Poll -- Young Eagles Background Security Checks

[Mark van Wyk]

POST EDITED: Open to all EAA members, whether or not you have served in YE in the past.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Thanks Mark for placing this poll. I was on that thought track as well. National needs to see some real numbers.
jim
PS: Like the edit !

[smutny]

Mark, you keep focusing only on the SSN issue, that is only a small part of the overall problem.

The policies that were put into place are vague, unenforceable and cut the support from non-EAA members (i.e. spouses).

Are you going to create polls for all the other issues?

[Mark van Wyk]

Mark, you keep focusing only on the SSN issue, that is only a small part of the overall problem.

The policies that were put into place are vague, unenforceable and cut the support from non-EAA members (i.e. spouses).

Are you going to create polls for all the other issues?

I believe that would be covered -- as best as possible -- by the third choice. You would only participate if the program is drastically changed. But, it seem to me the debate about the "other issues" could go on forever. The big sticking point for many is the SSN.

[AcroGimp]

Good thought Mark and I think you got the options right to capture useful info for HQ to evaluate, if they are interested.

Thanks for putting this up.

'Gimp

[FlyingRon]

Still waiting for the EAA to answer two questions:

How do I unwedge my training / BG process (mine is stuck in pending)?
An explanation of why I should trust 8F7.COM with my information when it is NOT the company that the EAA claims it is.

[Janet Davidson]

How is a foreign volunteer, (who may have travelled to the US specifically to volunteer at any of EAA's programs which will now require the SSN-based background check), supposed to comply?

[ssmdive]

Please take the new poll ONLY if you are currently a YE volunteer or have served as a volunteer in the past.


And you are going to miss all the people that refuse to join the program due to this.

[Mark van Wyk]

And you are going to miss all the people that refuse to join the program due to this.
Post Edited.
You are correct. I have removed that stipulation. Hopefully, the poll will still show some useful results and data.

[Floatsflyer]

Please take the new poll ONLY if you are currently a YE volunteer or have served as a volunteer in the past.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense. I have never heard or met anyone on this forum who is so exclusionary in attitude and practice as you are.

First you call posters "quitters" (how dare you!) because they will no longer participate in YE because they will not abide by the security check as currently constituted. Then you tell posters whose opinions differ from yours(does free speech mean anything to you) to stop posting their views on the forum. Now you decide that only past or present YE volunteers can participate in a poll that you have constructed. If you want to be taken seriously in this or any other future debate you will immediately cease and desist from these fascist remarks and practises

Any EAA member can participate in your poll, regardless of participation in YE activities because any EAA policy impacts all members equally past, present and future and therefore all members can voice their views. Those that have not fallen off a building yet don't need the experience to know that it will hurt.

Now we all know that anyone can check off this poll and you wouldn't know if they were YE volunteers or not. But I would appreciate if you would voluntarily and formally revise the preamble by deleting the above quoted exclusion.

I invite, encourage and urge ALL members to take part in the poll and voice your opinion(even though the thread on the subject is well voiced and clearly states how the vast majority feels).

[Mark van Wyk]

...snip ...Any EAA member can participate in your poll, regardless of participation in YE activities because any EAA policy impacts all members equally past, present and future and therefore all members can voice their views. Those that have not fallen off a building yet don't need the experience to know that it will hurt.

Now we all know that anyone can check off this poll and you wouldn't know if they were YE volunteers or not. But I would appreciate if you would voluntarily and formally revise the preamble by deleting the above quoted exclusion.

I invite, encourage and urge ALL members to take part in the poll and voice your opinion(even though the thread on the subject is well voiced and clearly states how the vast majority feels).

I will overlook some of your more inflammatory remarks because you are absolutely correct that any EAA member can take the poll. What was I thinking? I don't set the rules about who can or cannot take the poll. If there is any way, I will remove the remarks about asking only YE volunteers to participate. It was wrong of me to be exclusionary. I will see if I can still edit the remarks.

[Mark van Wyk]

As of this moment (01/26/16, 1:30 p.m. PST), with 42 respondents, the poll indicates that 17 percent will not comply with ANY sort of youth protection training or background check. I think we can pretty much write them off. IMHO, any volunteer who works with kids but refuses to acknowledge reality and understand that some sort of program like this is needed ought not work with kids, at least not under the auspices of Experimental Aircraft Association.

