Young Eagles and Background Security Checks

[combahee]

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 now you are understanding what we have been saying all along. The program is unworkable, ambiguous, confusing and just plain a mess. The EAA needs to scrap it and start over or risk the whole program. 3 weeks later and still no REAL response from EAA despite 50 pages, 30K+ views and almost 500 replies and comments.

[djenders]

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.

John -

On that note, the Youth Protection Policy has no impact on non-youth specific activity.

The matrix at the end of the policy is meant to be a reference for youth-specific activities that may take place.

Dennis

[cub builder]

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.

Dennis,

When this came as a complete surprise to the vast majority of the membership as well as the nearly all of the YE coordinators, I really don't think it is a misunderstanding or misconception to say the membership was not involved or engaged before this roll out. Clearly your opinion differs from the membership at large, but I wouldn't call cherry picking a couple of YE coordinators "Involving the membership". The membership at large will vote with their continued participation in the YE program, and/or their continued support for the EAA... or not.

-Cub Builder

[djenders]

Mark now you are understanding what we have been saying all along. The program is unworkable, ambiguous, confusing and just plain a mess. The EAA needs to scrap it and start over or risk the whole program. 3 weeks later and still no REAL response from EAA despite 50 pages, 30K+ views and almost 500 replies and comments.

Actually this has been addressed, on post #494. That should provide clarity.

In Section 4.a.ii of the policy we do state "The Two Deep Leadership requirement does not apply in an aircraft during a Young Eagles flight."

[smutny]

John -

On that note, the Youth Protection Policy has no impact on non-youth specific activity.

The matrix at the end of the policy is meant to be a reference for youth-specific activities that may take place.

Dennis

And that is explained..... where?

EAA has implemented the EAA Youth Protection Policy.

How it effects Young Eagles is explained here. (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/youth-protection-policy)
How it effects Chapter youth activities is explained....?
How it effects Chapter non-youth activities where youth may show up is explained....?

[nesincg]

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.

Will we be getting notices of changes to the Youth Protection Policy with a preface of applicable changes in the future? This is an obvious but very important change in the regulations. What other changes were made?

[rwanttaja]

John -

On that note, the Youth Protection Policy has no impact on non-youth specific activity.

The matrix at the end of the policy is meant to be a reference for youth-specific activities that may take place.
Section 11 does not appear to limit it.

"EAA chapters and other operators of EAA-related programs and events will maintain orderly and accessible records for each Youth participant in chapter activities."

Doesn't say "chapter youth-specific activities." The Matrix says a kid has to either accompany a parent or bring a waiver if they show up to a normal chapter meeting ("Regular chapter activity"), and we need to retain that waiver for three years or the local statute of limitations, whichever is longer. By Section 11, we also need to retain a bunch of other information.

We have Raisbeck Aviation High School located just down the road from where we meet, and the kids occasionally drop by. Do we turn them away if they don't have a waiver? If they come with their parents, are we still required to retain contact information, acknowledgement of discipline policies, and a chapter attendance list for three years?

Ron Wanttaja

[djenders]

Section 11 does not appear to limit it.

"EAA chapters and other operators of EAA-related programs and events will maintain orderly and accessible records for each Youth participant in chapter activities."

Doesn't say "chapter youth-specific activities." The Matrix says a kid has to either accompany a parent or bring a waiver if they show up to a normal chapter meeting ("Regular chapter activity"), and we need to retain that waiver for three years or the local statute of limitations, whichever is longer. By Section 11, we also need to retain a bunch of other information.

We have Raisbeck Aviation High School located just down the road from where we meet, and the kids occasionally drop by. Do we turn them away if they don't have a waiver? If they come with their parents, are we still required to retain contact information, acknowledgement of discipline policies, and a chapter attendance list for three years?

Ron Wanttaja

A solid question Ron, I'll work on getting clarification.

Dennis

[ssmdive]

Dang dude - you have made your thoughts very clear on this. Over and over and over. After the first few (hundred) times, you just make yourself look petty. Give it a rest!


Then stop reading if you don't like what you read. Simple huh?

[djenders]

Then stop reading if you don't like what you read. Simple huh?

Please, lets keep our conversation on topic and civil. We strive to keep things civil here and respect everyone.

Lets keep our rules in mind. http://eaaforums.org/misc.php?do=showrules

[combahee]

OK lets say we have a YE rally. Teacher/chaperon brings 15 kids from the local school. We have a couple pilots, the schools chaperon, one chapter volunteer and one volunteer doing the paperwork. Only the pilots have done the training. We don't have the two deep roving supervisors. Nor is the school personnel "qualified". Do we cancel?

[Rick Rademacher]

OK lets say we have a YE rally. Teacher/chaperon brings 15 kids from the local school. We have a couple pilots, the schools chaperon, one chapter volunteer and one volunteer doing the paperwork. Only the pilots have done the training. We don't have the two deep roving supervisors. Nor is the school personnel "qualified". Do we cancel?

Many times in the past, I would invite parents to bring their kids and other kids to fly them in my aircraft under the YE program. Once the new rules come into place, I am not in compliance? Many, many questions.

[dusterpilot]

Many times in the past, I would invite parents to bring their kids and other kids to fly them in my aircraft under the YE program. Once the new rules come into place, I am not in compliance? Many, many questions.
YES, you are in compliance if you have done the training and completed the background check. You're one pilot giving a YE ride or two. It is NOT an EAA or Chapter event.

[ssmdive]

Please, lets keep our conversation on topic and civil. We strive to keep things civil here and respect everyone.

Lets keep our rules in mind. http://eaaforums.org/misc.php?do=showrules

Huh, funny, he attacks me and I tell him to not read my posts if they piss him off and you give me a talking to? Seems you can bash whomever you want as long as you support the EAA agenda.

He said: "Dang dude - you have made your thoughts very clear on this. Over and over and over. After the first few (hundred) times, you just make yourself look petty. Give it a rest!"

But that is just FINE?

I tell him: "Then stop reading if you don't like what you read. Simple huh?"

And you jump me?????

[rv6mike]

ssmdive and others, This is just the beginning, Next will be threats of expulsion if something is done wrong at an event. The statement from djenders made up my mind to not only stop Fling YE but leave EAA altogether. Was a 23 year member.

Mike

[Glory Aulik]

Huh, funny, he attacks me and I tell him to not read my posts if they piss him off and you give me a talking to? Seems you can bash whomever you want as long as you support the EAA agenda.

He said: "Dang dude - you have made your thoughts very clear on this. Over and over and over. After the first few (hundred) times, you just make yourself look petty. Give it a rest!"

But that is just FINE?

I tell him: "Then stop reading if you don't like what you read. Simple huh?"

And you jump me?????


Reminders of the rules are set in place for everyone on the forums, this includes both posts in this situation. In no way are we attacking any single contributor - there have been a few posts with foul play on this thread, which we've had to jump in and address previously.

The rules are set in place to ensure a positive experience for everyone and we ask for them to be followed, regardless of anyone's personal take on the topic.

[ssmdive]

Reminders of the rules are set in place for everyone on the forums, this includes both posts in this situation. In no way are we attacking any single contributor - there have been a few posts with foul play on this thread, which we've had to jump in and address previously.

The rules are set in place to ensure a positive experience for everyone and we ask for them to be followed, regardless of anyone's personal take on the topic.

Yet you only seem to "jump in" and quote a poster that is not supportive of the EAA agenda. That sends a clear message of bias.

For reference see this post: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?6475-Poll-Young-Eagles-Background-Security-Checks&p=53259&viewfull=1#post53259

A guy bashes people over and over... SILENCE. Someone jumps on him and the hammer came out.

[lutorm]

This is the internet. If someone calls you a ****, or a @@@@, or a ####, the proper response is always the same.

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, ... ,therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading."This 2000-year old advice from the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius still applies perfectly in the Internet age. (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/290880-begin-each-day-by-telling-yourself-today-i-shall-be):)

[ssmdive]

This is the internet. If someone calls you a ****, or a @@@@, or a ####, the proper response is always the same.

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, ... ,therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading."

This 2000-year old advice from the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius still applies perfectly in the Internet age. (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/290880-begin-each-day-by-telling-yourself-today-i-shall-be)

:)

Oh I don't let the insults get to me. Just pointing out that if the person doing the insulting supports the EAA they don't seem to get a talking to... But if you are against something being done they jump on you for innocuous postings. For example a guy flat out talks about you - Nothing. You tell him to not read it if it bothers him... They pounce.

As for insults... People who mean nothing to me - Well their opinion of me means nothing to me.

But thanks, that was a great quote I had never read before.

[Dave S]

Then stop reading if you don't like what you read. Simple huh?

My apologies. I should have kept my thoughts to myself. Have a good evening.

Sorry mods...

[rwanttaja]

A solid question Ron, I'll work on getting clarification.

Dennis
Thanks, Dennis. I think a good portion of the angst here was the lack of EAA response to the questions posed. Thanks for participating.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Oh I don't let the insults get to me. Just pointing out that if the person doing the insulting supports the EAA they don't seem to get a talking to... But if you are against something being done they jump on you for innocuous postings. For example a guy flat out talks about you - Nothing. You tell him to not read it if it bothers him... They pounce.
I suspect it's more timing than anything. The compliments start being exchanged, and the mods have to eventually step in. Ideally, they WON'T cite a particular comment; just post a general "Be nice, boys."

In any case, consider: There are over 500 posts in this thread, the large majority of them critical of the EAA. They could have quashed the thread weeks ago, and probably had a pretty good justification for doing so.

I think it's a credit to the organization that they DO allow the beefing to continue.

Ron "Looks like I have to step up my game" Wanttaja

[TedK]

I think it's a credit to the organization that they DO allow the beefing to continue.



Huh?!?

Last time I looked this was a membership organization. HQ has an obligation to listen to the beefing provided it is not hate speech.

Further, they have an obligation to listen (not to one single voice) but to get a sense of what membership desires and take that into their calculus.

If they truly don't like what I say, they do have the option of revoking my membership.

ted

[vettdvr]

Lets keep this simple. EAA wants to protect the national organization and to do so must protect under 18. In our society today with all the 10 commandments thrown out anything goes. Rules from the EAA and the 10 commandments are both rules. If a pilot says I wont' do a background check for what ever reason, it doesn't matter no one flies.
Last night we professionally covered the new youth protection plan by reading directly from EAA documentation and no adding opinions. All YE activity by the local chapter stopped last night. Why. Almost total back lash on doing the background checks. We have fly-ins where kids can fly in and that would be from an EAA chapter. Now all fly-ins have been delayed for risk of non compliance. My guess the average age of the members present were about 55. Make all the rules you want but several members stated if this was required to do the background check AND all the record keeping they would withdraw from the EAA and just have a pilots meeting in a public site. Perhaps this is short term but for now the yearly flying events for our chapter has stopped dead in it's tracks until we know from the members how many will do the training and background check. Continue making "rules" and see how it works out.

[Zack Baughman]

I think it's a credit to the organization that they DO allow the beefing to continue.


Beefing? Didn't you know? EAA is now 100% vegan. Just kidding! Seriously though, play nice folks. The comments, critiques, and criticism...it's all helpful and warranted. And needed, frankly. Just leave the personal attacks and bashing out of it.

[JP256]

With the requirement for the SSN removed, I completed both the online training and submitted for the background check. I don't like the fact that I had to do so, but I did so in order to experience the process first hand. The online training was pretty straightforward. I missed one specific policy-related answer because I didn't read the question carefully enough. Much of it was already known to me, but only because my church requires similar training (and a background check) before you can work with kids (or with senior adults - the fastest growing "target group" for abuse!) in any capacity.

I sincerely wish that the EAA leadership would have discussed the need for this more completely with the membership before taking the draconian measures they took. I have a "zero tolerance" position on abuse. It has no place in civilized society. That said, I also think the solutions implemented have more to do with "looking good in a jury room" than with actually preventing abuse. My primary concerns center on these specific areas:

1) The requirement to provide your SSN for the background check. This one has already been addressed - you can enter "999999999" in place of your actual SSN.

2) The requirement to retain records for 3-years, or however long your local statues require. In many states, the statute of limitations is 30 years AFTER the minor reaches 18 years of age. Since YE allows 8-year-olds to participate, that means that to be compliant, records need to be retained for 38+ years. My chapter has no permanent "home" office - we meet in a member's hangar at the airport. Where would we possibly safely store records for nearly 40 years? Is EAA HQ going to provide an archive facility for these records?

3) The policy is unclear about which specific records must be retained. It addresses attendance rosters, sign-in and sign-out lists, etc. Presumably, there must be a mechanism to document compliance with the "2-deep leadership" requirement, but that isn't made very clear in the policy. For several of these items, there have been "outside-the-policy" clarifications that alleviate some of the concerns (but not all). But the policy itself needs to be made crystal clear, because however the courts interpret that policy will determine whether the local chapter complied with the policy or not. Those "outside" opinions and clarifications will be meaningless. (And who is to say that 38 years from now, EAA members will still have access to the archives of this discussion group?)

4) Clarification to the policy as it addresses (or fails to address) the attendance of minors at EAA events that are not primarily intended for minors. This includes events such as chapter meetings, fly-ins, pancake breakfasts, chili cook-offs, build events, and even EAA AirVenture itself! Now that I'm finally retired, and can attend AirVenture Oshkosh, my wife and I have been volunteering on the Trams. I have no idea whether I would be required to complete the training and background check to comply with the policy or not. I definitely had kids riding the tram without parental supervision, and I always made a point of interacting with them. Would this be "legal" according to the new policy? I'm not sure, because the "2-deep" policy is not clearly articulated for this type of event, much less this specific situation.

I believe that the overwhelmingly vast majority of EAA members are good people with good intentions. And I KNOW that EAA's leadership believes this as well. That's what makes this whole mess so frustrating to me. The totally unnecessary "insult" to the integrity of the entire membership is the aspect of this whole process that bothers me the most. Any time a new policy like this is implemented, there is going to be resistance to change, feelings are going to be hurt, and people are going to have a lot of concern about it. But much of that could have been minimized by following the same "comment period" process we demand from the FAA and other government bodies. We demand it of them, yet we don't bother to follow it when we implement major, sweeping changes that affect the core values of our MEMBERSHIP! (Note - not EMPLOYEES, but MEMBERS!)

In the future, I hope EAA will adopt a new process (something like what I've outlined below) for making radical changes that affect the membership:
1) Begin with a rational, sincere explanation of the perceived need for the new policy.
2) Follow up with a clear and careful explanation of the proposed policy, with justification of each item.
3) Open up a comment period, to allow questions to be answered, clarifications made, etc.
4) Re-publish the policy (with changes highlighted) and offer a second (shorter) comment period.
5) Enact the final policy.

Thank you for listening.
Jim Parker, EAA 160604

[djenders]

I suspect it's more timing than anything. The compliments start being exchanged, and the mods have to eventually step in. Ideally, they WON'T cite a particular comment; just post a general "Be nice, boys."

In any case, consider: There are over 500 posts in this thread, the large majority of them critical of the EAA. They could have quashed the thread weeks ago, and probably had a pretty good justification for doing so.

I think it's a credit to the organization that they DO allow the beefing to continue.

Ron "Looks like I have to step up my game" Wanttaja

Exactly Ron. As Glory already pointed out, we were just jumping in to moderate.

Not trying to show any bias, but keep the conversation on topic and welcoming for all.

Dennis

[djenders]

ssmdive and others, This is just the beginning, Next will be threats of expulsion if something is done wrong at an event. The statement from djenders made up my mind to not only stop Fling YE but leave EAA altogether. Was a 23 year member.

Mike

I'm really sorry to hear that Mike. No one wants to see such a thing happen.

We are here to help answer questions and keep the forum a place where people feel free to communicate, within the rules of course. That means the team does jump-in to moderate from time to time.

[djenders]

Section 11 does not appear to limit it.

"EAA chapters and other operators of EAA-related programs and events will maintain orderly and accessible records for each Youth participant in chapter activities."

Doesn't say "chapter youth-specific activities." The Matrix says a kid has to either accompany a parent or bring a waiver if they show up to a normal chapter meeting ("Regular chapter activity"), and we need to retain that waiver for three years or the local statute of limitations, whichever is longer. By Section 11, we also need to retain a bunch of other information.

We have Raisbeck Aviation High School located just down the road from where we meet, and the kids occasionally drop by. Do we turn them away if they don't have a waiver? If they come with their parents, are we still required to retain contact information, acknowledgement of discipline policies, and a chapter attendance list for three years?

Ron Wanttaja

Ron -

A little follow-up, and I apologize for the delay. I've been battling some sort of sickness for a few days.

You brought up a good question based off the language on the matrix. Again, a good learning for us how people read and absorb the policy. We always strive to make things as clear as we can, but having this sort of feedback is helpful.

I have confirmed with our staff that a monthly chapter meeting WOULD NOT be considered a youth-oriented event. In that case, you would not need a waiver signed by their parents.

Your question about local high school students dropping in meets similar criteria. You are not hosting a specific youth-oriented event, so a waiver wouldn't be needed. That said, I'm sure any kids on a field trip may have signed something at their school already.

Hope that helps.
Dennis

[djenders]

Dennis,

When this came as a complete surprise to the vast majority of the membership as well as the nearly all of the YE coordinators, I really don't think it is a misunderstanding or misconception to say the membership was not involved or engaged before this roll out. Clearly your opinion differs from the membership at large, but I wouldn't call cherry picking a couple of YE coordinators "Involving the membership". The membership at large will vote with their continued participation in the YE program, and/or their continued support for the EAA... or not.

-Cub Builder

I understand your frustration, I do. Personally, I am a big believer in truth and transparency. I would hope that we could agree it wouldn't be realistic to involve the entire membership on this issue. As I shared earlier, we did involve 10-12 chapters. We could debate the merits of including more or less, the point of my response was just to address inaccuracies – primarily that our membership wasn't involved at all.

Speaking as just a member, and not an employee, I really hope we don't loose your involvement in such a meaningful program. I've been on a 30-year journey to become a pilot because I didn't have such a program, a mentor, or such support when I was younger. I think the infrastructure EAA now has in place would have helped me become a pilot much sooner.

What might be lost in this thread is the positive response we have had to the policy. EAA is trying to protect children, but also protect our pilots, volunteers, chapters, and the organization from a lawsuit.

So I do hope you reconsider, it would be a shame to lose someone as passionate as you are.
Dennis

[rwanttaja]

I have confirmed with our staff that a monthly chapter meeting WOULD NOT be considered a youth-oriented event. In that case, you would not need a waiver signed by their parents.

Your question about local high school students dropping in meets similar criteria. You are not hosting a specific youth-oriented event, so a waiver wouldn't be needed.
Thanks much. Key phrase is "specific youth-oriented event", then. I anticipate this clarification will be added to the next policy update.

Ron Wanttaja

[djenders]

Lets keep this simple. EAA wants to protect the national organization and to do so must protect under 18. In our society today with all the 10 commandments thrown out anything goes. Rules from the EAA and the 10 commandments are both rules. If a pilot says I wont' do a background check for what ever reason, it doesn't matter no one flies.
Last night we professionally covered the new youth protection plan by reading directly from EAA documentation and no adding opinions. All YE activity by the local chapter stopped last night. Why. Almost total back lash on doing the background checks. We have fly-ins where kids can fly in and that would be from an EAA chapter. Now all fly-ins have been delayed for risk of non compliance. My guess the average age of the members present were about 55. Make all the rules you want but several members stated if this was required to do the background check AND all the record keeping they would withdraw from the EAA and just have a pilots meeting in a public site. Perhaps this is short term but for now the yearly flying events for our chapter has stopped dead in it's tracks until we know from the members how many will do the training and background check. Continue making "rules" and see how it works out.

You may have not seen my follow-up to Ron's question. Your fly-ins, as I understand it here, are not specifically youth-oriented events or activities. So as the policy is written, you wouldn't need waivers.

More simply said, if an event is intended for kids it needs to follow the YPP, if the event is intended for adults you do not.

Dennis

[djenders]

Thanks much. Key phrase is "specific youth-oriented event", then. I anticipate this clarification will be added to the next policy update.

Ron Wanttaja

You are welcome Ron.

You, and a few others, have asked about answers to lingering questions, clarification, and / or updates to the policy. I feel comfortable sharing that we have met internally to discuss. And as you can tell, we do monitor our inbound channels and this thread for feedback.

While I can't promise a specific date or time that clarification will come, I believe that will happen.

As Bret mentioned much earlier in this thread, we realize the roll-out of this policy could have been better communicated. I agree with him, and I hope all of you see it as a learning opportunity for us. We are human, and are all trying very hard to our best, our best for you, and for the organization. Without our members EAA wouldn't exist.

We've been focused on some of the negative here in the thread, but there has been a lot of positive comments we've received too. I just want you to know we are listening to our membership, and trying our best to protect everyone – including youth, our pilots and volunteers, our chapters, and the organization.

I'll continue to answer questions that I can, or work to get answers for you. I jumped into the thread to provide another voice and help Bret, Glory and others in answering your questions. But I also encourage anyone to call us or send an e-mail through feedback@eaa.org.

Thanks for the patience, but also thank you for being passionate members. I mean that.
Dennis

[AcroGimp]

Ron -

A little follow-up, and I apologize for the delay. I've been battling some sort of sickness for a few days.

You brought up a good question based off the language on the matrix. Again, a good learning for us how people read and absorb the policy. We always strive to make things as clear as we can, but having this sort of feedback is helpful.

I have confirmed with our staff that a monthly chapter meeting WOULD NOT be considered a youth-oriented event. In that case, you would not need a waiver signed by their parents.

Your question about local high school students dropping in meets similar criteria. You are not hosting a specific youth-oriented event, so a waiver wouldn't be needed. That said, I'm sure any kids on a field trip may have signed something at their school already.

Hope that helps.
DennisSee this is backward, while there is literally next to no if any chance for actual abuse to occur on a YE flight, there IS an opportunity on a fly-in/fly-out, or at a chapter meeting or other event where the actual exposure to actual potential abuse is actually there. A legal-beagle would tear that up in 2 seconds.

PLEASE go back to the drawing board, correctly identify the actual risks and then create the minimally invasive policy that addresses the risk effectively and efficiently - right now it is all wrong.

