well, I doubt you'll find "Paid Your Debt to Society" has any legal definition. It's a euphemism, probably invented by a convict to avoid having to say, "I'm out of the hoosegow."

US laws punish those convicted of violating them. That punishment does not end with the end of a prison sentence, or period of parole. Most felons are denied some civil rights; they cannot vote, they cannot hold office, they cannot possess firearms. That never ends, unless some special action is taken to restore their full rights. I think it's reasonable not to put a convicted embezzler in a position where he or she handles money; I think it's reasonable not to put a forger in a position where sensitive documents are present, I think it's reasonable not to allow a perjurer to work as a Notary Public.

And, I think it's reasonable to NOT put persons convicted of abusing children in proximity to children.

Speaking of forgery, the EAA Policy says they email a wallet card to those who complete the training and the background investigation, and this card allows them to fly Young Eagles. The recipient is expected to print it out on his or her home computer. This sounds remarkably easy to forge, and to cover up any discrepancies by using a crappy printer. Good thing felons aren't allowed to own Photoshop.....

Also, note that the card is good for only three years. If you earned yours legitimately, after three years, you have to submit your information AGAIN to whatever company EAA has doing the checks at that time.

Ron Wanttaja

[djenders]

According to the policy:
----
4. d. Flight Programs. Due to the nature of some of EAA-related programs (e.g., two-seat Young Eagles aircraft rides), there are times when it will be impossible for two (2) adults to be present in an activity involving a Youth. In such cases, the staff member or volunteer should take particular care to ensure that the Youth and their parents are aware of the circumstances.
---
This clearly implies that if it's a four seater, an adult COULD and SHOULD be present. RIGHT? If so, I must say that's a deal killer.

EAA? Can you please clarify?

Mark -

Thought I'd jump in quickly and provide some clarification for you on this question. I believe Bret Steffen linked to it before, but "two deep leadership" is not required at all when it comes to aircraft.

There is some additional clarification in the following link:
http://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/eaa/educationresources/youtheducation/youth%20protection%20policy/what%20it%20means%20for%20ye%20rallies.pdf

"Two deep leadership is not required in any of the aircraft typically used for YE flights."

Hopefully that clear up any misunderstanding on the subject, which has been discussed at length for more than a few pages.

Best,
Dennis

[djenders]

"Must....keep....from posting....another....snarky....comment......about ....how much....this was....supposedly coordinated with membership...."

Ron "Self-control R Us" Wanttaja

Ron -

Thought I'd jump in on this comment as well. There appears to be a misunderstanding, or misconception, that our membership was not involved before we rolled out the Youth Protection Policy. Actually, we shared it with 10-12 EAA chapters nationally, choosing ones that are among the most active with the Young Eagles and youth programs.

We asked them to review the policy and provide their suggestions. And their ideas were incorporated into the final product.

Shifting gears a bit, I joined EAA a little over a year ago as an employee and I've been attending AirVenture and been a member on / off for 30-some years.

Speaking personally, our staff goes to great lengths to include as many people as possible in the process. As a member first, I am continuously impressed at the level of member participation in our surveys, research, or active engagement when we roll out a new program or change.

While it is impossible to include everyone, we work very hard to get a cross-section of our membership involved and solicit their feedback.

Hope this provides a little more clarity.

Best,
Dennis

[smutny]

Hopefully that clear up any misunderstanding on the subject, which has been discussed at length for more than a few pages.

Actually, Dennis, it doesn't. You see, there is the official policy page, then there's this non-letterheaded, non-officially notated PDF with text that is in contrast to the official EAA policy.

To solve confusion and to protect everyone legally, EAA needs to clean up the actual policy language. It's contradicting the generic document and contradicts a conversation I've had with Brett.

Bottom line, EAA needs to clean up the policy and spell out exactly how it effects Young Eagle volunteers and events as well as non-youth oriented EAA, Vintage, Warbird, Ultralight and IAC events.