Also IMHO, any parent who knowingly lets their kid fly with a person who was part of EAA Young Eagles but quit because he/she refused to submit to Experimental Aircraft Association youth protection training and background check is nuts.

The challenge for EAA is to fix the program so:

1. EAA modifies the background check to get a better web site and get rid of the SSN requirement. That will immediately bring back 12 percent into the fold, for a total of 29 percent willing to comply.
2. EAA modifies the entire program to make it more workable so that a large portion of the 55 percent who refuse to comply with the program in its current form will agree to it and comply.

Number 2 will be harder to do, because it will be difficult to please everyone. IMHO, if we can get the numbers up to about 50 percent or 75 percent willing to comply, the program can survive. Newcomers to the program will join with full knowledge and agreement to the training and background check requirements.

[cub builder]

the poll indicates that 17 percent will not comply with ANY sort of youth protection training or background check.

Line #4 asks strictly about background checks, not about training. Under no circumstances would I submit to background checks. But I would take a common sense training course. Not the idiotic nonsense currently being dictated to the volunteers.

Look, many of us already have high level job related security clearances that go well beyond the scope of what the EAA would get with the background check they are demanding. I would be happy to show my credentials to our YE coordinator for an event. But under no circumstances do I give my personal information to the EAA to hand off to some other party to store until such time as it gets lost. It's simply not going to happen. And quite frankly using job related credentials isn't a solution and is not nearly inclusive enough of the current volunteers to be workable.

Had your poll asked about training instead of only background checks, I would have answered along with the majority of people in line #3. I suspect the others that answered affirmative to line #4 are likely of a like mind. I suspect had you asked about a drastically revised training and no background check, that's where you would find all of those from lines 3 and 4 which currently adds up to 70% of those answering your poll.

So rather than trying to plan on how to circumvent or break up the majority, who all seem to disagree with your view, how about thinking about how this program can be modified to be inclusive. That is what the folks at EAA HQ are going to have to do if they want to see volunteers and a YE program in the future.

-Cub Builder

[Mark van Wyk]

The number of characters allowed in the poll questions are limited so I couldn't word everything perfectly.

... Under no circumstances would I submit to background checks...
Then you are by definition out of the program, as of 05/01/16.
AFAIK, the background checks part is not an option or a item on the table eligible to be eliminated. Nor, in my opinion, should it be. I would object strongly if EAA dropped background checks requirement altogether.
If EAA can do a decent job on the background checks without requiring SSN, then that would be great and would satisfy a lot of people.
Another major objection to the whole thing are the stringent rules laid out in the "Youth Protection Policy" document. The rules to some seem overboard and unworkable. Again, if those rules could be modified to satisfy SOME more people (they won't be able to satisfy everyone), then again, more people could come into the fold. If the numbers get high enough, those that want to quit can quit and not kill YE altogether.

[cub builder]

Then you are by definition out of the program, as of 05/01/16.


And if that's the way the EAA wants to go, then that's the way it will be.

Fortunately for the rest of us, you neither speak for, nor represent the EAA. Otherwise some 83% of us that disagree with you would have already got the boot. :D

-Cub Builder

[ssmdive]

And if that's the way the EAA wants to go, then that's the way it will be. Fortunately for the rest of us, you neither speak for, nor represent the EAA. Otherwise some 83% of us that disagree with you would have already got the boot. :D -Cub Builder +1 . He seems to think he is the EAA more than any other individual member. He also seems to not be interested in any dialog unless you conform to HIS rules about how it should work. Discussing anything with him is like "pissing up a rope". Going to expend a ton of energy, not accomplish anything, and get messy in the process. The EAA made a stupid rule. They will either adapt or the YE program will die. Sounds to me that there are enough smart people willing to continue something without the heavy hand of the EAA hanging over them. Maybe this is EXACTLY what should happen. The YE program should die if the EAA wants to run against how the people who actually do the heavy lifting want it to be run. Then a new program from another group will be born from the ashes. I suggest calling it "Young Phoenix". This is a very good example of the term "Creative Destruction" in action. I for one would not be an EAA member if I didn't HAVE to be to be an IAC member. The magazine is worthless more about IFR flying and buying cool stuff, more AOPA than experimental. And they don't seem to be interested in anything but putting on a really big airshow every year..... With members doing the heavy lifting for free, or paying to get in.

[AcroGimp]

So, 15% percent say it is OK, the other 85% say it needs to be changed in some way all the way to 18% saying no way no how - with the majority (53%) saying 'drastic' change is needed.