'Gimp

[tomkk]

Rather than totally drop the YE program, I'm not sure why chapters don't just skip the parts of the policy they can't/won't comply with. The online course isn't a problem and, now that the SSN requirement has been eliminated, I don't really object to a background check - I don't have to enter any information that isn't publicly available in any number of other places. If Chapters don't want to or have no way to store records for 30 years, don't. Same with other parts of the policy: make a good faith effort to comply with the spirit of the policy based on local resources and get on with the program. No policy like this will ever satisfy everyone and not everyone will have the resources to completely satisfy all of it. I doubt Chapters are going to be audited on how long they keep their records ...

[Mark van Wyk]

Rather than totally drop the YE program, I'm not sure why chapters don't just skip the parts of the policy they can't/won't comply with. The online course isn't a problem and, now that the SSN requirement has been eliminated, I don't really object to a background check - I don't have to enter any information that isn't publicly available in any number of other places. If Chapters don't want to or have no way to store records for 30 years, don't. Same with other parts of the policy: make a good faith effort to comply with the spirit of the policy based on local resources and get on with the program. No policy like this will ever satisfy everyone and not everyone will have the resources to completely satisfy all of it. I doubt Chapters are going to be audited on how long they keep their records ...
+1

[ssmdive]

Rather than totally drop the YE program, I'm not sure why chapters don't just skip the parts of the policy they can't/won't comply with. ..... If Chapters don't want to or have no way to store records for 30 years, don't. .....

If there is an incident and the chapter did not follow the laid out program... Any lawyer will chew you up and spit you out.

Shyster: So Mr Tom, you are saying that the parent organization has a program in place and your local chapter just decided on its own to ignore the parts of the policy they didn't like? Why is that? To protect the defendant and coverup the wrong doing that you knew was happening?

Your chapter would be toast.

See, I deal with the FAA daily in my real world job. They have us write manuals on how we will do "X". If we deviate from "X" they have us dead to rights. Once an organization has a policy in place, if you want to participate as part of that organization, you had better make a real world effort to completely follow not just the intent (so called "spirit") but also the LETTER of the requirements.


I doubt Chapters are going to be audited on how long they keep their records ...

Not by the EAA, but by any lawyer if something happens. And if you don't have those records..... You are already guilty.

[combahee]

You may have not seen my follow-up to Ron's question. Your fly-ins, as I understand it here, are not specifically youth-oriented events or activities. So as the policy is written, you wouldn't need waivers.

More simply said, if an event is intended for kids it needs to follow the YPP, if the event is intended for adults you do not.

Dennis

Dennis, your interpretation is NOT what is in the policy. I have read it over and over. It is pretty black and white in most areas. There is no exclusion for "primarily adult" activities. Your explanation is not what the membership is reading, they are reading the policy. See why this is such a mess?
Here is a prime example of what the EAA is afraid of.....
5344

This young lady was part of the high school Air Force ROTC and she and another student just completed her first airplane flight. All of the kids are escorted to and from the aircraft by the pilot and a volunteer who also took this picture. All she could talk about was how great the experience was. This is what it is all about. Sorry didn't get a "cross shoulder hug"!

[Marty Santic]

Dennis, could you address the following... How does the chapter ensure ALL that participate in such events have completed the required training and have initiated the background check and have been approved? All pilots and ground helpers must go thru the process. MANY are involved. Will the EAA provide a listing of those vetted on request? Unless done, the chapter is liable, the chapter officers and the board is liable. The YE Coordinator is liable. As I see it, if we are not 100% compliant, all that participate become liable in this area if the unforeseen occurs. The EAA would no longer be liable as the new program requires 100% compliance. Yes, I agree with your previous post, the EAA is somewhat protected. The chapters, not so much so unless there is 100% compliance.

[tomkk]

If there is an incident and the chapter did not follow the laid out program... Any lawyer will chew you up and spit you out.

Shyster: So Mr Tom, you are saying that the parent organization has a program in place and your local chapter just decided on its own to ignore the parts of the policy they didn't like? Why is that? To protect the defendant and coverup the wrong doing that you knew was happening?

Your chapter would be toast.

See, I deal with the FAA daily in my real world job. They have us write manuals on how we will do "X". If we deviate from "X" they have us dead to rights. Once an organization has a policy in place, if you want to participate as part of that organization, you had better make a real world effort to completely follow not just the intent (so called "spirit") but also the LETTER of the requirements.



Not by the EAA, but by any lawyer if something happens. And if you don't have those records..... You are already guilty.

So, I guess now you're arguing that creating all those records and the 30 year retention is necessary? Sorry, I thought you were arguing against them. Do you really believe that anything we've been talking about here is going to stop "Mr. Shyster"? If there's an incident that promulgates Mr. Shyster talking to you at all, you and your Chapter will be toast no matter what records you keep. Your best defense will not lie in anything the national organization does but, rather, being able to demonstrate the precautions you did take to protect the child were reasonable and prudent and hope you have a friendly jury.

[djenders]

Dennis, your interpretation is NOT what is in the policy.

I am just providing feedback from our own team and council that wrote the policy. I understand what you are saying though, and it is completely fair to ask for clarification.

[combahee]

I am just providing feedback from our own team and council that wrote the policy. I understand what you are saying though, and it is completely fair to ask for clarification.


Dennis, clarification should be in the policy not expecting you to answer here on a forum most never see. Thanks though!

[djenders]

Dennis, could you address the following... How does the chapter ensure ALL that participate in such events have completed the required training and have initiated the background check and have been approved? All pilots and ground helpers must go thru the process. MANY are involved. Will the EAA provide a listing of those vetted on request? Unless done, the chapter is liable, the chapter officers and the board is liable. The YE Coordinator is liable. As I see it, if we are not 100% compliant, all that participate become liable in this area if the unforeseen occurs. The EAA would no longer be liable as the new program requires 100% compliance. Yes, I agree with your previous post, the EAA is somewhat protected. The chapters, not so much so unless there is 100% compliance.

Marty -

I'll work on confirming for you. But as the policy is written, you only need to ensure that those listed in the Youth Protection Policy have completed the required training. I believe we can / will provide a list to chapters of who has been vetted. I think the big one to look at is volunteers.

Volunteers who will work with youth in general:

Four (4) hours or more at any one (1) time; or
Four (4) times or more in any calendar year; or
Four (4) times or more with any particular Youth.
Note that “Volunteers” includes, among others, parents and legal guardians of any youth participant

[djenders]

Dennis, clarification should be in the policy not expecting you to answer here on a forum most never see. Thanks though!

Totally agree with you! :)

I would expect clarification to come in the next week to ten days, if not sooner.

Until then, I'll work to answer questions. The coming communication(s) should help.

Dennis

[krw920]

If there is an incident and the chapter did not follow the laid out program... Any lawyer will chew you up and spit you out.

Shyster: So Mr Tom, you are saying that the parent organization has a program in place and your local chapter just decided on its own to ignore the parts of the policy they didn't like? Why is that? To protect the defendant and coverup the wrong doing that you knew was happening?

Your chapter would be toast.

See, I deal with the FAA daily in my real world job. They have us write manuals on how we will do "X". If we deviate from "X" they have us dead to rights. Once an organization has a policy in place, if you want to participate as part of that organization, you had better make a real world effort to completely follow not just the intent (so called "spirit") but also the LETTER of the requirements.



Not by the EAA, but by any lawyer if something happens. And if you don't have those records..... You are already guilty.

If we live life worried about what a lawyer MIGHT do or say in court against us, we should never, ever leave our homes, or invite anyone to enter them.

[ssmdive]

So, I guess now you're arguing that creating all those records and the 30 year retention is necessary? Sorry, I thought you were arguing against them.

Arguing against the need. Arguing against the implementation. Arguing against the attitude that the EAA BOD decided to treat members as employees while pointing out the fact that willfully ignoring the rules as laid out by the EAA is a bad idea for legal reasons is not even close to the same thing.

For example, I think it is stupid that I have to have a medical to fly my 7ECA when I can fly a Champ without one. I can bitch about how stupid that rule is and still make damn sure my medical is in date and suggest that before anyone flies a 7ECA that they have a current medical without being hypocritical.


Do you really believe that anything we've been talking about here is going to stop "Mr. Shyster"? If there's an incident that promulgates Mr. Shyster talking to you at all, you and your Chapter will be toast no matter what records you keep. Your best defense will not lie in anything the national organization does but, rather, being able to demonstrate the precautions you did take to protect the child were reasonable and prudent and hope you have a friendly jury.

Any protection is automatically lost as soon as you willing admit to not following the rules you said you were going to follow. Worse, it makes you LOOK guilty to a jury. And as for being able to demonstrate "the precautions you did take to protect the child were reasonable and prudent".... Mr Shyster is simple going to point out that the EAA YE HQ thought that (lets say) record keeping was "reasonable and prudent". But for some reason you decided not to follow the rules laid out, so you simply did not make "reasonable and prudent" effort.

You are toast.

So please don't confuse my suggestion that just cherry picking what parts of the program you will follow and will not follow as a bad idea legally with support of the program. Simply put, if you are going to call yourself a "Young Eagle" event. You had better make sure you are following the rules and procedures they put into place. Even if you think they are stupid.

[ssmdive]

If we live life worried about what a lawyer MIGHT do or say in court against us, we should never, ever leave our homes, or invite anyone to enter them.


Isn't that exactly what the EAA just did?

[tomkk]

... Any protection is automatically lost ... You are toast ...

I think you missed the point. If you or your chapter are involved in an issue involving a child enough to be talking to lawyers you're already toast. Doesn't matter what policy National has or whether you dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's regarding that policy. Following "the letter" of the requirements isn't going to get us off the hook if an incident happens. The best we can hope for is to avoid an incident. Policies like this are supposed to help us do that but the implementation of that here isn't the best I've seen.

[lutorm]

Thinking from first principles, why would a training requirement be useful? This is kind of like the box you have to check when entering the U.S. whether you are intending to commit terrorist acts, yes or no. Does anyone actually think that someone who really abuses children does it out of ignorance and will realize the error of their ways by taking a web training class?

If the training was about spotting what to look for to spot potential abuse, that would be one thing. But it doesn't sound like that's the case.

[Marty Santic]

Just an IDEA. Less offending might/would be a short training session (could be done via an EAA video, the EAA is getting real good with the "Hints for Homebuilders" series). The EAA would know who watched the video by asking a few questions at the end of the video. Very, very similar to the sex offender training sessions offered in the industry. And a requirement for the chapter to simply check the state sex offender database (available to anyone via the internet). Hard to believe the background check would be any more thorough. (Hope the EAA asked the outside firm what they are paying for.) The cost to the EAA..... minimal!

[lyleapgmc]

Just becasue a lawyer gets invovled does not immediately mean the your chapter or the EAA is toast. There is much investigation, interviews and paper work to be done before any constructive or destructive action takes place. Lawyers do not make the decision as to whether a party is guilty or innocent. There are even some lawyers out there that are nice people.

What kind of protection policy will EAA develop if a parent feels they were improperly touched during a Young Eagle event or at a chapter meeting. That would be the APP. Will it run on your iPhone?

Jack Pelton commented, "The reality is that we have had two close calls over the past 18 months that could have impacted hundreds of youth." He did not explain how the hundreds of youth would have been impacted. It seems it is implied but that is the same as, "ASSUME." Over 25 years of Young Eagles and there have been two close calls. How close were they? Were the principals in those events doing something right to make amends for their other wrong doings? Would they have molested a Young Eagle that they had given a ride to? In one case we will never know.

How many child molesters have flown Young Eagles or have given rides to youth outside of the program over the history of the program? If there had been an incident the EAA, the local chapter and the Young Eagles program would have been the center of attention of the media. In Minnesota the person charged was NOT a member of the local chapter. He was an EAA member. There was no prior record of any inappropriate activity until he was charged. He had been molesting children for some time. A background check would NOT have revealed his activities.

I believe that Mr. Pelton's comment points out the futility of the Youth Protection Program. It is locking the stable after the horse is gone. Does anyone know how or why the horse left? The Program is a knee jerk reaction to an almost happened incident. If you have a near miss, what ever that really is, do you stop and look for someone to sue? Do you call an attorney?

The program is poorly written, confusing, even contradictory and in many situations can not be followed. Far more than ten or twelve chapters must be consulted for their input and their particular situation. Any program that requires a matrix to determine the requirements is far too complex to be applied in a real life situation.

As to whether a Young Eagle volunteer is an employee or not, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “employee” as “a person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed.”This is from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/01/art1full.pdf. Read the piece for more information about the wage and hour law and providing benefits for contract employees.

My nickel's worth. You will be billed.

[ssmdive]

I think you missed the point. If you or your chapter are involved in an issue involving a child enough to be talking to lawyers you're already toast.

Nope, I think you missed it. If there is an incident, the *individual* is toast no doubt. If the chapter has all the required paperwork per the EAA, they stand a chance of surviving. If they don't, toast. The EAA is protected because they will just claim the chapter was stupid.

The chapter has zero chance of survival if they willingly ignore the requirements.

You may claim otherwise..... But the fact is that no matter how small the chance you want to claim the chapter has.... Ignoring the requirements equals no chance.

[rwanttaja]

Rather than totally drop the YE program, I'm not sure why chapters don't just skip the parts of the policy they can't/won't comply with. Our chapter unfortunately suffered the first accident and death of Young Eagles during a rally a number of years back.

You don't know HOW many times we blessed ourselves that we followed the rules to the letter.

If you're going to fly kids, great! If you're going to fly kids as EAA or under the Young Eagles aegis, please follow the rules. Let's get the rules changed, if we can, but otherwise, let's play the cards we're dealt.

Ron Wanttaja

[rv builder]

Nope, I think you missed it. If there is an incident, the *individual* is toast no doubt. If the chapter has all the required paperwork per the EAA, they stand a chance of surviving. If they don't, toast. The EAA is protected because they will just claim the chapter was stupid.

The chapter has zero chance of survival if they willingly ignore the requirements.

You may claim otherwise..... But the fact is that no matter how small the chance you want to claim the chapter has.... Ignoring the requirements equals no chance.

So that's another aspect to this whole debacle that hasn't been addressed by EAA, as far as I can see.

Suppose an incident *is* alleged, and the parents sue EAA and the local chapter and the members individually. What protection in the form of legal defense will EAA provide to the chapter and the members/volunteers? For how long? Will they pay any judgements against the chapter or the individuals? What about appeals? In other words, are the chapter and the individual members fully indemnified/covered for all losses/judgements against them?

[cub builder]

If you're going to fly kids, great! If you're going to fly kids as EAA or under the Young Eagles aegis, please follow the rules. Let's get the rules changed, if we can, but otherwise, let's play the cards we're dealt.

Ron Wanttaja

Well now, that's the problem. Lots of people on here have presented reasonable alternatives in an attempt to make this a better and more successful program. Near as I can tell, the EAA isn't interested in listening beyond attempting to clarify their poorly written program. They have successfully diverted peoples attention from their utterly useless background checks, which seems to be the major hang up for many of us. Sorry. The EAA I spent the last few decades helping to build isn't the one that demands I prove myself not to be a criminal in order to continue to serve them for free.

-Cub Builder

[lyleapgmc]

Our chapter unfortunately suffered the first accident and death of Young Eagles during a rally a number of years back.

You don't know HOW many times we blessed ourselves that we followed the rules to the letter.

If you're going to fly kids, great! If you're going to fly kids as EAA or under the Young Eagles aegis, please follow the rules. Let's get the rules changed, if we can, but otherwise, let's play the cards we're dealt.

Ron Wanttaja

That was very unfortunate. It had to have been a very sad day for everyone involved. It was nothing at all like the "close calls" that Jack Pelton mentioned.

Which rules were you following or, which FAA regulations were you following?

My point is that the EAA's rules do not have the force of law. If the lawyers were bent on extracting a pound of flesh from a pilot or a chapter they will poke all kinds of holes in the EAA rules. It is far more difficult to find loop holes in laws and regulations. This is especially true if there is case law that either supports or opposes the premise of a law or regulation. Some of the regulations and laws were written with some thought given to the impact they will have and whether they are enforceable.


Lyle

[rwanttaja]

That was very unfortunate. It had to have been a very sad day for everyone involved. It was nothing at all like the "close calls" that Jack Pelton mentioned.

Which rules were you following or, which FAA regulations were you following?

By "rules," I meant the rules for the Young Eagles program. We of course followed FAA regs. We did verify that the pilot met the YE requirements and the passengers were properly registered as YEs, with their parents' permission, etc. This made things a lot easier for EAA in regards to the legal aspects. It was a sad situation, indeed, but it was settled with a minimum of rancor.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

That was very unfortunate. It had to have been a very sad day for everyone involved. It was nothing at all like the "close calls" that Jack Pelton mentioned.

I got the impression the "close calls" Pelton mentioned were youth-protection sort of instances, like the case that Mark van Wyk found.

Ron Wanttaja

[combahee]

Just read the latest update from Jack Pelton on the YPP. So now after all this they are going to split the program into 3 sections, chapter activities, Airventure and YE flights.
Maybe, just maybe EAA is getting the message that this whole deal is a mess?
Mr. Pelton, with all due respect, pull the program, fix it, get proper input and then only then put it out. Your employee here Dennis is doing an admiral job trying to get interpretations for us, however he shouldn't have to. The policy should be self explanatory even for us dumbed down pilots. In addition as long as there is a requirement for a mandatory background check it's a no deal. I can speak not only for myself but also all the pilots in my chapter and numerous others.
So maybe you think this will blow over, guess again. We were insulted by the original roll out, see no benefit to us or our chapter, and you are asking us, the ones that really are the backbone of the YE program to submit to all this.
It's not that we don't want to protect kids, we do. We could probably use some education to know what to look for and how to help prevent abuse, the video works well here. But the other aspects of the program just don't and can't work.

[cub builder]

Just read the latest update from Jack Pelton on the YPP. So now after all this they are going to split the program into 3 sections, chapter activities, Airventure and YE flights.
Maybe, just maybe EAA is getting the message that this whole deal is a mess?
Mr. Pelton, with all due respect, pull the program, fix it, get proper input and then only then put it out. Your employee here Dennis is doing an admiral job trying to get interpretations for us, however he shouldn't have to. The policy should be self explanatory even for us dumbed down pilots. In addition as long as there is a requirement for a mandatory background check it's a no deal. I can speak not only for myself but also all the pilots in my chapter and numerous others.
So maybe you think this will blow over, guess again. We were insulted by the original roll out, see no benefit to us or our chapter, and you are asking us, the ones that really are the backbone of the YE program to submit to all this.
It's not that we don't want to protect kids, we do. We could probably use some education to know what to look for and how to help prevent abuse, the video works well here. But the other aspects of the program just don't and can't work.

Well stated Combahee.

I just read the same. The last paragraph was the same old blather about how background checks are the answer "'cause everyone else does it", when it actually provides little to no protection for children. The last paragraph pretty much says it all. The EAA management is going to stick with this stillborn mess. So the EAA is happy with writing off the the YE programs from the small chapters. So be it.

It seems EAA HQ is only interested in listening to those that agree with them. We certainly wouldn't want to apply a little common sense and do something that everyone else isn't doing.

-Cub Builder

[bookmaker]

Although I wasn't happy about the policies, I registered and was planning to continue Young Eagle flights, HOWEVER, as has been mentioned above, now that there are written rules that likely will be busted with regularity, I have to reconsider.

In my profession as a CPA we had to develop and follow a Quality Control Plan within our office. As long as we include the minimum requirements in the plan and follow them, we are good. However, if we add any additional policies, but happen not to follow one, we get busted at Peer Review time, even if the policy is over and above the minimum requirements.

I feel that is exactly what has been done here.

Perverts are going to get to kids regardless of what feel good rules are put in place. They always have and always will. Plain old common sense takes care of most of it.

Dale

[TedK]

Does anyone know if there are EAA By-Laws? (Not chapter by-laws)

thanks

ted

[lyleapgmc]

By "rules," I meant the rules for the Young Eagles program. We of course followed FAA regs. We did verify that the pilot met the YE requirements and the passengers were properly registered as YEs, with their parents' permission, etc. This made things a lot easier for EAA in regards to the legal aspects. It was a sad situation, indeed, but it was settled with a minimum of rancor.

Ron Wanttaja

I didn't ask my question very well. What I was really wanting to know is what ultimately provided the protection that was needed. Was it the EAA rules or was it the other laws and regulations that were in place at the time?

[lyleapgmc]

Does anyone know if there are EAA By-Laws? (Not chapter by-laws)

thanks

ted
I have been an EAA member for thirty-one years and have never seen their bylaws. They must be too long to allocate space for them to be published. :)

Lyle

[Byron J. Covey]

Does anyone know if there are EAA By-Laws? (Not chapter by-laws)

thanks

ted

Several years ago, I tried, at length, to find the answer to your question. I was met by what I interpreted as a combination of stonewalling and ignorance.

Never got an answer. If you do, please share it with us here.


BJC

[Mike Switzer]

According to the archives of The Experimenter, the original EAA constitution & bylaws were approved at the April 1953 meeting. They have probably been amended since then, but I have never seen the originals or any more recent version published anywhere online. (Interestingly, there were discussions of whether or not to limit membership based on sex &/or race & (quoting from the article) "It was decided that eligibility for membership should be open to anyone of good moral character, interested in our purpose regardless of sex or race. A move was made and the motion was seconded to include in our constitution and by-laws a clause making it possible for members, by a 75% popular vote at a published meeting, to expel from membership any person of undesirable character or anyone whose acts or deeds tend to jeopardize our organization.")

[rwanttaja]

I didn't ask my question very well. What I was really wanting to know is what ultimately provided the protection that was needed. Was it the EAA rules or was it the other laws and regulations that were in place at the time?

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. EAA was the only protection we had. By following the rules, our chapter folks did not hurt our legal status.