It has become clear to everyone here that EAA is now taken the big corporation mindset, and as such is taking its sweet time in reviewing the policy to make sure it passes all the legal sniff tests that corporate lawyers throw in it's way.

All EAA needs to do to stem the bleeding at the chapter level is a simple statement to the effect of, "We hear you, we're reviewing the policy, expect an update/clarification/rewrite/whatever on Month Day, 2016." Then provide that information then. Right now, treating the membership like mushrooms isn't helping in the least.

[Bill Greenwood]

If a chapter is used to doing Y E rides, it may be worth it to go through this latest red tape, and continue to do so. I can certainly understand those who feel insulted by this proposal, especially since is seems so unnecessary. I have never even heard of an offender of this type in all the YE rides done, over a million, and after all, it is a short flight, beginning and ending back at the airport where it started and the parents are. It is not an isolated and longer term situation. Often the plane may have more than one kid and even an adult.
Another option is to continue to fly kids, just as before with a name change, perhaps Young Pilots etc. Just don't mention EAA as a sponsor, and of course no EAA ins but most pilots have their own ins.

When I was a scout leader, we did flights for the kids in our group. Rather than try to combat the negative response we probably have gotten from the organization, we just told all the kids and the parents about the flights, that it was apart
from scouts, and got permission from them. All parents ok d the fllights, except for one boy who himself was afraid to go.

I never even thought of some potential problem from abuse and of course it was all in public. We also did a few short hikes that were not so public, but never anything overnight. I was not a very good scout leader, just did my best, never had any such problems. I think we had two adults on the hikes, not sure, but I would make sure if I had it to do over.

[djenders]

Actually, Dennis, it doesn't. You see, there is the official policy page, then there's this non-letterheaded, non-officially notated PDF with text that is in contrast to the official EAA policy.

To solve confusion and to protect everyone legally, EAA needs to clean up the actual policy language. It's contradicting the generic document and contradicts a conversation I've had with Brett.

Bottom line, EAA needs to clean up the policy and spell out exactly how it effects Young Eagle volunteers and events as well as non-youth oriented EAA, Vintage, Warbird, Ultralight and IAC events.

John -

That is actually reflected in the policy, which you can see online here:
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy

If you scroll to section 4.a.ii we do state "The Two Deep Leadership requirement does not apply in an aircraft during a Young Eagles flight."

Just didn't want any misinformation out there.

[Bill Greenwood]

I have done Y E flights in warbirds with only 2 seats as well as 4 seat Bonanza. I would take 2 kids in the Bonanza if there were kids waiting and we needed more seats.
I think 3kids is a bit much to give as good of experience. I did take some parents as the 3rd person, some of them really wanted to go and were so enthusiastic. Once as I was coming to land I hear someone talking in the back seat, not on the intercom and find that a Father is so excited that he is on his cell phone calling someone to tell them about the flight. I felt good about doing the Y E flights. I wonder if any of them became pilots. I did a ride once, not Y E and later the Father said the young man had become an AF pilot. Also did some rides for controllers at FLD/Osh and they seem to enjoy it.
Frankly. I don't love red tape. I concentrated on having a safe flight, especially with kids, and someone else did the paperwork.

[smutny]

John -

That is actually reflected in the policy, which you can see online here:
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy

If you scroll to section 4.a.ii we do state "The Two Deep Leadership requirement does not apply in an aircraft during a Young Eagles flight."

Just didn't want any misinformation out there.

Alright, I stand corrected on that. Looks like there was a re-write of the policy on 1/28/16.

However, there is still not clarification of how the Youth Protection Policy effects non-Young Eagle, non-youth specific EAA and Division chapter events. It's mentioned in the matrix at the bottom of the YE policy page, but nowhere else in eaa.org that I can find.

I have been told verbally what the expectations are if kids show up at an aerobatic contest, but I have no documentation to hand to a Contest Director to say, "Here is what EAA expects from you." With the implementation of this Youth Protection Policy, that needs to be clarified for those running events for EAA Divisions.