Anecdotal I know given currently small sample size but not favorable to the proposed policy and more widely problematic given the comments on this and other forums.

Sure hope HQ is listening, their silence is deafening.

'Gimp

[TedK]

There needs to be alternatives to one size fits all background checks. Many of us (and our families) who have federal government background checks are now under siege because of the OPM data breach. Am I to believe that EAA will do a better job of protecting my Personally Identified Information that the Feds? (It is easy to guffaw about that, but in all serious, EAA isn't going to do better than the Feds)

Further, the list of disqualifying actions is too broad and the time horizon is too long. Doesn't anyone believe in redemption and reformation? Some of the best people who have worked for me had made serious mistakes, but had owned up to it, learned, and became model citizens. We need to encourage an environment that supports that concept. I have made serious mistakes and because of enlightened leaders who didn't believe in one strike, have permitted me to learn from my errors, and rise to and realize my potential.

Perhaps there should be levels of trust, as there is in the govt security clearance process...depending on how deeply you have been investigatedand their knowledge of your actions, the govt grants three levels of clearance. Perhaps you shouldn't be permitted unchaperoned access to a young minor unless you have that highest level of trust. OTOH, for those with a lesser degree of trust, they can be around YEs but not permitted unchaperoned access.

This is is all about intelligently managing risk. Let's avoid a one size tiny knothole to drag everyone through.

Ted

[TomBush]

So Mark, is this you?


I got this information using only your name and a whopping 5 minutes of time on Google and the FAA public website. Even plugged your name into the national sex offender database in that time and am happy to report you're not on it :).

Anyway, you seem to be a good and decent man. Heck, mine and your politics even seem to align. That said, I can't see why you have become a de-facto spokesperson for EAA when it comes to this abomination of a a policy. It's almost as if EAA knew there was going to be significant resistance to its implementation, and thus selected a few people to help roll it out.

PS: Even though it probably pisses you off, my posting of links to some of your personal info was not done for that purpose; rather it was done to underscore just how much information is already out there, and how easily obtainable it is. If EAA wants to background-check their members, they can do what I just did without even telling them - or spending any money on a third party.

Good day, Sir!

[TedK]

Tom-

your point is made, but although you can legally do some things, they may not be appropriate. I would urge you to redact the private information such as address, etc. if you insist on keeping the above post.

ted

[Glory Aulik]

I'm stepping in here to remind everyone of the EAA Forum rules: posting rude, disrespectful, or being invasive of a person’s privacy is not allowed, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

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

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

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

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

[Jim Rosenow]

Tom-

your point is made, but although you can legally do some things, they may not be appropriate. I would urge you to redact the private information such as address, etc. if you insist on keeping the above post.

ted


Ted-
Can I assume we agree that it's equally inappropriate for the government to post the referenced info to a public web site? Just sayin..... :D

Jim

[Floatsflyer]

Tom-

your point is made, but although you can legally do some things, they may not be appropriate. I would urge you to redact the private information such as address, etc. if you insist on keeping the above post.

ted

Sorry Ted, you're wrong to say that Tom Bush should redact "private information...". IT'S NOT PRIVATE ANY LONGER WHEN IT'S ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE.

[TedK]

Ted-
Can I assume we agree that it's equally inappropriate for the government to post the referenced info to a public web site? Just sayin..... :D

Jim

Jim- please don't ask me to defend the government. Two wrongs don't make a right. The government does what it is legally required to do, and there is usually little room for moral or ethical discretion when the government's own lawyers are in the room. (Sad, but that is my experience with 25 years inside and 15 years working alongside the govt. I met a USCG Lawyer the other day who shocked me with her inclusion of legal, moral and ethical issues in her calculus...a new norm? I can only hope)

Here, in EAA, I would hope that we play by Oshkosh Rule's and exceed the legal minimum with courtesy and consideration. I try, and I think most here on this board, to play by the golden rule.

[Floatsflyer]

[SIZE=2][FONT=arial]I'm stepping in here to remind everyone of the EAA Forum rules: posting rude, disrespectful, or being invasive of a person’s privacy is not allowed, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Glory,

You posted this reminder in response to Tom Bush posting a number of websites about Mark van Wyk. You even underlined the part of "invasive of a person's privacy" for emphasis as not being allowed. I take exception to you doing this in this instance. This was not at all necessary or correct to do as Tom was neither invading Mark's privacy nor invasive of his privacy. Neither was Tom acting in a malicious or discrediting manner whatsoever. And furthermore there is nothing legally, morally or ethically reprehensible about disclosing any of this stuff-- it's already out there on the Internet to be accessed and consumed by anyone wishing to.