Everything was settled out of court, and relatively quickly.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

Apart from re-emphasizing that this should be done according to well established risk management processes rather than the lemming method, the limited consultation and ad hoc changes are even more concerning. As we all know, whenever the FAA wants to change something, they have to publish the change in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM). EAA has been very active in responding to FAA NPRMs, objecting to or proposing useful revisions to the notice. In fact, all government agencies are required to post proposed changes that can be reasonably expected to affect the general public. What many people do not know is that EACH COMMENT must be INDIVIDUALLY addressed. (Similar comments can be bunched together for a single answer.) These comments and their answers are posted as part of the final rule. So why doesn't EAA do something similar with rule proposals that will have such a drastic effect on their members? This is the kind of consultation we are asking for. It is also a process that will help assure that some of the things cited here, and the changes to the EAA policy that have already been incorporated as a result, will be considered and incorporated into a final rule (or second review) BEFORE people start to implement the requirements of the rule (like all of those who already exposed their SSN.)

Even the BSA opened its recent rule changes for public comment before implementation, and revised some provisions before they became effective. Certainly EAA can do the same (or better.)

[TedK]

Apart from re-emphasizing that this should be done according to well established risk management processes rather than the lemming method, the limited consultation and ad hoc changes are even more concerning. As we all know, whenever the FAA wants to change something, they have to publish the change in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM). EAA has been very active in responding to FAA NPRMs, objecting to or proposing useful revisions to the notice. In fact, all government agencies are required to post proposed changes that can be reasonably expected to affect the general public. What many people do not know is that EACH COMMENT must be INDIVIDUALLY addressed. (Similar comments can be bunched together for a single answer.) These comments and their answers are posted as part of the final rule. So why doesn't EAA do something similar with rule proposals that will have such a drastic effect on their members? This is the kind of consultation we are asking for. It is also a process that will help assure that some of the things cited here, and the changes to the EAA policy that have already been incorporated as a result, will be considered and incorporated into a final rule (or second review) BEFORE people start to implement the requirements of the rule (like all of those who already exposed their SSN.)

Even the BSA opened its recent rule changes for public comment before implementation, and revised some provisions before they became effective. Certainly EAA can do the same (or better.)

Bravo!!!, Chris, a marvelous suggestion.

And it it would have the additional feature of training and developing the habits to respond to FAA regulations.

All for it!

ted

[FlyingRon]

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

Statute of limitations for what? Civil action? Criminal action? The criminal SOL in some states for these crimes is FOREVER.

[lyleapgmc]

Statute of limitations for what? Civil action? Criminal action? The criminal SOL in some states for these crimes is FOREVER.

How is a chapter to determine the Statute of Limitations for their particular state? It may be written in statute somewhere but which statute might apply in any given situation. State lawmakers have the nasty habit of writing conflicting and contradictory statutes as they see the need. In each state a lawyer would have to be hired to do the research and come up with an opinion. In the end it is only an opinion of a lawyer but it will be costly to obtain. That opinion may not stand up in court when an opposing lawyer or the judge sees things differently.

[FlyingRon]

How is a chapter to determine the Statute of Limitations for their particular state? It may be written in statute somewhere but which statute might apply in any given situation. State lawmakers have the nasty habit of writing conflicting and contradictory statutes as they see the need. In each state a lawyer would have to be hired to do the research and come up with an opinion. In the end it is only an opinion of a lawyer but it will be costly to obtain. That opinion may not stand up in court when an opposing lawyer or the judge sees things differently.

It's not that hard. But EAA hasn't defined what they are talking about. However, even in the case of civil charges, the statute of limitations in many states can be tolled indefinitely if the defendant is out of state. The EAA itself is pretty much own FOREVER to lawsuits for things taking place outside Wisconsin.

[DanH]

Just read the latest update from Jack Pelton on the YPP. So now after all this they are going to split the program into 3 sections, chapter activities, Airventure and YE flights.

What's a YPP? Got a link to this update?

[Glory Aulik]

What's a YPP? Got a link to this update?

Here is the link to Jack's most recent commentary on the Youth Protection Policy, (YPP).

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-11-2016-from-jack-pelton-continuing-the-conversation-on-youth-protection-policy?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokv6zMZKXonjHpfsX57O8 uWaK3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4DT8RlI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQ 7HFMbNlz7gNXBI%3D

[CraigCantwell]

Dan: YPP is the Youth Protection Policy. National has finally admitted that they produced a flawed policy and are now revisiting it and working to hopefully make it a more user friendly policy. We shall see how it changes. Here is a link to Jack's latest letter on the policy: http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-11-2016-from-jack-pelton-continuing-the-conversation-on-youth-protection-policy

[deej]

"The policies we have created are consistent with those in youth programs everywhere. We appreciate the nearly 3,000 people who have already completed their background check"

Unfortunately it seems they are still clinging to the erroneous idea that a background check actually does something useful. Also unfortunately, we have too many pilots that have indicated they will not undergo the background check, so we are still in a position where we will not be able to hold Young Eagles rallies anymore.

I really hope someone can talk some sense into the group responsible for this policy.

[Bill Greenwood]

Jack's letter says "reality is that we have had 2 close calls in last 18 months that could have impacted hundreds of youths."
No details are given at all. I guess it is possible that there are a few sick people who could be a danger to a young person. Bur it is hard to imagine anything happening on a short Y E ride from and back to a local airport with parents and other adults there and waiting for the kids.

Maybe there are other youth and EAA activites like the summer camps where the risk is higher. In those cases in particular having more than one adult with kids at all times is probably a good practice.
I've did my first Y E ride back a few decades back, and it never even occured to me that this was a risk until now. Flight safety, yes. but not moral safety for kids.

[lyleapgmc]

Jack's letter says "reality is that we have had 2 close calls in last 18 months that could have impacted hundreds of youths."
No details are given at all. I guess it is possible that there are a few sick people who could be a danger to a young person. Bur it is hard to imagine anything happening on a short Y E ride from and back to a local airport with parents and other adults there and waiting for the kids.
.......

I am somewhat familiar with one of the situations mentioned. The individual had been flying Young Eagles for a period of time. His nefarious activities with children went undetected. There is no information that links him to having molested anyone he initially contacted through the Young Eagles progam. It was publicized that some of his molestations took place in his airplane. There was some misleading information distributed in the media that linked him to the local EAA chapter. He was not a chapter member. Like any EAA member a pilot can participate in Young Eagles activities without being a chapter member.

The real issue here is that his activities would not have been disclosed or even hinted at by a background check. He had stayed out of sight for all the time he was molesting children. He was not a registered sex offender.

Are there child molestation situations that never get to a criminal court room? How many go undetected or unreported forever? You betcha!

The background check may find a very few with checkered backgrounds who are flying Young Eagles but not enough to avoid another "close call."

[rwanttaja]

Jack's letter says "reality is that we have had 2 close calls in last 18 months that could have impacted hundreds of youths."
No details are given at all. I guess it is possible that there are a few sick people who could be a danger to a young person.
Mark Van Wyn found this link, which is probably one of the cases:

http://www.twincities.com/2014/01/22/ramsey-man-faces-more-charges-in-sexual-abuse-case/


But it is hard to imagine anything happening on a short Y E ride from and back to a local airport with parents and other adults there and waiting for the kids.
Very true. But many of these people are too smart for that. The concern is that they might be able to contrive continued contact with a child outside the YE environment. Inviting them out to the airport for another ride the next weekend, etc.

Keep in mind that the truly dangerous abusers *are not stupid*. The goal is not to get a random kid off by themselves for a moment; it's to develop a relationship where the abuser achieves his goal without the child reporting it. Often, the kids come from broken homes and are desperate for a father figure. Remember, the victims aren't adults and are still trying to figure things out.

The problem, as others have mentioned, is that the background checks won't catch these predators. Rather than being a quiz on policy, the EAA training should emphasize how to detect situations where someone is trying to parlay Young Eagles events into later inappropriate contact with the kids.

Ron Wanttaja

[Marty Santic]

Sorry to report at our chapter meeting this past Saturday, our chapter's Board of Directors has placed our Young Eagles program and any other program involving youth on an indefinite hold. This decision did not come lightly as our chapter has been a STRONG supporter of the Young Eagles program and other youth related aviation programs for many years. So sad! May I suggest any Youth Protection program revision incorporates the knowledge of those that actually plan, implement and conduct activities that involve the youth.

[TomBush]

Jack's letter says "reality is that we have had 2 close calls in last 18 months that could have impacted hundreds of youths."

Could have impacted youth. But didnt. . .

So now EAA is trying to stand up an ineffectual policy to combat this so-called threat? Because of two public relations 'close calls' during the course of almost 25 years and 2 million YE's flown? Where were the policy changes when we KILLED 3 YE's and one adult spanning two accidents that occurred during YE flights?

2005: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=648f75ac-8d1f-4ae6-9763-1a230d0ac25f

2014: http://eaa1418.org/eaa-1418/young-eagles-flight-fatalities.html

From an FAA 'legal' perspective, there is nothing to prevent a pilot who is on the ragged edge of his BFR or perhaps the ragged edge of his 90-day landing currency from carrying precious young cargo under the YE program. This exposes youngsters to far more REAL risk than the sexual predator bogeymen EAA is trying to purport.

[Mike Switzer]

I agree with Tom. Like I posted earlier in this thread, I know of pilots who have done 3 touch & gos the day before so they could fly young eagles. That means they hadn't flown for at least 3 months before some stranger trusted them with their kids.

[RickG]

From an FAA 'legal' perspective, there is nothing to prevent a pilot who is on the ragged edge of his BFR or perhaps the ragged edge of his 90-day landing currency from carrying precious young cargo under the YE program. This exposes youngsters to far more REAL risk than the sexual predator bogeymen EAA is trying to purport.

I agree with Tom. Like I posted earlier in this thread, I know of pilots who have done 3 touch & gos the day before so they could fly young eagles. That means they hadn't flown for at least 3 months before some stranger trusted them with their kids.

Perfectly said guys. It's ironic that parents trust us (pilots) to take their children up in an airplane and return them safely to the ground with no reservations ... a pretty tall order from a stranger. Is this "youth" issue even on their minds? It will be now. What I don't get: how is it that a Certified Flight Instructor can spend countless hours with a minor, often in a cramped quarters (ie C150), yet the FAA has never had cause to make these types of background checks a requirement for instructors or as part of a BFR?

[cub builder]

I agree with Tom. Like I posted earlier in this thread, I know of pilots who have done 3 touch & gos the day before so they could fly young eagles. That means they hadn't flown for at least 3 months before some stranger trusted them with their kids.

That is the FAA standard, and according to that standard, they should be safe. That's like the old question about what you call the guy that graduated at the bottom of the class in medical school? You still call him Doctor. Was there anything implied in the two accident reports to conclude any of these accident pilots were lacking in skills or currency? There are pilots out there I'd ride with even if they hadn't been near a plane in years, and others I wouldn't ride with at any time, but that's not the FAA standard.

The EAA defers to the FAA standard on currency, which is appropriate. It's their YPP that has some serious issues. However, your point is correct in that from a risk management perspective, the risk of injuring of killing a child is much greater than the risk of child molestation during a YE event. It's pretty clear the EAA is more concerned about public relations and protecting the brand then protecting youth.

It's a simple matter to do a common sense briefing before each event explaining the rules of escorting kids and parents to and from the planes, and only leaving children alone with an adult for the duration of a short flight. We eliminate the opportunity for inappropriate activity. If the EAA wants to start managing risk with the legal what ifs, then it's time to close the Youth programs and stop all aviation related activities.

-Cub Builder

[martymayes]

From an FAA 'legal' perspective, there is nothing to prevent a pilot who is on the ragged edge of his BFR or perhaps the ragged edge of his 90-day landing currency from carrying precious young cargo under the YE program. This exposes youngsters to far more REAL risk than the sexual predator bogeymen EAA is trying to purport.

What was the quote by Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry and occasionally paraphrased by Pogo? "We have met the enemy and he is us"

[PaulDow]

...What I don't get: how is it that a Certified Flight Instructor can spend countless hours with a minor, often in a cramped quarters (ie C150), yet the FAA has never had cause to make these types of background checks a requirement for instructors or as part of a BFR?
Careful about bringing up points like that before someone sees it and says "He's right. We need more rules there too!"

[Byron J. Covey]

Careful about bringing up points like that before someone sees it and says "He's right. We need more rules there too!"

Count me as one of those who thinks the focus should be on pilot skills long before it gets around to this other issue.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?6467-Young-Eagles-and-Background-Security-Checks&p=53290#post53290


BJC

[Mike Switzer]

I tried looking in the NTSB database & couldn't find it, But I am pretty sure there was a fatal accident within the last couple years where a guy had just finished flying young eagles (so it wasn't a young eagles flight) when he had a loss of control incident killing himself & a passenger. I seem to remember at the time some people familiar with the situation commented on another forum that he probably shouldn't have been PIC due to deterioration of pilot skills & a known medical condition.

[vettdvr]

Sorry to report at our chapter meeting this past Saturday, our chapter's Board of Directors has placed our Young Eagles program and any other program involving youth on an indefinite hold. This decision did not come lightly as our chapter has been a STRONG supporter of the Young Eagles program and other youth related aviation programs for many years. So sad! May I suggest any Youth Protection program revision incorporates the knowledge of those that actually plan, implement and conduct activities that involve the youth.


Our chapter has also put any event with under 18 on hold. The members are to report on completing the EAA requirements. Most don't want to do the back ground check. One dropped out of the chapter permanently. I won't know until next month if enough have completed the training to even sponsor an event. The wifes that did the cooking in the kitchen also refused to do the qualification. Now we have no one to cook and only 2 of 10 that have completed the training. We were doing a plan for the year with fly events that might have under 18 and everything is on hold.

[Mayhemxpc]

It's a simple matter to do a common sense briefing before each event explaining the rules of escorting kids and parents to and from the planes, and only leaving children alone with an adult for the duration of a short flight. We eliminate the opportunity for inappropriate activity. If the EAA wants to start managing risk with the legal what ifs, then it's time to close the Youth programs and stop all aviation related activities.

-Cub Builder

+1!!!

[Mayhemxpc]

I don’t know it this is precisely on topic or not, but it is certainly related.

Many of us are very concerned about the next generation of pilots and aviation enthusiasts…and the generation after that. (I am 58, and at many aviation events I am one of the younger pilots there. To me, that is kind of concerning.) Many – maybe most – people lay the blame on the high cost of aviation. There is certainly one factor, but aviation has never been cheap. I think that the more important factor is that over the last 20 years, the government AND PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS have done everything they can to take the fun and adventure out of flying. People fly because it is FUN. Adventure implies taking on a certain amount of risk – and accepting the personal responsibility to manage that risk and come home safely. I am not implying that aviation should be more risky. I am pointing out that the fun is gone.

One reason I became active in my local chapter and the Young Eagles program is because my other aviation adventure – Civil Air Patrol – quite successfully sucked all of the fun out of participation. It has become work. More, the things you have to do to fly is drudgery, every facet micromanaged and covered in paperwork, real and digital. Heaven help you if you make one administrative mistake. I found EAA to be a return to simpler aviation. The joy of flight and the YE program, as managed by my chapter, brought the fun back: for the pilots, the ground team, and especially the kids. Even if these kids never become a pilot or fly in the pointy end of an airplane again, they will have learned that flying is fun…and a GOOD thing.

Now EAA senior management comes along and decides to suck the fun out of anything to do with attracting youth to aviation. We now see that this is not restricted to YE, but there will now be comparable fun sucking efforts for chapter activities and AirVenture. Instead of some very reasonable proposals for effective risk management, EAA management imposes a heavy handed, cumbersome, poorly thought out program (I can say “poorly thought” based on all of the revisions they had to make since rolling it out). The only justification cited is that everyone else is doing it. If one were just a little more cynical, one could say that it looks like it was intended to chase pilots away and otherwise make the YE program unmanageable. The direct effect on the youth we are trying to attract is less severe, but the second order effects are huge. It will certainly affect the access of youth to aviation.

The YE website includes this line: “Hard work and dedication of volunteers is the primary reason why the Young Eagles continues to be a success in building the next generation of aviators.”

In the Army, I learned that there were two considerations: the mission and the men. Of the two, the mission comes first. The catch is that you can’t accomplish the mission without the men. Right now, EAA management seems to be willing to sacrifice the men and women to accomplish the mission. To lose that “dedication of volunteers” necessary for the success of the program. As a result, they will fail in the mission of “building the next generation of aviators.”

[combahee]

vettdriver, our chapter will suspend all YE activities after our March monthly YE rally. We just paid our $350 dues to national. Out board is taking up the matter of withdrawing entirely for next year. We will still fly kids, however it will be outside EAA, complete with insurance, waivers etc. So it isn't the kids who will suffer. Besides the EAA policy gave absolutely no protection of any kind to the pilots, only to EAA.

Chris, wonderful comment.

EAA National Hq. Don't you guys get it? 50,000 views of this thread! How much bad publicity do you want?
When you say the background checks are at no expense to us, who are you kidding? Where do you think the money comes from? You sound like some of the members of Congress!

[Eric Cernjar]

Our chapter has also put any event with under 18 on hold. The members are to report on completing the EAA requirements. Most don't want to do the back ground check. One dropped out of the chapter permanently. I won't know until next month if enough have completed the training to even sponsor an event. The wifes that did the cooking in the kitchen also refused to do the qualification. Now we have no one to cook and only 2 of 10 that have completed the training. We were doing a plan for the year with fly events that might have under 18 and everything is on hold.

I enter the fray with a bit of trepidation, but I just want to clarify something here. Those helping in the kitchen do not have to do the training or background checks for a YE Rally. That is only for the pilots, YE coordinators and ground crew. I understand that doesn't completely alleviate your concerns, but just wanted to at least take one concern off the table.

Thanks,
Eric

[Byron J. Covey]

ws
vettdriver, our chapter will suspend all YE activities after our March monthly YE rally. We just paid our $350 dues to national. Out board is taking up the matter of withdrawing entirely for next year. We will still fly kids, however it will be outside EAA, complete with insurance, waivers etc. So it isn't the kids who will suffer. Besides the EAA policy gave absolutely no protection of any kind to the pilots, only to EAA.

Chris, wonderful comment.

EAA National Hq. Don't you guys get it? 50,000 views of this thread! How much bad publicity do you want?
When you say the background checks are at no expense to us, who are you kidding? Where do you think the money comes from? You sound like some of the members of Congress!

The EAA has devolved into an advocacy group (with questionable results), a second rate publisher (thanks, Mac, that makes two magazines that you have destroyed) and a commercial airshow stager.

Does anyone have a "Sport Flying Club" that emulates what the EAA once was? I'm thinking of something with no charter, no bylaws, no national dues, no inane rules, just a bunch of people getting together regularly, socializing, going to other airports to see a bunch of airplanes (i.e., a non-sanctioned, non-insured fly-in), and sharing a love of sport aviation?

Thanks,


BJC

[cub builder]

The last several posts have been right on point. I joined EAA 27 years ago as a part of a chapter of like minded individuals interested in sport aviation and building aircraft. In that time, I built 3 aircraft, earned my A&P, served at Tech Counselor, Flight Advisor, Chapter President, and several other positions. When the YE program came along, I jumped on board like many others and have flown a significant number of kids. A few have gone on to become pilots, but the positive PR we have generated at the local airports has been probably the most important product of the YE program. Like so many others on here, I have donated thousands of hours and thousands of $$ to the EAA. But the national EAA seems to have devolved exactly as Byron describes in the previous post. And as described by Chris, they are sucking the fun out of it with an overreaching, overbearing program that is designed only as defensive PR for EAA HQ. The only reason I would consider staying with the EAA at this point is for the advocacy in Congress, but IMHO, the EAA only does this as a voice to echo behind AOPA, who seems to lead the charge.

I'm waiting for someone to revive SAA (Sport Aviation Association). I suspect if that was to happen, a number of chapters would sever ties with EAA and become SAA chapters. Note to EAA leadership: You have made the EAA vulnerable by alienating a number of your membership. It's up to you to attempt to fix it while you can.

-Cub Builder

[Jim Rosenow]

I'm waiting for someone to revive SAA (Sport Aviation Association). I suspect if that was to happen, a number of chapters would sever ties with EAA and become SAA chapters. Note to EAA leadership: You have made the EAA vulnerable by alienating a number of your membership. It's up to you to attempt to fix it while you can.

-Cub Builder

Interesting, CB! I wonder if any of the founders are still around? Perhaps it's time for those of us more concerned about flying than other things to wish EAA best of luck with their air/trade show and move along. Lordy, it's taken some frustration to reach this point. Are you listening HQ? Come back to us!

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

[martymayes]

Does anyone have a "Sport Flying Club" that emulates what the EAA once was? I'm thinking of something with no charter, no bylaws, no national dues, no inane rules, just a bunch of people getting together regularly, socializing, going to other airports to see a bunch of airplanes (i.e., a non-sanctioned, non-insured fly-in), and sharing a love of sport aviation?


I wish someone would organize something like this, a "flashmob" type aviation event where everyone assembles at a non-announced airport, hangs out for the day and leaves. Don't need to insure the event because it wasn't planned. Just happened.

[Jim Rosenow]

I wish someone would organize something like this, a "flashmob" type aviation event where everyone assembles at a non-announced airport, hangs out for the day and leaves. Don't need to insure the event because it wasn't planned. Just happened.

2PM...my hangar at KBJJ....I'll make coffee!! :-)

Jim

[martymayes]

2PM...my hangar at KBJJ....I'll make coffee!! :-)
!!!!!

[skyfixer8]

Jim, Will go one better. Come to KSAW and I will provide coffee AND donuts.

Bill l

[Marty Santic]

I enter the fray with a bit of trepidation, but I just want to clarify something here. Those helping in the kitchen do not have to do the training or background checks for a YE Rally. That is only for the pilots, YE coordinators and ground crew. I understand that doesn't completely alleviate your concerns, but just wanted to at least take one concern off the table. Thanks, Eric Eric, it is my hope that any Youth Protection program revision incorporates the knowledge of those that actually plan, implement and conduct activities that involve the youth. At rallies and youth related activities, the "kitchen help" is NOT restricted to a real kitchen in the back of the building but they help with the refreshments, interact with the kids and those that have come to learn about GA. As such, they are required to go thru the background check and training, at least the way I read it. Your comment reinforces my belief that WE really need input from the field to develop a program/policy that works.

[SportsmanFlyer]

I wish someone would organize something like this, a "flashmob" type aviation event where everyone assembles at a non-announced airport, hangs out for the day and leaves. Don't need to insure the event because it wasn't planned. Just happened.