Tom posted Mark's information on Facebook, LinkedIn, South County Pilots, and a letter to the editor of the Los Banco Enterprise. Even more importantly than what I've said in the above paragraph, do I really need to remind you or others that Mark, of his own free will, chose to share all this information and his opinion on these internet sites just like he has now chosen of his own free will to share his information including his SSN for the new YE policy.

The FAA pilot certificate info is of a public nature on a public site. Tom could have gone even further and posted Mark's aircraft ownership info from the, once again, public FAA civil aircraft registry. All this FAA info has been public and accessible for many, many, many decades. Just because it's now on a medium called the Internet doesn't mean it's any less public.

[Mark van Wyk]

So Mark, is this you?
---snip ---
I got this information using only your name and a whopping 5 minutes of time on Google and the FAA public website. Even plugged your name into the national sex offender database in that time and am happy to report you're not on it :).

---Snip---
Good day, Sir!
Wow, that was really dumb and immature -- "Sir" -- particularly from a guy who posts his own full name: Tom Bush -- and lists the following in a previous post:

"My name is Tom Bush. I'm a retired Navy commander (F-14 and F/A-18 background), and currently fly the A320 for UAL. I live with my family at the Dry Creek Airport in Cypress, TX (TS07), and serve as President and Airport Manager of this 35+ homesite private facility. Along with my family and friends, I take great enjoyment from all things aviation. "

It didn't take me long to Google YOUR Facebook page, LinkedIn page, and other personal information. Your point is? In case you haven't been paying attention, Tom, EAA has dropped the requirement to provide Social Security Number.

[cub builder]

Hmm. Seems to me this thread belongs under the NTSB's most wanted for "Loss of Control" ;)

[TomBush]

Wow, that was really dumb and immature -- "Sir" -- particularly from a guy who posts his own full name: Tom Bush -- and lists the following in a previous post:

"My name is Tom Bush. I'm a retired Navy commander (F-14 and F/A-18 background), and currently fly the A320 for UAL. I live with my family at the Dry Creek Airport in Cypress, TX (TS07), and serve as President and Airport Manager of this 35+ homesite private facility. Along with my family and friends, I take great enjoyment from all things aviation. "

It didn't take me long to Google YOUR Facebook page, LinkedIn page, and other personal information. Your point is? In case you haven't been paying attention, Tom, EAA has dropped the requirement to provide Social Security Number.

That's interesting, Mark, because I don't have a FB page, and never have. LinkedIn? Yes. FB? No. . .

As stated, the point of my exercise was / is not to poke you in the eye, but to elucidate the fact that there is so much readily-available information out there already that EAA - if it is that hell bent on doing background checks on its YE pilots - could employ a staff of one and do what I did with your info in a matter of minutes per person - and they wouldn't even have to know it!

Once again; it's obvious you're not happy about my post, but I don't apologize for it because you can't have it both ways. Here you are parroting EAAs stance that we must all line up like good sheeple and submit to training and background checks, but you're obviously not happy with your own info being out there - info that only represents a fraction of what EAA is asking us for, even sans the SSN requirement.

And then I go back to my point about the entire program being in(s)ane, insulting, and unnecessary. I'd call it an 'opinion' if it were just me who thinks this is the case, but when it is shared by hundreds of other YE pilots I can't help but come to the conclusion that the fat lady just ain't gonna sing on this one. . . The kids won't necessarily suffer, as just about all of us will continue to fly them like we always have. The EAA and YE program itself will suffer, however, if this program is allowed to live in ANY fashion. Nothing but its complete withdrawal will satisfy me and the majority of people I've spoken with. It is a solution in search of a problem.

[Glory Aulik]

Glory,

You posted this reminder in response to Tom Bush posting a number of websites about Mark van Wyk. You even underlined the part of "invasive of a person's privacy" for emphasis as not being allowed. I take exception to you doing this in this instance. This was not at all necessary or correct to do as Tom was neither invading Mark's privacy nor invasive of his privacy. Neither was Tom acting in a malicious or discrediting manner whatsoever. And furthermore there is nothing legally, morally or ethically reprehensible about disclosing any of this stuff-- it's already out there on the Internet to be accessed and consumed by anyone wishing to.

Tom posted Mark's information on Facebook, LinkedIn, South County Pilots, and a letter to the editor of the Los Banco Enterprise. Even more importantly than what I've said in the above paragraph, do I really need to remind you or others that Mark, of his own free will, chose to share all this information and his opinion on these internet sites just like he has now chosen of his own free will to share his information including his SSN for the new YE policy.

The FAA pilot certificate info is of a public nature on a public site. Tom could have gone even further and posted Mark's aircraft ownership info from the, once again, public FAA civil aircraft registry. All this FAA info has been public and accessible for many, many, many decades. Just because it's now on a medium called the Internet doesn't mean it's any less public.

The information should not be reinstated on the Forums regardless of whether it came from a public domain. The post, was as i stated, rude, disrespectful, invasive, and a personal attack. Non of which will be tolerated on the EAA Forums.

Precautions will be taken if such disrespectful posts continue.

[TedK]

Hmm. Seems to me this thread belongs under the NTSB's most wanted for "Loss of Control" ;)

ROTFL !

Well played.

Hopefully after a good chuckle we can pull together on this.

[Floatsflyer]

The information should not be reinstated on the Forums regardless of whether it came from a public domain. The post, was as i stated, rude, disrespectful, invasive, and a personal attack. Non of which will be tolerated on the EAA Forums. .

The sound you hear is me giving my head a slap at the incredulity of your comments. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.......respectfully.

[TomBush]

... The policy, was as i stated, rude, disrespectful, invasive, and a personal attack. Non of which will be tolerated by me and most other EAA members.
...

My slight edit to your quote, Glory, brings us to exactly how we feel!

PS: We - ya' know - the people who make the place and pay the bills - get a vote, too. . .

PPS: My comments are in no way an 'attack' on you, so please don't take them that way. I read your other comments about flying and whatnot, and want to congratulate you for the progress made so far towards your license - fantastic! Just soloed my 17yo HS Senior daughter in our Cub a few months ago, and can only assume your Dad is as proud of you as I am of her. . .

[Jim Rosenow]

Jim- please don't ask me to defend the government. Two wrongs don't make a right. The government does what it is legally required to do, and there is usually little room for moral or ethical discretion when the government's own lawyers are in the room. (Sad, but that is my experience with 25 years inside and 15 years working alongside the govt. I met a USCG Lawyer the other day who shocked me with her inclusion of legal, moral and ethical issues in her calculus...a new norm? I can only hope)

Here, in EAA, I would hope that we play by Oshkosh Rule's and exceed the legal minimum with courtesy and consideration. I try, and I think most here on this board, to play by the golden rule.

It's good that we agree on 95% of what you said, Ted. I will respectfully disagree with both you and the mod regarding publishing public information on the site, hopefully without being disagreeable to either. My opinion is that Oshkosh Rules have changed to Airventure Rules, and if that's better could be debated. Golden Rule?... I didn't see anything that I would object to having posted about me should someone feel the need, even to make a point. The information is all out there on each of us. I'm somewhat familiar as my last job prior to retiring was on-line investigations for a LE agency.

Oh...and one more thing....good luck defending the government. Some things are just indefensible. :D Peace, man! :)

Jim

[TomBush]

It's good that we agree on 95% of what you said, Ted. I will respectfully disagree with both you and the mod regarding publishing public information on the site, hopefully without being disagreeable to either. My opinion is that Oshkosh Rules have changed to Airventure Rules, and if that's better could be debated. Golden Rule?... I didn't see anything that I would object to having posted about me should someone feel the need, even to make a point. The information is all out there on each of us. I'm somewhat familiar as my last job prior to retiring was on-line investigations for a LE agency.

Oh...and one more thing....good luck defending the government. Some things are just indefensible. :D Peace, man! :)

Jim

I know your post wasn't to me, Jim, but I thank you for it, as you're also making a point I've been trying to make. As I mentioned before, EAA can't have it both ways. They want our data, but we can get their's as well - and it's all free and available with the most basic of information. While I think my point was made - and that I don't need to post any more on the subject - I could just as easily post the full names, addresses, and court case histories of the mods of this forum (some who like to drive fast) as well as all EAA front-office types with just a few clicks of the mouse.