There are such organizations, mostly found on-line, such as this one in the Northeast: http://www.meetup.com/NEPilotsGroup/

[Eric Cernjar]

Eric, it is my hope that any Youth Protection program revision incorporates the knowledge of those that actually plan, implement and conduct activities that involve the youth. At rallies and youth related activities, the "kitchen help" is NOT restricted to a real kitchen in the back of the building but they help with the refreshments, interact with the kids and those that have come to learn about GA. As such, they are required to go thru the background check and training, at least the way I read it. Your comment reinforces my belief that WE really need input from the field to develop a program/policy that works.

I agree that feedback from our dedicated members is required. There definitely was a contingent of members/volunteers consulted during this process, but the feedback from you all has been helpful in making adjustments. I'd say the removal of the SS # requirement is in no small part due to the feedback we received here.

Regarding your specific rallies, it really boils down to how often/how many hours everyone is spending at the rallies to determine if the training/checks are necessary.

Ground crew of all sorts are encouraged to do the training and background check. They would be required to do it if they help out at four or more youth activities in any one calendar year, and/or if anyof those activities lasts four or more hours.

We do have staff available for you to talk to in more detail to determine how to make this work for your chapter. If you want, you can message me directly and I can put you in touch with the right people to make sure we get rid of any uncertainty.

Thanks again,
Eric

[Byron J. Covey]

... There definitely was a contingent of members/volunteers consulted during this process,
...
Eric

Eric:

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

Thanks,


BJC

[combahee]

I agree that feedback from our dedicated members is required. There definitely was a contingent of members/volunteers consulted during this process, but the feedback from you all has been helpful in making adjustments.



We do have staff available for you to talk to in more detail to determine how to make this work for your chapter.

Thanks again,
Eric

Eric, obviously HQ is NOT listening. Your job as Membership Marketing Manager is getting harder. First and foremost, the background check is a non starter. How many members, pilots, chapters etc have to post before you guys get it? We will simply not fly YE's, and Chapters and members will not renew under the policy in affect as of now. Period.
The EAA doesn't trust me. Likewise I don't trust the EAA, nor a 3rd party vendor with any of my information. I can just imagine the list they are compiling of those rich pilots for whatever in the future.

[tomkk]

... First and foremost, the background check is a non starter. How many members, pilots, chapters etc have to post before you guys get it? We will simply not fly YE's, and Chapters and members will not renew under the policy in affect as of now. Period. ...

Could be right but not necessarily. There are some that will no longer participate, others will continue to do so. I frankly have no clue how representative the comments here are. As far as I can tell, there's little concern in our chapter.

To tell the honest truth, without the SSN requirement, I don't see the background check as much of a problem as the burdensome paperwork and retention. I can't see the info required for the background check because mine is "Pending" but, as I recall, it doesn't require any info that's not already publicly available in any number of places online already.

This policy isn't terribly different from others I'm familiar with for organizations that deal with minors. The biggest differences I see are: (1) access to background check results is strictly limited to an extremely small group, (2) limited data retention requirements and (3) other organizations normally limit the two person rule to enclosed areas, e.g. classrooms, with doors, etc., not the great outdoors we generally deal with.

[Eric Cernjar]

Eric:

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

Thanks,


BJC

I personally cannot, but let me see who I can put you in touch with to discuss this. Have you spoken with anyone in the EAA staff about this over the phone yet? If you could send me a personal message with your contact info (I assume I found your membership using your handle, but just want to confirm), I'll work on getting you the info you're requesting.

Thanks,
Eric

[AcroGimp]

Eric:

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

Thanks,


BJCByron according to an earlier post from an EAA staffer they reportedly contacted 10 or 12 of the supposedly more active YE chapters, so about 1% of the 1000+ chapters.

And it shows.

This train wreck just continues to fester rather than call a timeout, admit they screwed the pooch, and go back to the drawing board with an intent on actually working with the membership at large in addressing actual risk for the kids, EAA, the Chapters and Members with an actually workable plan that correctly identifies and addresses the actual risks in the least intrusive and non-insulting way possible.

'Gimp

[Byron J. Covey]

I personally cannot, but let me see who I can put you in touch with to discuss this. Have you spoken with anyone in the EAA staff about this over the phone yet? If you could send me a personal message with your contact info (I assume I found your membership using your handle, but just want to confirm), I'll work on getting you the info you're requesting.

Thanks,
Eric

Eric:

Just post it here for all of us to see. That will eliminate the possibility of my miss-stating the information if I post it.

Thank you.


Byron J. Covey
EAA 36946

[Mayhemxpc]

Could be right but not necessarily. There are some that will no longer participate, others will continue to do so. I frankly have no clue how representative the comments here are. As far as I can tell, there's little concern in our chapter.

...

This policy isn't terribly different from others I'm familiar with for organizations that deal with minors. The biggest differences I see are: (1) access to background check results is strictly limited to an extremely small group, (2) limited data retention requirements and (3) other organizations normally limit the two person rule to enclosed areas, e.g. classrooms, with doors, etc., not the great outdoors we generally deal with.

Some pilots will comply, perhaps many, and in fact many (however "many" is defined) have already done so. The question is the effect of those who will drop out of the program. It will certainly affect the capacity for program execution. Even a few dropping out will have some impact.

The argument that we should accept this because others have done so is a classic logical fallacy. (Ad populum.) It is not a valid/rational argument for doing something. Yes, most of the information is already out there. That does not justify exposing the information again -- or justify collecting it even if there were no risk of exposure. Why is this personal information necessary to reasonably preclude misconduct? What specific elements of information are necessary? Can the risk of potential misconduct be managed without collecting this information? What proof/data exists to support requiring that data? Being somewhat familiar with other YPP -- and in particular the BSA, which I believe the model for all of the others -- none of the three differences are any different than other programs, and we have NO assurance that the data collected will be restricted or limited in duration.

As I have said before, I am a big believer in training. Training in this matter can help you avoid unintentionally doing something that would get you in trouble -- and thereby avoid false accusation, help you to spot potential problems around you, and let you know who should be informed of potential impropriety. It is my hypothesis that this should be sufficient. I am, however, open to rational proofs that more is needed to achieve the desired outcome.

The pilots and others who are choosing not to disclose their information are, as far as I can tell, not opting out because they have something to hide, or because they do not want the burden of additional training and filling out a form. They object because they believe this program is wrong.

[tomkk]

Some pilots will comply, perhaps many, and in fact many (however "many" is defined) have already done so. The question is the effect of those who will drop out of the program. It will certainly affect the capacity for program execution. Even a few dropping out will have some impact.

The argument that we should accept this because others have done so is a classic logical fallacy. (Ad populum.) It is not a valid/rational argument for doing something. Yes, most of the information is already out there. That does not justify exposing the information again -- or justify collecting it even if there were no risk of exposure. Why is this personal information necessary to reasonably preclude misconduct? What specific elements of information are necessary? Can the risk of potential misconduct be managed without collecting this information? What proof/data exists to support requiring that data? Being somewhat familiar with other YPP -- and in particular the BSA, which I believe the model for all of the others -- none of the three differences are any different than other programs, and we have NO assurance that the data collected will be restricted or limited in duration.

As I have said before, I am a big believer in training. Training in this matter can help you avoid unintentionally doing something that would get you in trouble -- and thereby avoid false accusation, help you to spot potential problems around you, and let you know who should be informed of potential impropriety. It is my hypothesis that this should be sufficient. I am, however, open to rational proofs that more is needed to achieve the desired outcome.

The pilots and others who are choosing not to disclose their information are, as far as I can tell, not opting out because they have something to hide, or because they do not want the burden of additional training and filling out a form. They object because they believe this program is wrong.

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

[MauiLvrs]

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

[Dave S]

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

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

[lyleapgmc]

Some pilots will comply, perhaps many, and in fact many (however "many" is defined) have already done so. The question is the effect of those who will drop out of the program. It will certainly affect the capacity for program execution. Even a few dropping out will have some impact.

The argument that we should accept this because others have done so is a classic logical fallacy. (Ad populum.) It is not a valid/rational argument for doing something....

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

[Eric Cernjar]

Eric:

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

Thanks,


BJC


Hi Byron,

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


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

Thanks,
Eric

[Jim Rosenow]

Hi Byron,

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


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

Thanks,
Eric

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

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

[Eric Cernjar]

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

Respectfully submitted,

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


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

[Byron J. Covey]

Hi Byron,

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


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

Thanks,
Eric

Thank you Eric.

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

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

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

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

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


Byron J. Covey

[cub builder]

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

Thanks,
Eric

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

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


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

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

-Cub Builder

[Mark van Wyk]

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

[RickG]

At my place of employment, I just completed a mandatory "harassment" online training. I could have stamped my feet and held my breath until I turned blue and refused to take it, and I could have quit my job. Or, I could just take the training. I took the training. Yes, YE is a volunteer program. But, so are a lot of other volunteer programs that require similar Youth Safety training and rules.
And that is your prerogative.

It's not the awareness training many of us object to, but the notion that as YE Pilots we are trusted with these children's lives (taking anyone flying is a tall order, never mind someone's kids) .... but not enough to spend +- 15 minutes alone with them on a flight around the pattern w/o a criminal background check. That is an oxymoron and it just makes no sense. If this was a traditional youth program as many reference, I would be the first in line if not a champion of background checks for all involved. But that is not the scenario we are dealing with, and why those of us with concerns as to how this policy has been implemented, should continue to stand our ground.

The only people this debacle is hurting are the kids ... and those of us who willingly share our time, financial resources and experiences in aviation. As other members have more eloquently stated, this program does nothing to protect the kids, nothing to protect us as pilots, and everything to protect the EAA. That does not make for a winning recipe, especially when a program is 100% dependent on volunteers.

[cub builder]

Cub Builder, you are correct that a certain number of members reject the policy. There are definitely a lot of squeaky wheels on this forum. I don't know whether the complainers represent the majority or not. I do believe you are correct that this is what EAA is going to do, and therefore --as you state --- EAA's policy seems to be that the program stands, and therefore you and others who don't like it have the choice to not comply and quit flying Young Eagles. I do not believe that EAA is going to back down or scrap the program, like some on this forum repeatedly demand. I believe the program is here to stay.

Mark, you are quite likely correct. The HQ lack of acknowledgement makes it clear that it is their intention for the program to stay as it is. I don't think anyone, myself included, objects to a YPP if it had been implemented as a simple training program. But a significant number do object to being required to prove that we aren't registered perverts to be a part of the EAA. After all, that is the implication when they call it a "near miss" when there was a registered Sex Offender that was a part of a chapter, but didn't participate in any youth related programs.




I have read on this forum that some chapters are scrapping their Young Eagles programs over this. Others have said they are going to comply and go forward. My understanding is that San Jose Chapter 62 plans to go forward. There will be a San Martin Airport Fly-In scheduled for Saturday, May 14, 2016, and Young Eagles will go on as planned.

Within my own chapter, 3 of the 4 annually scheduled YE events have been scrapped. Some of us will likely fly kids at a second event without the EAA's involvement. The chapter president is advocating ignoring the YPP and pressing forward with "business as usual", which a number of us think might be unwise, and may cause the one scheduled event to be scrapped.


At my place of employment, I just completed a mandatory "harassment" online training. I could have stamped my feet and held my breath until I turned blue and refused to take it, and I could have quit my job. Or, I could just take the training. I took the training. Yes, YE is a volunteer program. But, so are a lot of other volunteer programs that require similar Youth Safety training and rules.

You kind of make my point. We all sit through some incredibly inane training as part of our employment. I think even the most offended YE pilot would agree to do the same, which really would have been a good approach by the EAA. We also do those things as a condition of employment. Would you have been offended if they had asked you for a DNA sample as part of the training? FWIW, that kind of inane training at work is one of those things that makes me look forward to retirement.

My place of employment requires a high level security clearance. But just last week the police were there to arrest someone with a high level clearance allegedly for involvement with child pornography, which would make that individual a sex offender in our state. So once again, a high level background check failed to show someone alleged to be actively involved in sex offenses with children. The point being that the background check is relatively useless to find likely sex offenders and does little to protect children. Following a common sense program of two adults present unless flying does.


NOTE TO EAA: Stand your ground. Don't scrap the program. Improve it. And, give us some numbers as to how many members are complying, so that those of us that want to continue with YE can move forward.
--Mark van Wyk

You and I agree that it should be improved. We only disagree on the extent. Let's do some kind of training and/or briefing. Drop the background checks as they are useless anyway. They only serve as an insult to a number of the membership. It's pretty clear that the background checks are the EAA HQ lawyers PR protection should something happen, not the answer to protecting children. But the EAA HQ answer so far has been to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that as implemented, this program is going to significantly hurt the YE program, and is going to cost the EAA in the loss of a number of members. As was stated previously, this is just another in a long string of disappointments with the EAA leadership.

-Cub Builder

[Mayhemxpc]

At her request, I am relaying a few comments or questions from my wife, who is not a pilot or involved with the YE program. She is in the CAP and has gone through their youth protection program, the BSA's program, and she is an elementary school teacher, having gone through all of the training required for that. So purely from the outside...
-- She points outs that background checks almost never catch a potential perpetrator. These people are very good at staying under the RADAR, through various techniques including coercion and guilt transfer. Almost always, the only time anyone becomes aware of a situation, it is in conjunction with a criminal investigation. (My comment: as Cub builder noted above.)
-- The DOJ already maintains a sex abuse registry. Once arrested, the person is listed there. To address a concern about offender participation, one solution which costs nothing but a little time, is to require the YE Program Coordinator to run the names of the YE pilots and staff through that registry.
-- This leads to her conclusion: Since the background checks do not catch potential perps, and the DOJ already maintains a public access website for known offenders, why is EAA spending the funds of the Association (i.e., of its members) for a private commercial organization to run an intrusive and largely ineffectual program? How much is this company and its shadow subsidiaries making off of this? Who recommended this program, run through this company?
(She offered some personal opinion about that which would probably not be helpful in this forum.)

Of course, I agree with her observations, or I wouldn't post them.

She also offered a suggestion that since most of us seem to have already undergone intrusive background checks, why can't we just provide evidence of that compliance, rather then incurring additional exposure and cost? (I am not altogether on board with that, since it would justify that such background checks are useful and then be used to require checks of EAA members who have not undergone such screening. You can't agree on everything.)

Again and again: Training YES. Reasonable precautions, YES. Unnecessary exposure of PII and other history, NO. Spending time, cash, and other resources on a program with little or no evidence of effectiveness, NO.

[Mark van Wyk]

...snip...-- She points outs that background checks almost never catch a potential perpetrator...snip...
Are you certain that these YP programs (CAP, BSA, schools, etc.) "almost never" detect a potential abuser? Do you have statistics to back that? Are there cases where the background check does detect an abuser, or an ex-felon, or some other person that should not be flying kids?

...snip...-- The DOJ already maintains a sex abuse registry. Once arrested, the person is listed there. To address a concern about offender participation, one solution which costs nothing but a little time, is to require the YE Program Coordinator to run the names of the YE pilots and staff through that registry....
What if the YE coordinator didn't follow through? EAA says they are paying $5 per background check. That seems to me to be a lot more thorough than leaving it up to a YE coordinator.
One of the biggest benefits of flying Young Eagles rather than offering rides independently is that EAA provides extra insurance for each YE pilot, plus all of the other paperwork (certificates, etc.). I think it's a good program, and I look forward to participating at the San Martin Airport Open House, Saturday, May 14, 2016. I hope enough pilots comply so that we get a good turnout.

[martymayes]

-- The DOJ already maintains a sex abuse registry. Once arrested, the person is listed there. To address a concern about offender participation, one solution which costs nothing but a little time, is to require the YE Program Coordinator to run the names of the YE pilots and staff through that registry.
-- This leads to her conclusion: Since the background checks do not catch potential perps, and the DOJ already maintains a public access website for known offenders, why is EAA spending the funds of the Association (i.e., of its members) for a private commercial organization to run an intrusive and largely ineffectual program?

How do you know the contractor providing background checks is not using the SOR?

[combahee]

One of the biggest benefits of flying Young Eagles rather than offering rides independently is that EAA provides extra insurance for each YE pilot, plus all of the other paperwork (certificates, etc.). I think it's a good program, and I look forward to participating at the San Martin Airport Open House, Saturday, May 14, 2016. I hope enough pilots comply so that we get a good turnout.

First of all, all convicted sex offenders are under strict rules about contact with kids. Do you really think any would risk going back to jail for a YE flight? The guy everyone mention earlier did not participate in YE flights. He was risking going direct to jail. The other example had never been arrested for a sex offense. Just being a convicted offended is self limiting in contact with kids.

The additional insurance is liability. It would not cover a pilot if there was an accusation. The waiver, insurance etc. is all designed to protect the EAA not the pilot.
Since you brought it up, why not ask EAA how many offenders did the checks catch so far?
Today many, many of us are concerned about our personal privacy and handing over any information to someone, particularly a third party vendor. It is also a matter of trust and understanding. No one is against the YPP, many of us are against the mandatory background check, the requirements on volunteers and the unreasonable requirements on the volunteers, pilots and chapters.
We would love to work with EAA in fixing it, but to my knowledge they have not reached out to any of us.
My Chapter president was a CAP officer. They instituted a similar program. Background checks etc. Then later they changed the rules, making things more difficult, then did it again, always pushing. Finally he and others had enough and quit. The volunteer parents would not submit to all the rules and regs. They quit, today the Squadron is no more.
If you look at the number of kids in the CAP and even the BSA compared with a few years ago, the number of units, the number of volunteers, they have all dropped, significantly. I don't think it was all due to video games.
There is an easy solution to all this, EAA work with your pilots and Chapter coordinators and Presidents. Don't stonewall us.
Mark don't worry about your San Martin Airport Open House, Saturday, May 14, 2016. You should do just fine. The YE program will survive. It just won't be the same nor as strong and robust, and many of us simply won't participate.

[Bob H]

I fly an experimental with 4-point belts for passenger and pilot. When buckling in Young Eagles, I kneel on the low right wing and reach in to bring shoulder straps over kid's chest and cross the lap belt across their waist to engage the shoulder straps. Then I normally pull the straps to snug up the slack from one kid size to another. In doing this for each kid I fly for a YE event, I could easily touch some part of a kid's body without noticing it, in order to safely buckle them in. Have never had any kid comment about the procedure but all this talk has me rethinking the whole situation. Suppose a kid made a complaint that I touched him/her? Would I now be accused of being a molester? Where is protection for the pilot flying YE from false accusations? It appears to me that pilots carry all the risk just trying to give kids a safe ride. It's just not worth it.

[vaflier]

I cannott help but wonder how much more likely a pilot is to be accused as a result of EAA instituting this program in this way. After all it will unfortunately stain all of us with some people always being willing to assume the worst. In addition there are those who would see this as a means to a fast payday, simply by making an unfounded accusation in the hope of an insurance payout to make it go away. Also known as hush money. How many times have you seen accusations of sexual harrasment or racial misdeeds immediately after so called awareness training. I am concerned.

[Byron J. Covey]

I cannott help but wonder how much more likely a pilot is to be accused as a result of EAA instituting this program in this way. After all it will unfortunately stain all of us with some people always being willing to assume the worst. In addition there are those who would see this as a means to a fast payday, simply by making an unfounded accusation in the hope of an insurance payout to make it go away. Also known as hush money. How many times have you seen accusations of sexual harrasment or racial misdeeds immediately after so called awareness training. I am concerned.

Another valid reason for pilot volunteers to withdraw from the YE program. (After all, everyone knows that anyone who owns an airplane has lots of money to be had via a law suit.)


BJC

[Mayhemxpc]

How do you know the contractor providing background checks is not using the SOR?
Maybe they are, in which case EAA is paying $5 each for a free service. Also, all the SOR needs is your name, not PII.

Also so for Mark, I was just relaying what I was told. Information that was also in at least one of the othe YPT I have been through. Nonetheless it should be easy enough to confirm or deny. The proof is required for the other side, however. When a person wants to impose a new requirement, the burden is to prove that this new requirement is more effective than possible alternatives available to meet the agreed purpose.

[martymayes]

Maybe they are, in which case EAA is paying $5 each for a free service. Also, all the SOR needs is your name, not PII.


Paying $5 for each person is as close to free as it gets if a reasonable background check is being performed. The SOR would be just one of several "filters" used to screen candidates.

[combahee]

I fly an experimental with 4-point belts for passenger and pilot. When buckling in Young Eagles, I kneel on the low right wing and reach in to bring shoulder straps over kid's chest and cross the lap belt across their waist to engage the shoulder straps. Then I normally pull the straps to snug up the slack from one kid size to another. In doing this for each kid I fly for a YE event, I could easily touch some part of a kid's body without noticing it, in order to safely buckle them in. Have never had any kid comment about the procedure but all this talk has me rethinking the whole situation. Suppose a kid made a complaint that I touched him/her? Would I now be accused of being a molester? Where is protection for the pilot flying YE from false accusations? It appears to me that pilots carry all the risk just trying to give kids a safe ride. It's just not worth it.

Sure it is worth it, just go and fly, the experience of the kids is all the reason to do it.
The way the policy is written though it would appear we have to go out of our way to explain there may be incidental touching, which in itself may throw up some huge red flags. I good friend of mine who has flown with me numerous times wanted her daughter to fly in the YE program. So at a rally I invited her and she brought along a friend with her daughter. I had discussed all of this with my friend who thought it was ridiculous. She explained the policy to the other woman who not only thought it was ridiculous but could be harming in itself. Instead of being happy for her daughter's first flight, was she now to worry about someone touching her daughter? Both women are involved in a local softball league with their kids. And no they don't have to submit to background checks.

[Mayhemxpc]

$5 x how many pilots is a chunk of cash. Even if the SOR could only process one name per minute, that equates to paying someone $300/hour for keystroking names. But why do they need more than just your name? Why can't the chapters handle that? If all they were doing was checking the SOR I don't think anyone would mind. It seems like reasonable due diligence.

Now that you mention filters (which I had not thought of before), what other "filters" are needed and who is making the decision about who gets filtered out? Aside from the very real risk of release of PII, where is the due process in screening someone out? I saw the question related to that on the FAQ and I also noted that answer sidestepped the question. In essence it appears you will not be able to see the evidence against you.

I admit that it is a hard struggle to try to convince EAA management to adopt a true risk management approach. The summary of a report on the Princton-Brookings website "The Future of Children" includes a report by Dr. David Finkelohr titled "The Prevention of Childhood Sexual Abuse." The report states, "In theory these searches bar dangerous people from youth serving environments and discourages others with records from applying." The summary concludes, however, that "little evidence exists that they (background screenings) are effective in preventing sexual abuse" Nonetheless, the section of the report dealing with these background checks concludes: "Conducting background checks has become such standard practice that it is not clear that evidence about their efficacy would have much effect on policy."

I have no problem with taking the training -- but I will hold off for now, since the program seems to be in regular revision. But after reading the arguments in favor of background screening in government publications and the few scholarly works I can find on it, I am beginning to be concerned that if I take the training but refuse to submit to the screening, that might be taken as an indicator that I am a potential abuser.

I may not prevail in an effort to bring logic to bear on this issue, but I will continue to try my very best in the struggle for rational policy decisions.

[caymancraig]

I have the biggest problem with handing the prospective Young Eagle's parent a form alerting them to be sure and help us look out for child molesters. This can plant the seed to a problem that some parents might want to take advantage of since every pilot of a "Private Plane" is rich. My other problem is with the record keeping. Our chapter has a problem keeping track of the previous meeting let alone what happened 2-3 years ago. I see this as a way of the insurance denying coverage because of something we did wrong. I'm the president of our chapter and I will not put my wallet on the line to offer free rides to kids and open myself and others up to this type of exposure.

[jimbob]

Thanks to Mr. Pelton for clarifying the changes to EAA policy concerning Young Eagles flights.

I'll be flying kids as I get a chance - as I have always; it will just be under my own auspices, not that of the EAA.

Over and out.

[mikey]

Thanks to Mr. Pelton for clarifying the changes to EAA policy concerning Young Eagles flights.

I'll be flying kids as I get a chance - as I have always; it will just be under my own auspices, not that of the EAA.

Over and out.

as will I

[turtle]

I have the biggest problem with handing the prospective Young Eagle's parent a form alerting them to be sure and help us look out for child molesters. This can plant the seed to a problem that some parents might want to take advantage of since every pilot of a "Private Plane" is rich.
It can also plant the seed that there is already a problem. After all, most of what the public sees is companies and organizations being reactive to an incident, not being proactive. Just like being handed a injury waiver. If it was truly safe and very little accident history, why do you need a waiver signed? Accidents must be fairly common, right?

[nesincg]

The reality is molestation exists. Background checks will do nothing to stop them. Read this if you really want to find out more.

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV192.pdf

The Prevention of Childhood Sexual Abuse
David Finkelhor
Summary

David Finkelhor examines initiatives to prevent child sexual abuse, which have focused on two primary strategies—offender management and school-based educational programs. Recent major offender management initiatives have included registering sex offenders, notifying communities about their presence, conducting background employment checks, controlling where offenders can live, and imposing longer prison sentences. Although these initiatives win approval from both the public and policy makers, little evidence exists that they are effective in preventing sexual abuse. Moreover, these initiatives, cautions Finkelhor, are based on an overly stereotyped characterization of sexual abusers as pedophiles, guileful strangers who prey on children in public and other easy-access environments and who are at high risk to re-offend once caught. In reality the population is much more diverse. Most sexual abusers are not strangers or pedophiles; many (about a third) are themselves juveniles. Many have relatively low risks for re-offending once caught. Perhaps the most serious shortcoming to offender management as a prevention strategy, Finkelhor argues, is that only a small percentage of new offenders have a prior sex offense record that would have involved them in the management system. He recommends using law enforcement resources to catch more undetected offenders and concentrating intensive management efforts on those at highest risk to re-offend. Finkelhor explains that school-based educational programs teach children such skills as how to identify dangerous situations, refuse an abuser’s approach, break off an interaction, and summon help. The programs also aim to promote disclosure, reduce self-blame, and mobilize bystanders. Considerable evaluation research exists about these programs, suggesting that they achieve certain of their goals. Research shows, for example, that young people can and do acquire the concepts. The programs may promote disclosure and help children not to blame themselves. But studies are inconclusive about whether education programs reduce victimization. Finkelhor urges further research and development of this approach, in particular efforts to integrate it into comprehensive health and safety promotion curricula.

[TedK]

Recently, we had a (previously)well regarded Navy Captain in our community identified as a sexual predator. He had a Top Secret clearance that requires 5 year reinvestigations, performed by the Defense Security Service and other Federal LE entities.

i remain unconvinced to the efficacy of EAA's cursory background investigations and believe they pose real risk of identity theft.

The EAA's requirement for a background check is security theater. All it is doing is driving those of us away who consider the risk of identity theft real.

The education and training aspects of YPP are good. Having policies that support vigilance and awareness are good.

i will remain with EAA and continue to be a voice for a balanced risk based approach, but I will not expose my personal data to a firm that may not be capable of safeguarding it or the results of any investigation.

Many of of us have not led perfect lives, and while I have done nothing that would cause me to be expelled from YE duties, there is information from past missteps that a thorough investigation would uncover, aggregate and cause embarrassment if publicly disclosed.

I doubt I am alone.

ted

[martymayes]

I would not expect EAA to rock the boat. They are just going to turn and paddle with the current....choose your battles wisely type thing. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Eric Cernjar]

I have the biggest problem with handing the prospective Young Eagle's parent a form alerting them to be sure and help us look out for child molesters.

I just want to confirm, we are not handing out a form to parents asking them to be on alert for potential offenders. The form parents are getting is the same form we've always used.

Thanks,
Eric

[combahee]

Well it is painfully obvious that the EAA is NOT listening to it's members. The changes to the YPP as it concerns the YE flights are minor at best. Lip service by the President doesn't help. I can speak with authority when I say many of us will not submit to their background check. Nor a continuing check every 3 years!
As evidenced by the many revisions and word changing, without changing any meaning, the initial roll out was and continues to be a disaster.
Funny when I look at the list of pilots that have flown 10 per year Mr. Peltons name doesn't come up.
So Mr. Pelton and the BOD of EAA. Lots of luck with the YE program and the retention of pilots and Chapters. After May 1 we are done.
It was fun while it lasted.

[Copapilot]

Read the "new" policy (policies). Parsed same for semantic differences with original. Results = absolutely no changes. All they did was split one document into three so as to make it somewhat clearer what parts of the policy apply to which type of activity. So, they changed the words without changing the meaning, intent, or actual requirements. Therefore the prior legal analysis still stands: This policy / procedure does NOTHING to help protect pilots and other volunteers. It only protects the parent corporation and the hired help like Mr. Pelton, and gives them an excuse should anything happen in the future. At the same time, this policy significantly increases (1) the ACTUAL risk that some money-grubbing opportunist parent will bring a child to a YE event for the SOLE PURPOSE of making a false claim of abuse afterward, knowing the pilot and volunteers will never be able to prove the negative because video and still imagery for surveillance is not allowed without prior permission now, and (2) the pilots' and volunteers' personal identity theft probabilities are significantly increased, as the third AND FOURTH party vendors doing the background checks are highly likely to intentionally sell the aggregated personal information (Nowhere in any of this do they or EAA specifically contract with the pilots and other volunteers to maintain confidentiality and secrecy, and the wording of the actual permission form we are asked to sign only applies to the contents of the form itself, while making no actionable assurances with regard to the aggregated search RESULTS).


I'm done with YE and EAA itself. My membership expires on April 30, which is also the last day I would permit any YE kids to fly with me, so the timing is perfect. I will also issue a directive that none of the rental aircraft may be used for any EAA activity in which minors are allowed to participate (it's all about liability Mr. Pelton, and two can play at that game - you just lost an average of 360 kids a year due to me and my planes to protect MY liability interests).

[TedK]

Just got an email from EAA. They still don't get it. Background Check is still required.

Hi:

http://pages.eaa.org/rs/910-SEU-073/images/Pelton_Jack-2012-002-150px.jpgEarlier this month I mentioned that we would be using EAA member feedback to make any necessary clarifications and improvements to the Youth Protection Policy introduced in January. Thanks to your input, we have done that.

The overarching purpose of the policy remains the same – to protect young people who are involved in EAA's youth programs and protect our volunteers who dedicate time, energy, and their own funds to these programs. Within that, we've split the policy's elements into three distinct areas: (http://go.eaa.org/x0S0000W3p30BKE02O0jnUm) Young Eagles flights and activities, youth education programs such as aircraft building projects, and youth activities at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh.

Within the Young Eagles segment (http://go.eaa.org/i3WS0KE3jqB00O000nm3U00), you'll note the following changes, thanks to the input of members and volunteers:


Removing what many thought was an overly burdensome photography policy. There are now simple guidelines to work with parents when taking photos.
No requirement to provide a Social Security Number when completing the background check (it is optional).
Simplified requirements for ground volunteers at Young Eagles rallies, to requiring only two-deep leadership that has completed the training and background checks.
Elimination of the staff-to-youth ratio for Young Eagles rallies.
Clarification on topics such as supervision in an aircraft, individual Young Eagles flights, and record keeping.

I urge you to also review the brief guidance sheet (http://go.eaa.org/i3WS0KE3jqB00O000nm3U00) regarding the Youth Protection Policy and Young Eagles activities. It will help answer questions that you may receive, although it's important to know and understand the entire policy as it relates to Young Eagles. We'll have similar background sheets coming for other chapter youth activities and for AirVenture youth activities. For the latest updates, go to www.EAA.org/youthprotection (http://go.eaa.org/tOUj3m0WSn0B400KE00003r).

Again, thanks for your input. We are all passionate and dedicated when it comes to EAA's youth programs, which is why they've been so successful. It makes us excited about the positive impact we can have on the future of aviation.

Thanks again for being part of EAA!

Jack Pelton, EAA CEO/Chairman

[rwanttaja]

Just got an email from EAA. They still don't get it. Background Check is still required.

Background Checks are the irreducible nugget of the Youth Protection Policy. They may change everything else, but the background checks will remain.

If something happens and EAA gets sued, only the background checks will count as evidence that EAA was trying to minimize the chance of a predator using the program. Making people watch a web program won't count for much, with a jury.

Ron Wanttaja

[vettdvr]

This IS also an issue identity theft for doing a background check. Why should I risk the problem of identity theft as my daughter had years ago just for the eaa. She had great difficulty buying a home after getting married due to identity theft. .............From FOX news today.....................A hacker broke into the University of California, Berkeley computer system holding financial data of 80,000 students, alumni, current and former employees, school officials said Friday.
The university said that although there is no evidence that any information has been stolen, it has notified potential victims of the breach so they can watch for signs of possible misuse of their personal data.
Those notified include students and staff who received non-salary payments though electronic fund transfers, such as financial aid awards and work-related reimbursements. Vendors whose financial information was in the system for payment purposes are also at risk.
The hack occurred in December right after Christmas and just as UC Berkeley was in the middle of patching a security flaw in the financial management system.

[CraigCantwell]

This IS also an issue identity theft for doing a background check. Why should I risk the problem of identity theft as my daughter had years ago just for the eaa. She had great difficulty buying a home after getting married due to identity theft.

We just got notified this week that we were in another batch of data that got hacked......Let's see, that makes the 3rd time in less than a year now. I'm giving up on keeping track of how many times it has happened now. Any wonder why some of are a little paranoid about our data?

[FlyingRon]

The background checks didn't bother me as much as the screwball fly-by-night way that and the training program was implemented. Half of the controversy could have been dealt with if someone out of the close knit cabal had looked at that disaster before it was dumped on the membership.

[ssmdive]

At my place of employment, I just completed a mandatory "harassment" online training. I could have stamped my feet and held my breath until I turned blue and refused to take it, and I could have quit my job. Or, I could just take the training. I took the training.
--Mark van Wyk

If the EAA is willing to pay me 30K a year I will take any training and complete any background check information they want. But last I checked, I pay THEM. Last I looked, they are supposed to represent the membership. I don't think there was a massive call from the membership to change the YE program.

Seriously, does anyone know of a way I can be in the IAC without being a member of the EAA? I'd drop the EAA like a bad habit, just like they seemed to have dropped the whole concept of the EAA.

When is the next election of anyone in the EAA that supports this abortion?

[fidot]

Seriously, does anyone know of a way I can be in the IAC without being a member of the EAA? I'd drop the EAA like a bad habit, just like they seemed to have dropped the whole concept of the EAA.



http://www.biplaneforum.com/showpost.php?p=138702&postcount=52

[Byron J. Covey]

http://eaaforums.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ssmdive http://eaaforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?p=53981#post53981)
Seriously, does anyone know of a way I can be in the IAC without being a member of the EAA? I'd drop the EAA like a bad habit, just like they seemed to have dropped the whole concept of the EAA.

http://www.biplaneforum.com/showpost...2&postcount=52 (http://www.biplaneforum.com/showpost.php?p=138702&postcount=52)

Thank you for that.


BJC

[ssmdive]

http://www.biplaneforum.com/showpost.php?p=138702&postcount=52

I already do that. But I am still an EAA member and have to pay them 10 dollars. They get to count me in their rolls as 'supporting them'... Same trick they play with Airventures membership.

[rwanttaja]

If the EAA is willing to pay me 30K a year I will take any training and complete any background check information they want. But last I checked, I pay THEM.
The key point, of course. I have to take a ton of online training at work, from business courtesies to ethics to hazardous waste handling to clean-room procedures. Because I have accounts on some government computer systems, I also have to take many of the GOVERNMENT-equivalent courses...and, frankly, I couldn't care less that Manual ABC-333-111 governs the PII-protection procedures of agency XYZ.

But...my employer pays me an ungodly amount of money, and so I salute and take the cute little course where I earn "rocket parts".

Here's a closer analogy to Young Eagles: Imagine you're walking down the street just before Christmas and see a Salvation Army bell-ringer. You pull a quarter out of your pocket and start reaching for the kettle. "Not so fast!" says the bell-ringer. "Please take this online course, and give us your name, address, phone number, etc. for a background check."

This policy ticks-off the people Young Eagles needs the most: The pilots who donate their time, aircraft, and the money required to keep the tanks filled to fly kids.

Young Eagles is ~31,000 kids short of two million. It would have been nice if they'd completed the second million under the old rules (or less onerous versions of what they chose), then honorably retired "Young Eagles" and merged it with "EAA Eagle Flights" with the new protections. As it is, it's leaving a bad taste in the mouth of a lot those who helped make it to 1,969,000 kids.

Ron Wanttaja

[AcroGimp]

If the EAA is willing to pay me 30K a year I will take any training and complete any background check information they want. But last I checked, I pay THEM. Last I looked, they are supposed to represent the membership. I don't think there was a massive call from the membership to change the YE program.

Seriously, does anyone know of a way I can be in the IAC without being a member of the EAA? I'd drop the EAA like a bad habit, just like they seemed to have dropped the whole concept of the EAA.

When is the next election of anyone in the EAA that supports this abortion?Right there with you! Debating whether or not to enter first contest for the year right now and really torn.

'Gimp

[vettdvr]

FWIW I spoke to a pilot yesterday with over 1000 YE flights. He mailed in his card withdrew from EAA and said good by. The local EAA chapter currently doesn't have enough people committed to the training/check to have any event sponsored by EAA. Now looks like local pilots and FBO will just do fly in's for locals.

[lyleapgmc]

What will the EAA do to help a member whose information was hacked at the provider of the background check? That information goes to one third party before going to another party doing the actual background check.

Apparently the results of the background check will be delivered to EAA for review. Will this information be stored on a "totally secure" server and only be availalbe to the one person who reviews it.

How many people at EAA will actually be needed to complete the reviews? To what level of security check will all of those people be subjected? What help will the EAA provide to a member whose information is hacked at EAA?

Will the reports be stored in a Mason jar on Funk and Wagnall's front porch? The actual security will be about the same.

There are simply too many holes in this program for the comfort of any Young Eagles volunteer.

[Slick]

:eek: :( :mad: While I fully understand the reasoning behind the new policies, I am not so sure we have not let Pandora out of her box with no real answers on how to get her back in! I will tell you after speaking with several chapter leaders in our area the new mandate is not being well received! During a recent poll at the last meeting of our chapter members, 2/3 of those present were opposed to the changes outright and the other third were opposed as it is stated currently. We will suspend youth activities until such a time when more answers are made available. If we are going to see GA continue we need to attract the younger people to it. But with the new constraints it will make it much more problematic! I suggest every member request their chapter leaders to e-mail Jack Pelton with their opinions and just how it is affecting their current youth programs. Jack this needs to be fixed sooner then later or the youth programs may very well be at risk of collapse.

[RickG]

I'm done with YE and EAA itself. My membership expires on April 30, which is also the last day I would permit any YE kids to fly with me, so the timing is perfect. I will also issue a directive that none of the rental aircraft may be used for any EAA activity in which minors are allowed to participate (it's all about liability Mr. Pelton, and two can play at that game - you just lost an average of 360 kids a year due to me and my planes to protect MY liability interests).
As much as it pains me to say so ... I completely support your position.

I know a number of individuals that have supported the YE program and the EAA for more than a decade that are throwing in the towel over this issue they are so disgusted. YE flights and other youth activities are being cancelled; coordinators stepping down, directives being put out not to allow flight line aircraft to be used for any EAA events. One guy even indicated he's pulling his Planned Giving.

It's a very, very sad day in the life of this organization. EAA membership may not notice these changes tomorrow but the numbers will be different a year from now. Like you I will let my membership expire this Spring and will find another venue to share my enthusiasm for aviation and resources.

[cub builder]

:eek: :( :mad: I suggest every member request their chapter leaders to e-mail Jack Pelton with their opinions and just how it is affecting their current youth programs. Jack this needs to be fixed sooner then later or the youth programs may very well be at risk of collapse.

If EAA HQ cared about the impact, they would survey the chapter presidents asking about the impact to the individual chapters. It appears to me the lawyers have the leadership terrified. That tells me we don't have any leadership. In all the years I was a chapter president, the only real communications I had from HQ came in the form of them wanting money or to inform us we weren't allowed to do something as a chapter the risk management people felt was of too great of a risk for them.

Jack has sent out two (or more) emails in support of this program, so I would think his support is fully behind it. I don't expect him to fix anything.

Like many others, my 28 year membership expires in November, then I'll be gone. This isn't the organization I worked to build.

-Cub Builder

[Gilmore]

I weighed in much earlier, but I'll ask again, if somewhat rhetorically: Hasn't America changed to the point that innocent programs like Young Eagles can no longer exist? Sadly, in case after case, well intentioned and innocent activities such as this, and perhaps EAA itself, can no longer be enjoyed due to degenerates amongst us, and lawyers looking to protect us whether we like it or not, at great profit to themselves? Oh, and let's not forget the Great Altar of Political Correctness. The slippery slope just pitched nose down another degree. I pray God continues to Bless America.

[lyleapgmc]

I weighed in much earlier, but I'll ask again, if somewhat rhetorically: Hasn't America changed to the point that innocent programs like Young Eagles can no longer exist? Sadly, in case after case, well intentioned and innocent activities such as this, and perhaps EAA itself, can no longer be enjoyed due to degenerates amongst us, and lawyers looking to protect us whether we like it or not, at great profit to themselves? Oh, and let's not forget the Great Altar of Political Correctness. The slippery slope just pitched nose down another degree. I pray God continues to Bless America.

<Quote> I weighed in much earlier, but I'll ask again, if somewhat rhetorically: Hasn't America changed to the point that innocent programs like Young Eagles can no longer exist? Sadly, in case after case, well intentioned and innocent activities such as this, and perhaps EAA itself, can no longer be enjoyed due to degenerates amongst us, and lawyers looking to protect us whether we like it or not, at great profit to themselves? Oh, and let's not forget the Great Altar of Political Correctness. The slippery slope just pitched nose down another degree. I pray God continues to Bless America. <End Quote>

Good questions and comments. The world has changed. Technology has enabled much of that change with instant communications. One of those communicators is the media. When I was trying to grow up years ago news was spread by rumors and gossip. Do you remember the game of "Telephone?" The same thing applies to the media. They will go on site to report something. They will interview witnesses and neighbors. The writers and editors then get the story and tell the "reporter" what to say on the live, on scene report. The media seems to take great pains to involve innocent parties in the stories. Such was the case in one of Jack Pelton's "close calls". The media involved the local EAA chapter by merely including images of the chapter's hangar in media reports. The perpetrator was not a member of any chapter but was an EAA member. There were no images of EAA headquarters. The chapter had held Young Eagles rallies at the far end of the airport and the suspect did fly young eagles at those rallies.

The background checks are another example of instant communications. A person's background can be accessed for a fee. If it justifies a fee it must be important. We'd better have that record. How accurate is the record? How many "clean" pilots or volunteers will be eliminated because records have been inter-mixed or the wrong record is accessed by the company doing the checks? Technology is not without its share of errors.

Paranoia breeds paranoia. Everyone thinks the risks can be mitigated by a program or by locking up all the guilty.

Political Correctness is very likely the motivator for EAA to institute the Youth Protection Program. Everyone else is doing it so it must be the correct thing to do. Did the EAA ask any of the other organizations how many molesters were eliminated from their activities? Were any molestations prevented? Did the program prevent the molester from acting outside the organization's activities?

The camel's nose is under the tent. Will he soon be urinating on your bedding?

The two "close calls" amount to .0001015744033 percent of the Young Eagles that have been flown.

I find it disgusting that members must be subjected to such scrutiny to participate in an activity for which they must pay to participate.

[rwanttaja]

I weighed in much earlier, but I'll ask again, if somewhat rhetorically: Hasn't America changed to the point that innocent programs like Young Eagles can no longer exist? Sadly, in case after case, well intentioned and innocent activities such as this, and perhaps EAA itself, can no longer be enjoyed due to degenerates amongst us, and lawyers looking to protect us whether we like it or not, at great profit to themselves? Oh, and let's not forget the Great Altar of Political Correctness. The slippery slope just pitched nose down another degree. I pray God continues to Bless America.
Well... the question is, are "degenerates" more common today than 30 years ago? 75 years ago? 100 years ago? A thousand years ago?