This whole freedom and first amendment thing is just a bitch, and it works both ways now, doesn't it! ;)

[Tom Downey]

For all those who are worried about security checks, why don't you simply give kids rides all by yourself. IOWs who needs the YE program to give rides.

[vaflier]

If the concern of headquarters is fear of a lawsuit ( and I think most of us beleive it is ) then my suggestion would be as follows,

1. Require all memebers to view an on line class ( or could be done at a chapter meeting as a group ) concerning child molesters and what to look out for.

2. Take the aproximately 2.5 million dollars the background checks will likely cost and place it in a fund every two years
To pay for legal defense and settlement costs in the event of a lawsuit.

This would protect the organisation and save money and the membership for the most part would likely applaud management for a good decision. It would also give all of us the tools to help ensure the safety of the kids. Due diligence has then been done and the privacy of members is in no way at risk.

[ssmdive]

The post, was as i stated, rude, disrespectful, invasive, and a personal attack. Non of which will be tolerated on the EAA Forums.

Precautions will be taken if such disrespectful posts continue.

Huh, must not have been reading the posts from Mark. Such as when he said about me "Hopefully the craven "ssmdive""
Or when he told me "True, unlike you I have the guts to use my real name"

I guess when a guy is lock step with your desires he can insult all he wants?

Or when he accused anyone of not being happy with the system with being a criminal or sexual pervert, "Do you suppose some people are refusing to undergo the background check because the DO have something to hide? Hmmmmmm?"

Or when he went after Ron, "Ron, your DISTRUST is sowing doubt and you are poisoning, and possibly killing off, the Young Eagles program. If you succeed, I hope you will be proud of yourself."

Or when he started telling people what they can do, "And, as for those who have agendas, and who only want to badmouth YE and EAA in general, and who want to see the program disintegrate over this, PLEASE GO AWAY. You have made your positions known. Your input is no longer needed."

So just so we know the 'rules' we are allowed to attack others and be rude as long as we are toeing the EAA line?
Seems that way.

[Mark van Wyk]

I'm still confident that EAA can straighten this out and that our upcoming Young Eagles event in mid-May will be a success.:D

[Floatsflyer]

I'm still confident that EAA can straighten this out....

Your confidence is only surpassed by that of Neville Chamberlain's

[combahee]

Your confidence is only surpassed by that of Neville Chamberlain's


Now that was funny!

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Only 84 votes , 3236 views.[look at the numbers for the main thread] Tells me that a tiny number of members are doing all the viewing and sharing.

[Mayhemxpc]

I was out of town for a week and a half -- wow. Still trying to catch up on this thread. As soon as I got to your post on the other thread of 27 January, I pooped right over to here. Maybe others don't know about it because it got drowned out by the background noise.

But yes, if you look at the recurring names on the thread -- like most threads in the forum -- it is a relatively small number of contributors.

Agree that there must be a better, simpler solution. But I have a sign I have at my desk, "No solutions without first identifying the problem." Therefore, until I understand what the real problem is, I will not propose a solution (other than saying that the current proposal seems unacceptable.)

[Mark van Wyk]

EAA Management: how close to the actual numbers is this poll? According Jack Pelton, about 30 percent EAA volunteers have complied with the new rules. This poll shows 20 percent have/will comply, about 50 percent will comply only if the program is drastically changed, and 30 percent will never comply with any Youth Protection/background check program. Of course, the poll is not scientific and possibly skewed.
Can you give us numbers/percentages of how many have completed the check and training?

[Jkan]

EAA Management: how close to the actual numbers is this poll? According Jack Pelton, about 30 percent EAA volunteers have complied with the new rules. This poll shows 20 percent have/will comply, about 50 percent will comply only if the program is drastically changed, and 30 percent will never comply with any Youth Protection/background check program. Of course, the poll is not scientific and possibly skewed.
Can you give us numbers/percentages of how many have completed the check and training?

I, also, would probably be to embarrassed to respond.

[Glory Aulik]

February 11th we reported nearly 3,000 people have completed the training: https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-11-2016-from-jack-pelton-continuing-the-conversation-on-youth-protection-policy

Thanks!
Glory

[ssmdive]

February 11th we reported nearly 3,000 people have completed the training: https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-11-2016-from-jack-pelton-continuing-the-conversation-on-youth-protection-policy

Thanks!
Glory


How many flew/worked YE last year?

[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.