The answer is "no", of course. That sort of activity is as old as man. We have better vigilance today. Even better, we teach those most at risk the danger signs and encourage them to report if they're uncomfortable about a situation.

Heightened awareness of the problem triggered programs like EAA's, not a change in society. The risk hasn't changed, just the realization of the magnitude of it.

Ron Wanttaja

[rv builder]

Well... the question is, are "degenerates" more common today than 30 years ago? 75 years ago? 100 years ago? A thousand years ago?

The answer is "no", of course. That sort of activity is as old as man. We have better vigilance today. Even better, we teach those most at risk the danger signs and encourage them to report if they're uncomfortable about a situation.

Heightened awareness of the problem triggered programs like EAA's, not a change in society. The risk hasn't changed, just the realization of the magnitude of it.

Ron Wanttaja

Which, if I remember my data correctly, mostly involves relatives and known acquaintances. That is, the fear of random strangers molesting children is, for the most part, misplaced. But everyone is afraid of everything now, so we end up with useless rules and policies like this.

[vaflier]

I see that Jack has stated that 3000 members have completed the background checks, I wonder how many were pilots and what percentage of the Young Eagles pilots do they truly represent ????

[Jkan]

Which, if I remember my data correctly, mostly involves relatives and known acquaintances. That is, the fear of random strangers molesting children is, for the most part, misplaced. But everyone is afraid of everything now, so we end up with useless rules and policies like this.

I guess Jack Pelton and the Board of Directors, now believe child molesters involve Young Eagle Pilots and/or the ground personal. This is an irresponsible and sadly a very poorly thought out program, to say the least. The initial presentation was a disaster and we can, at this time I believe, see the President and senior management trying to cover their back sides. All should be fired and this disaster of a program scraped.

[medic2nurse]

Hello All,
I have flown only a few Y.E.(got the patch and the letter from HQ), BUT, I do not need those trinkets to tell me I am a
good Ambassador for General Aviation. I have flown many more people as an individual plane owner and enthusiast then as a
Y.E. program participant.
I as an individual incur the same Liability, wear and tear on the plane and time spent whether a fun flight or a EAA sanctioned program flight.
However, with the non sanctioned fun flight, I, as a pilot and plane owner can vet WHO is going into my plane (something this program does NOT do).
I have found that after a Y.E. flight MOST people simply walk away from their childs free airplane ride with the thought of "that was a cool way to spend a
couple of hours" and are not heard from again.
When I personally take someone on a non-EAA sanctioned flight I KNOW who they are.
I know them because:


1. They are a friend. Maybe they have never flown in a small plane and would like to see their local area from altitude.


2. They are an acquaintance.I talk about flying ALL THE TIME. On social media or face to face SOMETHING always has me turn the conversation to flying
and what a great feeling and freedom it provides. I invite them for a flight.


My point is that after flying someone I know, even only casually, there is a STRONGER bond made and repeat flights are the norm NOT the exception.
Those people may not go on to obtain a license BUT they are now advocates for our area airport.
I do not think I will continue Y.E. flights as I can do the same thing without the hassle on my own.

[FlyingRon]

The problem is that there's a whole segment of the population that YE reaches out to that don't have a friend who knows a pilot that can take them for a ride. I was extremely lucky as a kid to have a father who happened to have some pilots for clients. Had he been in some other legal specialty, I'd probably not have gotten a ride until college.

Frankly, it's not just kids (though kids are a logical place to start). I attend a lot of airshows as an exhibit plane. Sitting in my plane still is as close as many of these people even get to an airplane, and sometimes I get a frank discussion with them as to what it takes to become a pilot. I've seen that dreamy "some day" look. I give out a lot of referrals to YE at these events. I put roughly 250 kids into the Navion on the ground in the 4 hours during the Air and Space Museum family day. A few adults, too.

We did a special olympics rally (plane pull) up on the cargo ramp every year. I've put United ramp/cargo guys into my plane. These guys work around airplanes all day long but never actually get to experience aviatino.

The YE does provide additional liability protection for me as a pilot.

I can tell usually tell when I board the kids when I got one that has hope. Try to get them in the right seat.

My big complaint again is the half-assed roll out of the program. I hope this does not "kill" the YE program. It deserves a chance.

[Jkan]

Hello All,
I have flown only a few Y.E.(got the patch and the letter from HQ), BUT, I do not need those trinkets to tell me I am a
good Ambassador for General Aviation. I have flown many more people as an individual plane owner and enthusiast then as a
Y.E. program participant.
I as an individual incur the same Liability, wear and tear on the plane and time spent whether a fun flight or a EAA sanctioned program flight.
However, with the non sanctioned fun flight, I, as a pilot and plane owner can vet WHO is going into my plane (something this program does NOT do).
I have found that after a Y.E. flight MOST people simply walk away from their childs free airplane ride with the thought of "that was a cool way to spend a
couple of hours" and are not heard from again.
When I personally take someone on a non-EAA sanctioned flight I KNOW who they are.
I know them because:


1. They are a friend. Maybe they have never flown in a small plane and would like to see their local area from altitude.


2. They are an acquaintance.I talk about flying ALL THE TIME. On social media or face to face SOMETHING always has me turn the conversation to flying
and what a great feeling and freedom it provides. I invite them for a flight.


My point is that after flying someone I know, even only casually, there is a STRONGER bond made and repeat flights are the norm NOT the exception.
Those people may not go on to obtain a license BUT they are now advocates for our area airport.
I do not think I will continue Y.E. flights as I can do the same thing without the hassle on my own.

What a great story and you are indeed "a good Ambassador for General Aviation". I can't disagree with anything you said. The very best to you and yours.

[wyoranch]

The thing that I am most disappointed about is the fact that this forum was created and is maintained by EAA, yet there is NO interaction with the members by an 'Official'. Weak, very weak. The sheer number of posts in this thread and the parallel threads should be screaming that there is an issue and deserve some acknowledgement from EAA. This is not a fluff post about what band of has beens so will be playing in the square or a debate about which is better, Rans or Zenith. This is a very active thread on POLICY that affects a principal program from the organization. I will always be a member of EAA as I do believe that the good outweighs the bad. But come on EAA, man up and acknowledge the issue, at least we all would understand your thinking.
Rick

[Glory Aulik]

The thing that I am most disappointed about is the fact that this forum was created and is maintained by EAA, yet there is NO interaction with the members by an 'Official'. Weak, very weak. The sheer number of posts in this thread and the parallel threads should be screaming that there is an issue and deserve some acknowledgement from EAA. This is not a fluff post about what band of has beens so will be playing in the square or a debate about which is better, Rans or Zenith. This is a very active thread on POLICY that affects a principal program from the organization. I will always be a member of EAA as I do believe that the good outweighs the bad. But come on EAA, man up and acknowledge the issue, at least we all would understand your thinking.
Rick

We have been listening, responding, acknowledging and changing the policy according to the thoughts and concerns brought up here. I don't think it's quite fair to say we haven't been interacting, although I would have to agree it's not as frequent as most members on the forum, but we have been interacting. Dennis and Eric have done an exceptional job of reaching out to the right contacts to provide answers regarding the policy.

Thanks!
Glory

[vaflier]

I see that Jack has stated that 3000 members have completed the background checks, I wonder how many were pilots and what percentage of the Young Eagles pilots do they truly represent ????
I really would like an answer to my question, is anyone in EAA listening, come on how about doing us the favor of giving a legitimate answer to what I consider an important question. The only reason I can see not to respond is that an honest answer might be embarrassing to EAA if it shows that the vast majority of Young Eagles pilots are refusing to submit their personal info and complete the background checks. All I am asking for is honesty and let the chips fall where they will.

[Jkan]

The problem is that there's a whole segment of the population that YE reaches out to that don't have a friend who knows a pilot that can take them for a ride. I was extremely lucky as a kid to have a father who happened to have some pilots for clients. Had he been in some other legal specialty, I'd probably not have gotten a ride until college.

Frankly, it's not just kids (though kids are a logical place to start). I attend a lot of airshows as an exhibit plane. Sitting in my plane still is as close as many of these people even get to an airplane, and sometimes I get a frank discussion with them as to what it takes to become a pilot. I've seen that dreamy "some day" look. I give out a lot of referrals to YE at these events. I put roughly 250 kids into the Navion on the ground in the 4 hours during the Air and Space Museum family day. A few adults, too.

We did a special olympics rally (plane pull) up on the cargo ramp every year. I've put United ramp/cargo guys into my plane. These guys work around airplanes all day long but never actually get to experience aviatino.

The YE does provide additional liability protection for me as a pilot.

I can tell usually tell when I board the kids when I got one that has hope. Try to get them in the right seat.

My big complaint again is the half-assed roll out of the program. I hope this does not "kill" the YE program. It deserves a chance.

I agree the Young Eagles Program must not fail and I believe it will continue, as long as headquarters keeps its fingers off of the program, which it seem they are not going to do.
The Young Eagles Protection Program is destined to destroy the current program, which is a prefect program, performed by the most dedicated pilots one will find anywhere. A bandage here and a bandage there, will not work. The current membership is being divided and we are losing members already. This is a failed program and must be completely disbanded, however, witnessing the interworkings at headquarters, I truly believe that upper management and the board of directors would do nothing constructive, rather than admit they were wrong. Very, very sad for all of us who truly love the Young Eagles Program.

[wyoranch]

We have been listening, responding, acknowledging and changing the policy according to the thoughts and concerns brought up here. I don't think it's quite fair to say we haven't been interacting, although I would have to agree it's not as frequent as most members on the forum, but we have been interacting. Dennis and Eric have done an exceptional job of reaching out to the right contacts to provide answers regarding the policy.

Thanks!
Glory
Glory,
with all due respect ( and truly mean that ), reaching out to what contacts? The people here asking the questions and concerns? If so I must have missed the posts and I apologize.

[Eric Cernjar]

I really would like an answer to my question, is anyone in EAA listening, come on how about doing us the favor of giving a legitimate answer to what I consider an important question. The only reason I can see not to respond is that an honest answer might be embarrassing to EAA if it shows that the vast majority of Young Eagles pilots are refusing to submit their personal info and complete the background checks. All I am asking for is honesty and let the chips fall where they will.


Let me see what I can do for you on this.

Eric

[Eric Cernjar]

Glory,
with all due respect ( and truly mean that ), reaching out to what contacts? The people here asking the questions and concerns? If so I must have missed the posts and I apologize.


I believe what Glory meant is that her, Dennis, myself and others have sought out people internally to be able to answer the questions that members have had on these forums.

For the most part our intent is to have these forums be a place for members to interact with each other, but when we see places that it makes sense to interject we have and will continue to do so.

Additionally, we are encouraging people to contact us directly to discuss questions or concerns. Some conversations can be adequately handled via the forums, but sometimes a live conversation can be a more effective means. If you feel that you're not getting the answers you are looking for here, I can help facilitate a conversation with EAA staff that can better answer your questions.

Thanks,
Eric

[vaflier]

Let me see what I can do for you on this.

Eric

Thank you Eric.

[wyoranch]

I believe what Glory meant is that her, Dennis, myself and others have sought out people internally to be able to answer the questions that members have had on these forums.

For the most part our intent is to have these forums be a place for members to interact with each other, but when we see places that it makes sense to interject we have and will continue to do so.

Additionally, we are encouraging people to contact us directly to discuss questions or concerns. Some conversations can be adequately handled via the forums, but sometimes a live conversation can be a more effective means. If you feel that you're not getting the answers you are looking for here, I can help facilitate a conversation with EAA staff that can better answer your questions.

Thanks,
Eric
thanks eric
rick

[Eric Cernjar]

Thank you Eric.

Ok, update.

So far, we now have about 4,000 people that have done both the online training and background check. Of those 4,000, almost 2,500 have flown young eagles in the past 2 years and are pilots. Of the other 1,500 that haven't flown young eagles in the past 2 years, there is likely a percentage of them that are pilots, but we do not know how many at this time.

Is that helpful?

[FlyingRon]

We have been listening, responding, acknowledging and changing the policy according to the thoughts and concerns brought up here. I don't think it's quite fair to say we haven't been interacting, although I would have to agree it's not as frequent as most members on the forum, but we have been interacting. Dennis and Eric have done an exceptional job of reaching out to the right contacts to provide answers regarding the policy.

Thanks!
Glory

I disagree. Nobody bothered to answer the apparent security hole issues raised other than "We're EAA headquarters, you can trust us." Sorry that's not compelling. Fortuantely, some of the more security minded people were able to dig through the BLATANT RED FLAGS in the screwed up implementation and LIES (intentional or not) given by the EAA staff about the nature of the checks and come up with a reasonable hypotheisis why the disaster wasn't as bad as it appeared.

Nobody either in this forum or in EMAILS specifically sent to the EAA on the subject answered my issues about this or the fact that my training completion and background check things were stuck in PENDING after getting an error at the completion of the course saying the restults "could not be stored at this time." I've recieved NO answers PERIOD from the EAA. Your post is inaccurate. NOBODY has responded form the EAA in a satisfactory manner.

[vaflier]

Ok, update.

So far, we now have about 4,000 people that have done both the online training and background check. Of those 4,000, almost 2,500 have flown young eagles in the past 2 years and are pilots. Of the other 1,500 that haven't flown young eagles in the past 2 years, there is likely a percentage of them that are pilots, but we do not know how many at this time.

Is that helpful?

Eric, thank you very much for responding and posting the above information, however you missed the part of my question regarding , of the 2500 pilots who have flown Young Eagles in the last two years what percentage of the total Young Eagles pilots do they represent. That is obviously not how I posed the original questiona and I have rephrased it in this post to try and clarify my question for you. I really do apreciate your response and efforts . Thank you.

Randy

[VA Maule]

I have been following this discussion closely, posting little. I believe it's time for " The Buck To STOP HERE "!!!!!!!
Mr Jack Pelton communicate with us here on this forum for all to see. You work for us collectively and explain why this volunteer labor force ( labor of love of aviation) must submit to this "Knee Jerk-Proactive " unneeded program in order to continue to volunteer at our expense. You in the " Ivory Tower " need us far more than we need you!!!!!

Drop the background check! Keep the awareness training if you like.

The background check is and will be the Death Blow to this wonderful Young Eagles program!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

E.M. Dunnavant, President Chapter 1202

[Jkan]

I have been following this discussion closely, posting little. I believe it's time for " The Buck To STOP HERE "!!!!!!!
Mr Jack Pelton communicate with us here on this forum for all to see. You work for us collectively and explain why this volunteer labor force ( labor of love of aviation) must submit to this "Knee Jerk-Proactive " unneeded program in order to continue to volunteer at our expense. You in the " Ivory Tower " need us far more than we need you!!!!!

Drop the background check! Keep the awareness training if you like.

The background check is and will be the Death Blow to this wonderful Young Eagles program!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

E.M. Dunnavant, President Chapter 1202

I completely agree with the first part of your post, but must disagree with only the last part. The whole program is an irresponsible disaster. No matter how many bandages are put on this absurdity, it still is " The Young Eagles Protection Program". Protection from who? The only conclusion that the public can draw, is that there needed to be a program to protect children from the pilots and ground crews. What a joke. The whole program must be scraped. Lets not play around with the reputation of the most dedicated and responsible pilots one will find anywhere. It's time for the membership to take charge because senior management at headquarters will never admit a mistake.

[bookmaker]

I've been following this conversation and entered a few posts. It is now time for another.

I am one of the YE pilots who completed the registration process. Even before the lifting of the social security number requirement. However, my decision to quit flying kids at Young Eagle events came after I registered. Since I assume I am not alone, I suspect the statistics quoted above are not representative of those pilots willing to continue.

I reread the policy yesterday and here are two issues that I have grave concerns with:

1. The policy states a child should not be touched "where a bathing suit would cover" What type of bathing suit? It is my opinion this statement is so broad, a gentle touch across the back or mid section could be considered an egregious act.

2. The policy states that the pilot should communicate with the parent that they may have to touch the child to buckle them in and have them watch if they are concerned. Jees, are you kidding? You as a pilot ARE going to touch the child helping them get buckled. The belts in my plane are stiff to snug up and the smaller kids cannot do it. In an active event, I am trying to get kids in and out quickly and buckled safely (and not damage my plane). In many cases the 3 kids are from different families. Am I going to have 3 sets of parents stand over my shoulders while I try to quickly perform this process? NO WAY. In fact, at the last event I flew for, ( I did 8 flights) the chapter restricted parents away from the immediate area of the planes for safety and efficiency purposes.

The above are just two areas that cause me real concern. However, the fact the whole thing is micro detailed in black and white, I see the paranoid kids and parents who learn of the policy, filming every step with their cell phones and sooner or later some poor pilot is going to end up on YouTube shown "inappropriately" touching a child and regardless of their intention, they will be ruined.

Sorry, but I don't need that problem. So I have decided to stop flying kids at Young Eagle events. I may work the flight line away from kids, and I may fly individual kids that I know and log them as Young Eagle flights. I am truly sorry it has come to this as I really loved flying the kids.

Dale

[Mike M]

"In many cases the 3 kids are from different families."

Some kids only go on YE flights because of peer pressure. And never want to feel the controls. They could go in the back. But. Most who start out with that mindset change after takeoff and want to give it a try. I can't predict which kids those will be. Can anyone, 100%? Consider using the back seats by exception or for those who have flown in front before and want to go again. Fly all first-time YE's in a seat with flight controls so they can follow the pilot's actions, experience the input pressures, see the gauges, etc. Don't cheat the little buggers. I'm not accusing you of doing that. Your statement just brought up the thought.

[Bret Steffen]

As of 3-9-16 we had 3922 people take the training and background check. 2360 of those flew as YE pilots in the past two years, so are more than likely current pilots. 1562 people are probably a mix of YE coordinators, ground volunteers, AirVenture volunteers, and potentially pilots who are either new or have not flown in the past two years.

We have averaged around 5000 pilots in the program each year -- gaining and losing about 1000 each year with the total staying around that 5000 mark. So 2360 is nearing half of the typical pilot population for a typical year.

Rick Larsen (VP of member programs and communities) and I will be hosting a webinar on youth protection on Monday, March 14.

[Eric Cernjar]

Here's a link to the webinar. For those that have questions and are looking for an update, this is an opportunity to get that info and also ask questions.

http://pages.eaa.org/WBN2016-03-14YouthProtectionUpdate_LP-Registration.html

[bookmaker]

Mike M - I am not sure what you are replying to. My reference to "3 different families" was only to stress the point that having possibly several parents stand by and watch you buckle their kids in is not practical. And possibly dangerous due to distraction.

As for who sits in the front, unless there was an obvious weight or size issue, I first asked the kids. If more than one wants the front I had them pick numbers from 1-10. By the way, I always asked the front passenger if he or she wanted to control the plane. Most did, but some did not.

Dale

[TomBush]

As of 3-9-16 we had 3922 people take the training and background check. 2360 of those flew as YE pilots in the past two years, so are more than likely current pilots. 1562 people are probably a mix of YE coordinators, ground volunteers, AirVenture volunteers, and potentially pilots who are either new or have not flown in the past two years.

We have averaged around 5000 pilots in the program each year -- gaining and losing about 1000 each year with the total staying around that 5000 mark. So 2360 is nearing half of the typical pilot population for a typical year.

Rick Larsen (VP of member programs and communities) and I will be hosting a webinar on youth protection on Monday, March 14.

Based on the numbers you posted, Bret, the EAA has at the moment lost 53% of its volunteer pilot population over this abomination of a program. Ouch. . .

[crusty old aviator]

I was in the CAP as flight crew, so I had little contact with the Cadets. Still, I was required to be fingerprinted. So I went to the local police station with the CAP form and got my fingers dirty: the price I had to pay to fly with the junior Air Force. Then I learned that if I allowed my CAP annual membership to expire for longer than 30 days, I would have to be refingerprinted...so EAA's requirements don't seem that bad, compared to the CAP!

If you don't want to give them your SSN, make one up and see what happens. I use my +4 zip code. What's the worst that can happen, you get denied?

[Eric Cernjar]

I was in the CAP as flight crew, so I had little contact with the Cadets. Still, I was required to be fingerprinted. So I went to the local police station with the CAP form and got my fingers dirty: the price I had to pay to fly with the junior Air Force. Then I learned that if I allowed my CAP annual membership to expire for longer than 30 days, I would have to be refingerprinted...so EAA's requirements don't seem that bad, compared to the CAP!

If you don't want to give them your SSN, make one up and see what happens. I use my +4 zip code. What's the worst that can happen, you get denied?


Just to confirm, SSN is no longer required.

[FlyingRon]

If you don't want to give them your SSN, make one up and see what happens. I use my +4 zip code. What's the worst that can happen, you get denied?

Well if they background check company was worth a plug nickel, it would probably be rejected. First off, there are checks in the system, not all 9 digit numbers are valid SSNs. Second, while no SSN may still allow a check, a mismatched SSN with your identity probably should be caught.

[Bret Steffen]

Based on the numbers you posted, Bret, the EAA has at the moment lost 53% of its volunteer pilot population over this abomination of a program. Ouch. . .


With seven weeks before it is required, and well ahead of our regular flying season, we are actually pleased with where things are at. We have 2 million to reach, it is time to get your training and background check done too!

[ssmdive]

I believe what Glory meant is that her, Dennis, myself and others have sought out people internally to be able to answer the questions that members have had on these forums.

For the most part our intent is to have these forums be a place for members to interact with each other, but when we see places that it makes sense to interject we have and will continue to do so.

Additionally, we are encouraging people to contact us directly to discuss questions or concerns. Some conversations can be adequately handled via the forums, but sometimes a live conversation can be a more effective means. If you feel that you're not getting the answers you are looking for here, I can help facilitate a conversation with EAA staff that can better answer your questions.

Thanks,
Eric

I never got a response on here or when I emailed HQ about what steps the EAA was willing to take if my personal information was stolen from you or your vendor.

So I have asked here, and via email. The email was sent to: Feed Back <feedback@eaa.org>, Bret Steffen <bsteffen@eaa.org>, and Janine Diana <jdiana@eaa.org> on Jan 22, 2016 at 7:24PM. I emailed those people, because they were the people that emailed me about my initial opinion about the YE program changes.

"Now, what is the EAA willing to do if my data is stolen from your vendor? You going to pay for my credit to be repaired? You going to handle the countless piles of paperwork and dealing with the credit bureaus? Is the EAA going to contact all the companies that think I owe them money and explain the situation?"

And I NEVER got a reply via email or on here.

[Eric Cernjar]

I never got a response on here or when I emailed HQ about what steps the EAA was willing to take if my personal information was stolen from you or your vendor.

So I have asked here, and via email. The email was sent to: Feed Back <feedback@eaa.org>, Bret Steffen <bsteffen@eaa.org>, and Janine Diana <jdiana@eaa.org> on Jan 22, 2016 at 7:24PM. I emailed those people, because they were the people that emailed me about my initial opinion about the YE program changes.

"Now, what is the EAA willing to do if my data is stolen from your vendor? You going to pay for my credit to be repaired? You going to handle the countless piles of paperwork and dealing with the credit bureaus? Is the EAA going to contact all the companies that think I owe them money and explain the situation?"

And I NEVER got a reply via email or on here.


I'd highly recommend attending the webinar on Monday night. Some of these questions will be addressed, and additionally you have the ability to ask questions.

Generally speaking, I do not feel you are at a financial risk going through this process. You aren't providing a social security number, a credit card number, or any other information that could be used to harm your credit. Typically hackers are going after private and valuable information, not mailing address information. That said, if you can demonstrate that you were harmed due to this background check, yes there is insurance in place.

[vaflier]

I'd highly recommend attending the webinar on Monday night. Some of these questions will be addressed, and additionally you have the ability to ask questions.

Generally speaking, I do not feel you are at a financial risk going through this process. You aren't providing a social security number, a credit card number, or any other information that could be used to harm your credit. Typically hackers are going after private and valuable information, not mailing address information. That said, if you can demonstrate that you were harmed due to this background check, yes there is insurance in place.

Unless I am mistaken your date of birth is still required. Very usefull information for an identity theif. It combined with your full name and address and they are 90% home.

[Eric Cernjar]

Unless I am mistaken your date of birth is still required. Very usefull information for an identity theif. It combined with your full name and address and they are 90% home.


Both of those pieces of info can be valuable, but without credit card info or social security info, the value is limited. Because of that, I think it's fair to say this isn't a rich target for hackers. We do absolutely take our members' information and security concerns seriously and feel we have found a solution that does not compromise our members' information.

[Marty Santic]

I love the Young Eagles Program, have participated in MANY Young Eagles events but am witnessing its agonizing death.
Eric, is Jack Pelton too far in the ozone to field questions and reply on THIS forum? Have found Jack to be VERY approachable. Yet, his participation here is deafening. Is he reading and is he aware of this forum? What would Paul do facing similar?

The webinar... will Jack Pelton participate and will questions be fielded?

[combahee]

EAA how about answering just this one question. What protection is there in this for the pilots and volunteers?

[Jim Heffelfinger]

I have stayed away from this thread for several weeks now and note some interesting bits of information. The Poll thread has all of 98 votes in 7 weeks. Since you can only vote once that is a strong data point. That thread has had 5,700+ views.
This thread has had 63K views and nearly 700 postings. A quick scan of the postings has about 50 unique posters. With Nat indicating about 5000 active YE pilots..... Fourth grade math has that at the proverbial 1% . 50% have already signed up and I know many are hangar sitting waiting for the dust to settle and a "final" policy and procedure to be developed and presented.
So my take on this is ..... Will we loose pilots due to this? - sure, they are also the kind of people who don't like change in general.
My chapter looses 5% of pilots every year due to death.

[vettdvr]

What I find interesting in the chapter is everyone says yes lets do the training, I'll be there when you need me. Most have NO plane and don't pay for the flying or do the ramp work. Easy to vote and say yes when you don't do the work.

[Eric Cernjar]

I love the Young Eagles Program, have participated in MANY Young Eagles events but am witnessing its agonizing death.
Eric, is Jack Pelton too far in the ozone to field questions and reply on THIS forum? Have found Jack to be VERY approachable. Yet, his participation here is deafening. Is he reading and is he aware of this forum? What would Paul do facing similar?

The webinar... will Jack Pelton participate and will questions be fielded?

I'd agree that Jack is a very approachable person. In fact I just saw him at last night's chapter meeting in Oshkosh and he seems to enjoy hanging out with members. He is absolutely aware of the forums and the overall sentiment of the membership, and as we have said earlier the adjustments to the program have been a direct result of communications we have received both from the forums and through other venues.

On the webinar, I am not sure if Jack will participate but I do know we have two senior leaders of the staff moderating the event, Rick Larsen and Bret Steffen. Yes, questions will be fielded during this webinar and I do strongly encourage all who have questions and concerns to participate.

Thanks again,
Eric

[Eric Cernjar]

EAA how about answering just this one question. What protection is there in this for the pilots and volunteers?

This is another one I'd strongly recommend asking during the webinar. In short I'd say it largely depends on the circumstances.

[Yooper Rocketman]

I'd highly recommend attending the webinar on Monday night. Some of these questions will be addressed, and additionally you have the ability to ask questions.

Generally speaking, I do not feel you are at a financial risk going through this process. You aren't providing a social security number, a credit card number, or any other information that could be used to harm your credit. Typically hackers are going after private and valuable information, not mailing address information. That said, if you can demonstrate that you were harmed due to this background check, yes there is insurance in place.

I will be leaving for vacation tomorrow, so likely will not have access to the webinar. This is my first post, as I just found out about this blog last Saturday at our monthly chapter meeting. I read all 71 pages of posts yesterday before making this first post. I am the President of EAA Chapter 439 out of Iron Mountain, MI (in the U.P.), and have been for about 15 years, and have flown around 300 YE's. I can't say how disappointed I was in, not only the program but, the implementation. Being a trusting (and clearly now, a naive) person, I reluctantly did the training and registered for the background check. I DID question national on why background checks for other organizations wasn't considered (I am a nationally registered USSF soccer ref, and also do high school soccer). I can't imagine the thoughts of someone in law enforcement or child education being subjected to this absurd policy. My response back was about as terse as it gets. My thoughts at the time; this is a member organization?

About two weeks after my registration I get a letter from the IRS, questioning the refund I applied for. Well, we owe a substantial check to them this year, and had not even sent in our tax return yet. This is the second year in a row someone has tried to get a refund on our account. We expected this year to be different, since the "IRS had purchased us one year of 'identity protection' because of last year's issue". Our CPA could NOT complete our tax return last week on line, as there is now a security block on our account. We also have had several issues changing or opening accounts this past year, even though we have not one cent of debt. My SSN has now been sent across two (or three or four) business computer systems (and is stored securely where?) because EAA management did not heed the advice of several members during the review of the program before implementing it. It was only after reading this blog that it occurred to me I have never surrendered my SSN on the 6-8 background checks I have agreed to previously.

I am the president of three different non-profit, 501C3 aviation organizations, and just gave up that position on a fourth (soccer club). I also own and run an 8 figure per year truck dealership. I would NEVER implement something like this without a ton more input in my own company, none alone with a non-profit member organization. The totality of the impact of this policy will probably not be realized for a few years, but have no doubt, this will seriously impact our program for kids, at a time when virtually every youth program in this country is struggling with declining numbers. Several have said, what would Paul think? I have to ask, why wasn't this done while Paul was alive. I think we all know the answer to that.

Although I have completed the registration, I can't say what our chapter will do. I believe once chapters review the logistics of continuing YE Flights, the reality of this program will cause a considerable percentage of chapters to discontinue supporting the program (as evidenced by the 70 pages of prior posts to mine). Don't be fooled into a false sense of how many have registered being an indication of how many support this program, and will continue to fly YE's. As the restrictions become an actual reality and are part of Chapter YE events, we will have a some comply with every aspect, some just ignore it, and others throw in the towel. As a chapter leader, I will be open minded but we will not ignore the policies. I seriously doubt we will get enough pilots and volunteers to complete the YPP. I can't continue this program without volunteers, and you just made a really big challenge a whole lot tougher.

I don't have access to our chapter YE pilot numbers, as I haven't apparently ever registered. If someone from national is reading this, I would be interested in knowing how many Young Eagles Chapter 439 has provided since inception?

Tom Sullivan
EAA Chapter 439 President
EAA # 410923

[Eric Cernjar]

Tom I emailed you directly, thank you for your feedback.

[ssmdive]

I'd highly recommend attending the webinar on Monday night. Some of these questions will be addressed, and additionally you have the ability to ask questions.

Generally speaking, I do not feel you are at a financial risk going through this process. You aren't providing a social security number, a credit card number, or any other information that could be used to harm your credit. Typically hackers are going after private and valuable information, not mailing address information. That said, if you can demonstrate that you were harmed due to this background check, yes there is insurance in place.

The point is my email was ignored. So your claim that HQ answered questions asked was FALSE. Took 2 months and finally you gave me half an answer.

As for me wasting more of my time so I can volunteer on your program - Not a chance. I am done with YE before I got started. You don't seem to get the grasp of the issue. I PAY to be an EAA member. You want me to follow stupid rules and stupid procedures so I can DONATE my time and money to work inside your program? You don't pay for my fuel. You are not helping pay for my maintenance. You are not doing anything but providing me an event. You want me to expose myself to lawsuits in the case of an accident and sexual abuse claims. Now you want me to jump through more hoops so I can donate my time and money to participate in your program? And you want me to waste my time attending meetings so you can explain your excuses on why the program was so badly laid out and implemented?

This program was not set up to protect me, the PILOT, it was not set up to protect the chapter. It was set up only to protect the EAA HQ that seems only interested in putting on an airshow every year.

So give me ONE reason why I should participate in YE? If you are going to say to give back or get kids involved... Why in do I need the EAA to take someone flying when all the EAA has done is put barriers in my way? My logbook shows that I took 11 people flying for the first time in a GA aircraft last year. I did acro with several of them (which I can't do in a YE flight).

https://youtu.be/FrAVODhWCps

So how exactly is the EAA going to help me for all the BS you want me to go through? Basic aggravation vs benefit here... What good is YE to me, why should I jump through all your hoops? All this is only to protect the EAA, no one else. Where is the benefit to ME?

If I didn't have to be an EAA member to be an IAC member there is no way I would pay you so you can boss me around when I try to volunteer my time and money. It has become abundantly clear that the EAA cares only about protecting itself here and it only really cares about an airshow anymore and not the MEMBERSHIP.

[Eric Cernjar]

The point is my email was ignored. So your claim that HQ answered questions asked was FALSE. Took 2 months and finally you gave me half an answer.

As for me wasting more of my time so I can volunteer on your program - Not a chance. I am done with YE before I got started. You don't seem to get the grasp of the issue. I PAY to be an EAA member. You want me to follow stupid rules and stupid procedures so I can DONATE my time and money to work inside your program? You don't pay for my fuel. You are not helping pay for my maintenance. You are not doing anything but providing me an event. You want me to expose myself to lawsuits in the case of an accident and sexual abuse claims. Now you want me to jump through more hoops so I can donate my time and money to participate in your program? And you want me to waste my time attending meetings so you can explain your excuses on why the program was so badly laid out and implemented?

This program was not set up to protect me, the PILOT, it was not set up to protect the chapter. It was set up only to protect the EAA HQ that seems only interested in putting on an airshow every year.

So give me ONE reason why I should participate in YE? If you are going to say to give back or get kids involved... Why in do I need the EAA to take someone flying when all the EAA has done is put barriers in my way? My logbook shows that I took 11 people flying for the first time in a GA aircraft last year. I did acro with several of them (which I can't do in a YE flight).

https://youtu.be/FrAVODhWCps

So how exactly is the EAA going to help me for all the BS you want me to go through? Basic aggravation vs benefit here... What good is YE to me, why should I jump through all your hoops? All this is only to protect the EAA, no one else. Where is the benefit to ME?

If I didn't have to be an EAA member to be an IAC member there is no way I would pay you so you can boss me around when I try to volunteer my time and money. It has become abundantly clear that the EAA cares only about protecting itself here and it only really cares about an airshow anymore and not the MEMBERSHIP.


While I strongly disagree with your last statement, at the end of the day we very much appreciate everything you have done for general aviation and the young eagles program. As you have said, it seems that the YE program isn’t a great fit for you. Regardless of your future participation in the YE program, we are thankful that you continue to share the spirit of aviation with the pilots of tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Eric

[Bob H]

Eric C;
Can the pilot integrity check be presented to the YE membership as an EAA insurance policy to protect pilots should they be accused of some bad behavior? If it were part of a pilot protection program, it might be more palatable to YE pilots.
Bob H

[Eric Cernjar]

Eric C;
Can the pilot integrity check be presented to the YE membership as an EAA insurance policy to protect pilots should they be accused of some bad behavior? If it were part of a pilot protection program, it might be more palatable to YE pilots.
Bob H

Hi Bob,

I want to be honest here and feel it would be disingenuous to give your question a blanket 'yes'. There are times where we are able to protect our chapters and members but it really depends on the circumstances in question. I know that's not the answer you're looking for but I don't want to mislead you. The goal is primarily for youth protection and any services we can offer for pilots/chapters depend on the situation.

If you have further questions on this I do think it would be worth your time to attend the webinar on monday night

[vettdvr]

Ok let me think about this as a pilot. I pay for the plane, insurance, physicals, insurance, maintenance and EAA trust me with the lives of under 18 people. Now you want a background check. It would seem that statistically given the number of pilots day time flying with parents present or guardians that interest in my training to fly would be more important than background checks. Granter the world has thrown out the ten commandments and therefore the only guiding light is criminal law in this case for attorneys to prosecute. After much consideration I have decided to no longer do background checks. I have done this one for YE and when it expires I will no longer take the risk unless Identity protection is provided by EAA to cover my financial risk.

[Jkan]

Hi Bob, ...................................

The goal is primarily for youth protection and any services we can offer for pilots/chapters depend on the situation.
..............................................

Headquarters must protect youth from all the perverts out there who are flying young eagles. WHAT A CROCK. For your information, Eric, there are no, nor have there ever been, any problems with child abuse from Y. E. pilots. It becomes increasingly embarrassing to associate with a group of individuals as we have in upper management at EAA. The longer they try to protect this failed program, the deeper the whole they are digging. It seems clear, that this program is to protect EAA, however the Young Eagles pilots, ground workers, and volunteers are taking the rap.

[rwanttaja]

Headquarters must protect youth from all the perverts out there who are flying young eagles. WHAT A CROCK. For your information, Eric, there are no, nor have there ever been, any problems with child abuse from Y. E. pilots.
I don't argue the "Crock" part, but there have been a couple of close calls. Mark Van Wyk posted a news item about a man arrested for abuse, he had flown over 100 Young Eagles. None of the YEs had been targeted, but the man could have exploited the contact with them.

Ron Wanttaja

[Marty Santic]

Lots of "could have"'s there. AND the background check would not of flagged this guy. Had he submitted to the background check, then flew 100 Young Eagles and was then subsequently arrested he falls thru the giant black hole. Any arrest after the initial check goes unnoticed.

[rwanttaja]

Lots of "could have"'s there. AND the background check would not of flagged this guy. Had he submitted to the background check, then flew 100 Young Eagles and was then subsequently arrested he falls thru the giant black hole. Any arrest after the initial check goes unnoticed.
But it's the "could haves" that make the lawyers and bureaucrats nervous.

A predator who manages to be successful in his profession or his business sufficiently to buy an airplane is probably *very* good at hiding his activities. The case I mentioned, the perp was in his '40s, and you can probably guess he didn't start abusing just the previous year. And, like you said, the background check wouldn't have done a darn thing...except provide cover for EAA, who could claim they'd done all they could to protect the kids.

Ron Wanttaja

[combahee]

My questions for the webinar;
1. How does this protect me the pilot or the Chapter, what benefit is there for us?

2. How much will this cost over the next 10 years?
Using what is a probably a very low number, the only number given so far, but at 3,000 background checks @$5 each is $15,000. That's over $45,000 in 9 years assuming the checks reoccur every 3 years and no one else joins the program. If the real figure is double that then over 10 years we are looking at over a $100,000. Not a very good ratio or cost to benefit. Bet you could get some very good insurance for less than that and not lose any pilots.

Some observations from our chapter yesterday;

A percentage will not submit to a background check under any circumstances.

We will lose the "casual" pilot who does not fly YE regularly if they have not completed a background check. Not helpful in recruiting new pilots.

Of the pilots willing to take the background check initially they want to know EXACTLY what is looked at? NO recurring background checks, once is enough. Hell we are screaming about the recurring 3rd Class Physical! Where exactly is their information stored and will the third party have copies or access to it. What protections and safeguards are in position. Is there protection in case of a breach?

Most don't object to the online training. Allow a person who has taken the online training to be part of the 2 deep leadership, and allow the training the day of the event. So we don't lose an event for lack of "qualified" personnel on the ground.

Allow a notarized affidavit that the person has not been convicted of any violent crimes or crimes involving children in lieu of the background check. Cheaper and just as effective and no personnel information worries.

These are some of the highlights of our meeting. If further changes are not made then our event this weekend may be our last.

[Joe Delene]

Maybe it's neither here nor there, but years ago I thought I'd look into giving time to the local 'Big Brothers'. I called them up, got the application, then ended up opting out.

I realize it's a sign of the times, one may also question my motivation level. The other side of the equation could be an unfounded accusation, should one want to let the mind wander. Are we talking about unsavory events taking place during a <20 minute airplane flight? I guess any things possible.

[Mike M]

Mike M - I am not sure what you are replying to. My reference to "3 different families" was only to stress the point that having possibly several parents stand by and watch you buckle their kids in is not practical. And possibly dangerous due to distraction.

As for who sits in the front, unless there was an obvious weight or size issue, I first asked the kids. If more than one wants the front I had them pick numbers from 1-10. By the way, I always asked the front passenger if he or she wanted to control the plane. Most did, but some did not.

Dale


As I wrote, Dale, "I'm not accusing you of doing that. Your statement just brought up the thought." Meant no implication that you were doing anything wrong, odd, dangerous, or anything else less than fun and professional. Sorry if it came out that way.

[combahee]

Interesting webinar tonight. According to the EAA under their insurance the pilots and volunteers are covered if there is a false accusation, and in fact they said they will assign a local attorney. My understanding of the insurance is the pilots are only covered for liability, so we shall see. Would like to see this in writing.
An individual can fly YE without the two deep on a individual basis. However we two deep leadership is mandatory at rally's? Pilots only count while they are on the ground.
Chapters are not notified who has passed the background check and online training. There is a way to get that information though.
Youths can not be flown as part of a chapter's activity other than YE.
EAA will only get a pass or fail on the background check, info stored with the HR dept. at EAA.
YE forms are being revised.
Mandatory background check will not go away and will be repeated every 3 years.

[dougbush]

The YPP Young Eagles Summary says, "Individual pilots flying Young Eagles on their own simply need to do the training and background check, as the rest of the policy applies only to rally situations." However, the actual Policy is unclear on this point, and has no definition of "rally." The dictionary definition of rally is "a public meeting to support or oppose someone or something." If an individual pilot on his own invites youth to Young Eagles flights, how is he supposed to explain that it is not a rally? If you want to enable individual pilots to conduct Young Eagles flights on their own, the actual Policy must clearly distinguish rally and non-rally events, and must unequivocally state what requirements do not apply to non-rally events.

[vaflier]

I was not able to watch the webinar tonight, is it stored store so that I and others can watch it after the fact ?

[Yooper Rocketman]

They said it would available later ( a few days ) as a download.

Tom

[Bret Steffen]

Just to answer a couple of the post-webinar questions --

A rally is something that is organized by a chapter YE coordinator or an individual field rep (there are only a couple dozen of those) to serve a large group of kids. As an individual pilot you would not host a rally. Rally "how to's" are available on the YE pages, and explain the various steps in a rally -- including getting an insurance certificate, ordering materials, etc. I would advise individual pilots that if you are planning to fly a large group to be extra cautious -- you have extra EAA coverage for your flight operations, however ground activities of people while you are up flying would not be a part of your extra EAA coverage. It probably isn't the best idea to have a bunch of folks wandering around a ramp or at your hangar unsupervised -- but that is a personal decision for you to make. If you are not a part of a chapter, but want to learn more about hosting a rally, Michelle in the YE office can help you understand what being a field representative is all about -- that way you could host a rally.

The Webinar will be posted at http://eaavideo.org/channel.aspx?ch=ch_webinars It takes Timm a couple of days to get those posted generally. The content part is pretty short -- around 20-25 minutes, but we answered questions for more than an hour to bring the entire thing to 1.5 hours.

Happy flying everyone!

[Jkan]

The more they try to explain it, the more confusing it becomes. Just go away!

[TomBush]

I'll say it again: there is simply no way to polish this turd of a program. Its complete elimination, as in "forget we ever brought it up," is the only acceptable solution. . .

[CarlOrton]

I was unable to watch the webinar live due to schedule. However, I'm concerned about a comment made on the prior page (sorry - don't recall by whom...) saying that add'l EAA insurance is provided to pilots and volunteers in case of accusation. Just curious - what about Chapter Officers & Board Members? All officers & boards are not always present at events, so I'm curious about coverage for them.

[Eric Cernjar]

I was unable to watch the webinar live due to schedule. However, I'm concerned about a comment made on the prior page (sorry - don't recall by whom...) saying that add'l EAA insurance is provided to pilots and volunteers in case of accusation. Just curious - what about Chapter Officers & Board Members? All officers & boards are not always present at events, so I'm curious about coverage for them.


Yes, same coverage applies for the chapter officers.

Thanks,
Eric

[deej]

At our chapter meeting last week, the primary topic of discussion was the new policy, which got a bit "lively" at times (Honestly it was the most heated debate we have ever had in the nearly 8 years I have been in the chapter). Out of the 3 YE pilots in attendance, 2 indicated that they would not be willing to undergo the background check, with 1 YE pilot saying that he already did. Out of the 12 people present at the meeting, only 4 indicated they would be willing to undergo the background check. In the ensuing discussion, it was felt that we no longer have enough people to hold a YE event on our own. We are going to contact other chapters around the state to see if we may be able to hold some sort of combined event in an effort to find a viable way to move forward.

FWIW, most people indicated that they would be willing to do an online training course, and that the major issues with the policy are the record keeping requirement for non-YE events and the background check overall.

Based on the prior comments in this forum thread, there are about 4000 people that have done the training and background check thus far. I believe we have somewhere on the order of 1000 EAA Chapters, giving an average of 4 people per chapter that have complied. There is concern that this isn't enough critical mass to maintain youth related programs in general, not just YE.

Also based on the prior comments, we are currently at a 53% loss of YE pilots, with seven weeks to go until the deadline.

Questions to EAA Staff:
1) What percentage of YE pilot loss is considered "acceptable" to keep the current policy, specifically the background check component?

2) How many currently paid EAA members are there, and what percentage does the 4000 that have already done the background check represent?

3) Related to 2), what percentage of acceptance by the membership is considered "acceptable" to keep the current policy, specifically the background check component?

Thank you,

-Dj

[Eric Cernjar]

Questions to EAA Staff:
1) What percentage of YE pilot loss is considered "acceptable" to keep the current policy, specifically the background check component?

2) How many currently paid EAA members are there, and what percentage does the 4000 that have already done the background check represent?

3) Related to 2), what percentage of acceptance by the membership is considered "acceptable" to keep the current policy, specifically the background check component?

Thank you,

-Dj


I don't think we're looking at this in terms of what is an acceptable loss. Ultimately, we had concerns about the lack of having a policy in place, and felt that going this route would provide improved protection for kids. As Rick said in the presentation last night, what if something did happen and it was avoidable? What would chapter leaders/EAA say when confronted by the media if something did happen? That we felt we were a group of good guys and didn't feel it was necessary? Or that we thought some pilots wouldn't participate so we didn't want to put a background check in place? The conclusion that we came to is that's what isn't acceptable, as much as we also don't want to create problems or heartburn for our dedicated volunteers.

Ideally we wouldn't lose any pilots over this, but when it comes to youth protection, I don't think we can justify walking away from the background check because some won't do it. We made revisions to make the process as painless as possible, but it is the expectation today that policies like this are in place when working with youth.

As far as your particular situation, feel free to lean on us to help mobilize the troops for rallies. We have a chapters team here at HQ that exists to support you guys, and we can help.

Thanks,
Eric

[TomBush]

So Eric, using the logic that some sort of 'policy' is required to uphold the appearance - because that's all it is - appearance - that a YPP is necessary, what is EAA's Lightning Policy (LP)? Since the chance of a sexual assault occurring between a YE Pilot and and a participating youth is about the same as that of being struck by lightning, EAA really ought to have a 'policy' concerning lightning strikes, don't you think? Maybe some training at least on how to avoid lightning by getting indoors, eh?

How about a No Crashing (NC) Policy? After all, we have in fact had 4 fatalities on YE flights and three wrecked airplanes, yet we didn't hear about any policies being stood up to combat this malady. . .

Ridiculous. . .

[cub builder]

What would chapter leaders/EAA say when confronted by the media if something did happen?



Pretty much says it all. It's all about good press vs bad press. Background checks have nothing to do with protecting children, pilots, or chapter officers.

By using policies such as a minimum number of 2 adults when escorting youth, you have eliminated the possibility of children being abused. The background checks are all about theatre in the press and nothing else.

-Cub Builder

[DanH]

....we had concerns about the lack of having a policy in place, and felt that going this route would provide improved protection for kids. As Rick said in the presentation last night, what if something did happen and it was avoidable? What would chapter leaders/EAA say when confronted by the media if something did happen? That we felt we were a group of good guys and didn't feel it was necessary? Or that we thought some pilots wouldn't participate so we didn't want to put a background check in place? The conclusion that we came to is that's what isn't acceptable, as much as we also don't want to create problems or heartburn for our dedicated volunteers.

Eric, look at what you just wrote. You start with the corporate line ("...improved protection for kids"), then launch into an argument to illustrate that the organization is at risk. Frankly, such presentation brings an impolite term to mind.

Here's a thought. A whole lot of us would not be upset with the idea of protecting our organization. We helped build EAA, we're proud of it, and we don't want to see it sued into oblivion by some dirtbag. Most would buy into a program sold as "EAA vs The Dirtbags", because it is the truth.

What most of us will never buy into is "protecting the kids", because as structured, (a) it doesn't protect them, and (b) if it did, it would be protecting them against us.

[combahee]

What we want to see in my chapter at this point is;
that the EAA will secure the attorney and pay for the pilots defense if we are accused of wrongdoing.
Secondly get rid of the recurring background check, it only serves to waste money.
Third loosen the 2 deep requirement. for instance if we have 20 kids 4 adults and 5 pilots flying and only one ground person that has the background check we either stop the rally, or ground a pilot ticking her/her off, yet the kids are perfectly supervised.
The pilot protection discussed last night needs to be in writing.

[combahee]

"public record information such as, but not limited to: my driving record, judgments, bankruptcy proceedings, evictions, criminal records, etc., from federal, state, and other agencies that maintain such records.

Authorization
I hereby authorize procurement of consumer report(s) and investigative consumer report(s) by Company. If hired (or contracted), this authorization shall remain on file and shall serve as ongoing authorization for Company to procure such reports at any time during my employment, contract, or volunteer period. I authorize without reservation, any person, business or agency contacted by the consumer reporting agency to furnish the above-mentioned information."


While this may be a standard authorization by Americheck I do have misgivings about this. The authorization gives broad permission for information and storage and use of such far beyond what has been reported here and by the EAA.
How about a comment from EAA?

[deej]

I don't think we're looking at this in terms of what is an acceptable loss. Ultimately, we had concerns about the lack of having a policy in place, and felt that going this route would provide improved protection for kids.

Hi Eric,
Thank you for your response. I'm not sure this is what you meant, but what I am interpreting is that even if the background check policy resulted in not having enough members for a Chapter, or even a majority of Chapters, to be able to continue doing youth programs and/or YE, that would be an acceptable result to EAA National. Would that be a correct statement?

-Dj

[lyleapgmc]

Who in this wide, wide world determined what is "best practices"? Is the determination made based on results? How does one prove a negative, i.e. that the program prevented an occurance of that which the program was intended to prevent?

It is certainly very easy to prove that something did occur that was encouraged by a positive best practices program.

Are best practices those that everyone is employing and others follow like sheep? How does that make them best practices?

[lyleapgmc]

The question was asked during the webinar, "Is it true the Americancheck does not do the actual background checks but forwards the information to another entity who does the actual check?" The response was in the negative.

The correct answer depends on which of many programs EAA selected from the many at Americanchecked. There is one option for volunteers for which the background check is done by an affiliate of Americanchecked. Is that the program that EAA selected?

There was some information in one of the early postings that indicated that the personal information was being entered at 8F7.com and included the whois results that indicated it was a rather anonymous site based not in Oklahoma, where Americanchecked is located, but in Arizona. It is on page 3, post number 21 of this thread.

[dougbush]

A rally is something that is organized by a chapter YE coordinator or an individual field rep (there are only a couple dozen of those) to serve a large group of kids.
The actual policy needs to clearly say what is a "non-rally" YE event and what parts of the policy don't apply to such events. Otherwise, the common definition of "rally" will be used to fry the EAA member when something happens or is alleged.

[RickG]

Ultimately, we had concerns about the lack of having a policy in place, and felt that going this route would provide improved protection for kids.

Eric - if I understand things correctly, "individual pilots flying Young Eagles on their own simply need to do the training and background check, as the rest of the policy applies only to rally situations."

This means "individual pilots flying Young Eagles on their own" are completely unsupervised as there is no need for the "Two-Deep Leadership" supervision as with a rally or group event.

Scenario: A parent brings their child to a pilot who is going to take them up on a ride. The parent has no way of knowing if the the pilot has taken the awareness training or the background check. In fact, the way the regs are written, there is a good chance no one at the field would know if the EAA YE Pilot was YPP "legal.

How does this provide improved protection for the kids?

Help me out here. I just don't see how this program makes any sense.

[Eric Cernjar]

Eric - if I understand things correctly, "individual pilots flying Young Eagles on their own simply need to do the training and background check, as the rest of the policy applies only to rally situations."

This means "individual pilots flying Young Eagles on their own" are completely unsupervised as there is no need for the "Two-Deep Leadership" supervision as with a rally or group event.

Scenario: A parent brings their child to a pilot who is going to take them up on a ride. The parent has no way of knowing if the the pilot has taken the awareness training or the background check. In fact, the way the regs are written, there is a good chance no one at the field would know if the EAA YE Pilot was YPP "legal.

How does this provide improved protection for the kids?

Help me out here. I just don't see how this program makes any sense.


So please take me with a small grain of salt, as I'm doing my best to be responsive to you guys but I am not senior leadership. I've taken the training, I've been in on a few conversations on the topic, I've read the policy and I sat in on the webinar on Monday night so that's what I'm basing my answers on.

In your scenario, a parent would not know if the pilot took the training. However a parent also wouldn't know who took the training during a regular rally. Much like pilots are self-certifying when it comes to ensuring they have a current medical, they've done their flight review and their plane is airworthy, it is up to the pilot to self certify that they've taken the training. Chapter leaders shouldn't knowingly allow someone that hasn't done the training to fly young eagles, but it is not the responsibility of the chapter leader to keep a list of who has and has not done the training.

To that end, both scenarios are comparable in that it's up to the pilot to self certify. You are correct that there is not two deep leadership in your situation, but the parent would be there with their child.

Hope that helps,
Eric

[krw920]

So please take me with a small grain of salt, as I'm doing my best to be responsive to you guys but I am not senior leadership. I've taken the training, I've been in on a few conversations on the topic, I've read the policy and I sat in on the webinar on Monday night so that's what I'm basing my answers on.



There in lies the problem, nobody from senior leadership has stepped up to answer questions directly, almost like they are hiding behind lower level management to take the heat. Where is "senior" legal counsel? Why isn't that person fielding questions on what the legalities of this policy are?

[wyoranch]

There in lies the problem, nobody from senior leadership has stepped up to answer questions directly, almost like they are hiding behind lower level management to take the heat. Where is "senior" legal counsel? Why isn't that person fielding questions on what the legalities of this policy are?
+1 +1 +1, Perfectly said....... PERFECT!!!!

[Eric Cernjar]

There in lies the problem, nobody from senior leadership has stepped up to answer questions directly, almost like they are hiding behind lower level management to take the heat. Where is "senior" legal counsel? Why isn't that person fielding questions on what the legalities of this policy are?

We had two people in senior leadership moderate the webinar on Monday night, and answered questions directly for over an hour. I'm answering the questions that I know, and getting feedback from senior leadership on things I don't know. If you have specific questions, we are always encouraging our members to contact us directly and have a conversation. I think that is probably the best way to get the answers you're seeking.

Thanks,
Eric

[combahee]

I attended the webinar and most of my questions were not answered. Many were repeats. Some answers were not not based on anything in writing. In addition for grins I took the course and BC and have very serious doubts about the BC and the wording.

[deej]

My question may have gotten lost in the recent flurry of posts. I am not trying to be a troll, and really am being serious about my inquiry based on the responses from my chapter and many of the other chapters represented here. I am asking on the public forum versus one on one because I know there are others that are interested in the answers.

Would one of the EAA staff be willing to bring this to senior management and find out an answer for us (or ask one of them to come on here and reply directly)?

My basic query is that if the background check policy results in not having enough members for a Chapter, or a number of Chapters, to be able to continue doing youth programs and/or YE, would that be acceptable to EAA National?

Is there a point, based on member participation, where EAA National would ever consider redesigning the YPP, specifically to remove the background check?

Thank you,

-Dj

[Eric Cernjar]

My question may have gotten lost in the recent flurry of posts. I am not trying to be a troll, and really am being serious about my inquiry based on the responses from my chapter and many of the other chapters represented here. I am asking on the public forum versus one on one because I know there are others that are interested in the answers.

Would one of the EAA staff be willing to bring this to senior management and find out an answer for us (or ask one of them to come on here and reply directly)?

My basic query is that if the background check policy results in not having enough members for a Chapter, or a number of Chapters, to be able to continue doing youth programs and/or YE, would that be acceptable to EAA National?

Is there a point, based on member participation, where EAA National would ever consider redesigning the YPP, specifically to remove the background check?

Thank you,

-Dj

Generally I'd say we're absolutely invested in keeping our chapter network strong. In fact I think it's been a long time since we've had such a full staff dedicated to only chapter matters. Based on that, no one would find the closing of chapters (or chapter activities) acceptable.

Based on what I understand, I do not think the background check will be eliminated. We have a pretty good participation rate in the training/check already, and we're still a month and a half out from the cutoff date. I'd never say never (except in this sentence of course), but I'd say it is unlikely that the check will be removed.

Hope that helps, and if you have further questions on this again I'd recommend contacting us directly.

Thanks,
Eric

[deej]

Based on that, no one would find the closing of chapters (or chapter activities) acceptable.

Based on what I understand, I do not think the background check will be eliminated.

It is the balance that we are trying to figure out. From comments here and locally, we already know that we are going to lose some percentage of member participation because of the new policy, and as a result we are going to lose some youth activities in some of the chapters. My query is really to find out at what point does the one outweigh the other.


We have a pretty good participation rate in the training/check already, and we're still a month and a half out from the cutoff date.

It is true that my question may seem a bit premature. The concerns I have heard expressed are that if we do lose member participation once the new policy goes into effect, we may never get those members back. I figured it was worthwhile asking the question as to what percentage of loss is acceptable to EAA National, since some percentage of loss is inevitable. Would you be willing to pass this query along to senior management?

I am not sure I agree with your assessment that we have a good participation rate already. We have somewhere on the order of 160,000 EAA members, and only roughly 4000 have done the training/check thus far, which is only a 2.5% participation rate.

Unfortunately the overall percentages don't tell the whole story, though. In small chapters, even losing one or two members can be enough to make the difference.

-Dj

[Jkan]

"public record information such as, but not limited to: my driving record, judgments, bankruptcy proceedings, evictions, criminal records, etc., from federal, state, and other agencies that maintain such records.

Authorization
I hereby authorize procurement of consumer report(s) and investigative consumer report(s) by Company. If hired (or contracted), this authorization shall remain on file and shall serve as ongoing authorization for Company to procure such reports at any time during my employment, contract, or volunteer period. I authorize without reservation, any person, business or agency contacted by the consumer reporting agency to furnish the above-mentioned information."


While this may be a standard authorization by Americheck I do have misgivings about this. The authorization gives broad permission for information and storage and use of such far beyond what has been reported here and by the EAA.
How about a comment from EAA?

It seems unbelievable that senior management would have allowed this “authorization” to pass. Unfortunately this is what we have. We have been trying to get answers, concerning the website, ever since PaulDow posted the subject in January and there will be NO response. It is to irresponsible and reckless for anyone to defend. Jack Pellon tried to defend the site in the eHotline newsletter several times, however this turned out rather badly, and he gave up. Ever since, Mr. Pellon and senior management have been hiding under their desks while sending out their surrogates, who only know what they are told to say, to distract us by changing rules, rewriting laws and putting a band aid here and a band aid there, which causes more confusion than before. This disaster must be repealed.
And on the same subject we address post #735 by lyleapgmc: “The question was asked during the webinar, “Isit true the Americancheck does not do the actual background checks but forwardsthe information to another entity who does the actual check? The response was in the negative.”
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. NotTrue. The response given during the webinar is not true. A total deception. I have thoroughly checked out the websites myself and what PaulDow posted inJanuary is true.
When you go on americanchecked.com, which looks terrible for security alone, you think you are giving your personal information to them, you are not. When you are ready to enter your private information you are directed to another website. I challenge everyone to thoroughly check out these websites. Use "whois domain search" if possible. All personal information is typed into a mysterious website (8f7.com), which is hiding behind an anonymous registration, which is hiding behind godaddy.com. What are they trying to hide? This anonymous site could be controlled by anyone in the world. Reckless and irresponsible, and EAA totally supports this? No wander they cannot defend it.
Trafficking in personal and private information is big business today, and we must wander, how much did American Checked pay EAA for to operate this program?

[Bret Steffen]

Dj,

I appreciate your thoughts on this, and understand where you are coming from.

EAA did not create the YPP for fun of course, we felt there was no alternative moving forward with the programs we do with youth but to have a protection plan in place. The reality is, whether we like it or not, youth protection policies and programs have some basic tenants that are a part of the process. Background checks and training are two of those. They work. I know not everyone wants to believe that fact, but they do serve the purpose for which they are intended. The policy will be a part of youth programming at EAA moving forward.

Math is yet another piece of this. We only have 5000 pilots in any given year who fly Young Eagles. This number has been a constant for many years now, so when Eric talks about a good participation rate, we have more than 2,500 pilots who are ready to fly YE under the new rules -- that is 50% of what we typically have fly in a given year and we gain more every day. Frankly with nearly 200,000 members I am always surprised only 5,000 participate in YE, but it has been consistent for years.

We understand some folks will walk away. We would love it if they would come on back at some point, and I think some of them will. The program is still for the kids, and we owe it to them to make it as safe an experience as possible.

[ssmdive]

I don't think we're looking at this in terms of what is an acceptable loss.

Failure of planning on your part. As part of any decision making process, the people that implement the process should look at any repercussions of the policy and balance the expected positive benefits against any negative possibilities. If this was not done, then it was a failure of the leadership.

If the YE program is reduced to half its current size, is that considered acceptable? Seems like only about 50% of participants have complied with the program requirements.


I'm doing my best to be responsive to you guys but I am not senior leadership.

Then maybe Sr Leadership should start answering. If I am smart enough to create a username and hack on a computer, then the executive leadership should be able to figure it out.


If you have specific questions, we are always encouraging our members to contact us directly and have a conversation.

Took two months to get a half answer when I sent a question and it was only when that was pointed out in a public forum. I NEVER GOT AN EMAIL RESPONSE.


but I'd say it is unlikely that the check will be removed.


And it is unlikely that I will participate. Still waiting on what EXACTLY the EAA will do if my information is lost by you or your vendor?

I bought the plane. I pay the insurance. I pay for the maintenance. I pay for the gas. I pay for my medical. I take time off work. Instead of making it harder and more intrusive to DONATE my time and money, the EAA should be trying to make it easier to participate and not putting barriers to the process up.

[Copapilot]

"public record information such as, but not limited to: my driving record, judgments, bankruptcy proceedings, evictions, criminal records, etc., from federal, state, and other agencies that maintain such records.

Authorization
I hereby authorize procurement of consumer report(s) and investigative consumer report(s) by Company. If hired (or contracted), this authorization shall remain on file and shall serve as ongoing authorization for Company to procure such reports at any time during my employment, contract, or volunteer period. I authorize without reservation, any person, business or agency contacted by the consumer reporting agency to furnish the above-mentioned information."


While this may be a standard authorization by Americheck I do have misgivings about this. The authorization gives broad permission for information and storage and use of such far beyond what has been reported here and by the EAA.
How about a comment from EAA?

(1) The fact that you have to give explicit permission for them to collect the data proves in and of itself that at least SOME of the data they are compiling IS NOT from "public" (i.e. open-access) sources. Yet more inference that all is not as it seems with the supposedly reputable data-mining operation.

(2) Only a VERY NAIVE individual would voluntarily give such a company open-ended permission to continually retrieve personal data and compile it for whatever uses that company sees fit.

(3) My personal opinion is that no one should sign such an agreement without an accompanying written contract between that individual and the data collection company itself GUARANTEEING secure storage of, EXCLUSIVE access to, and severe monetary penalties in the event of theft / unauthorized access of, the application data AND THE RESULTING COMPILED INFORMATION FILE(S). As any legal expert will tell you, mere promises and assurances are, for the most part, not legally binding. No "consideration" = no contract. Also, if it is not in writing with original signatures, it is not true. (Some states, but not all, allow for enforcement of verbal contracts, but the legal language is narrowly constructed, strictly scrutinized, and without witness to the actual uttering by the principal parties, almost entirely unenforceable.) None of the parties involved in this data-mining operation have given such written obligation to the VOLUNTEERS THEMSELVES.

(4) As we have seen numerous times in the last two months, EAA will change the terms and conditions as they see fit, without even a moment's notice, without informing the membership before or after the fact, and without opportunity for the members involved to withdraw their permission. To quote from the YPP itself:

"Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc. (“EAA”) reserves the right to revise this policy in any manner and to be effective at any time, in EAA’s sole discretion.") (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/~/link.aspx?_id=F713C61B4BB94E6094885A434624FCAD&_z=z)

caveat emptor - which is why I quit the YE program and will quit EAA when my current membership expires.

[djenders]

All -


We would like to thank you for the passionate, and meaningful discussion around EAA’s Youth Protection Policy. Feedback from our members, including this thread, has been valuable for us as we’ve worked to simplify the policy. As many of you have already noted, we’ve made the following changes:


Removing what many thought was an overly burdensome photography policy. There are now simple guidelines to work with parents when taking photos.
No requirement to provide a Social Security Number when completing the background check (it is optional).
Simplified requirements for ground volunteers at Young Eagles rallies, to requiring only two-deep leadership that has completed the training and background checks.
Elimination of the staff-to-youth ratio for Young Eagles rallies.
Clarification on topics such as supervision in an aircraft, individual Young Eagles flights, and record keeping.

We strongly encourage you to review the three policies. For the complete policy and the latest updates, please visit http://www.eaa.org/youthprotection.


On March 14, 2016 we hosted a Webinar to clarify why the policy was created, and how it affects each of you as a YE volunteer. If you were unable to attend the Webinar, you can review it here: http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=4802001623001. During the session we’ve addressed many of your questions and have reiterated our position on the importance of the policy.


If you have further questions, we definitely recommend reading the brief guidance sheet located here:
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/youth-protection-policy-and-program/~/~/media/94eec8765a394ab3bbe8bdc6c19e7f04.ashx


We all acknowledge that the Young Eagles program has been safe, and we are invested in making it stay that way. A majority of our volunteers have completed the training and background check.


With the recent changes to the policy we would like to avoid any misunderstandings or misinformation. Because of this we’ll be locking this thread and encourage everyone to join the conversation in one of the more recent threads, or feel free to contact us directly with remaining comments or questions. http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/about-eaa/contact-us


Thank you,
Dennis