The online PDF is still showing a date of 24 February (code in the footer: 160224). Still says the EAA performs an employment history check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
Ron Wanttaja
Printable View
The online PDF is still showing a date of 24 February (code in the footer: 160224). Still says the EAA performs an employment history check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
Ron Wanttaja
Ron, we will never be able to determine, for sure, unless one actually goes onto the background check web page.
Any thing else can be misstated, etc.
Do not judge anything unless you actually see it posted on the printed page.
All I can give you is what I have already posted, and I repeat. Bret's statement must be verified. This can only be done one way.
My guess is that the changes relayed from Bret are probably true, but the official documents have not been updated to match, yet. As you say, it's not official until the appropriate documentation can be accessed by everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkan
I don't think anyone at EAA is deliberately trying to be deceptive. I'm suspecting that the EAA staffers were deeply shocked at the level of rancor these changes produced (and, to some extent, continue to produce). I'm thinking EAA now has fifty bazillion layers of review before anything gets formally published, and those at the pointy end can't do anything to speed things up.
Remember the definition of a bureaucrat: It's a person who CUTS red tape. Lengthwise.
Ron Wanttaja
[QUOTE=rwanttaja;55202]
Remember the definition of a bureaucrat: It's a person who CUTS red tape. Lengthwise.
And at headquarters, they do the same with a fingernail clipper.
The changes to the sign off are definitely there. There was a change made to try to remove as much financial sounding language as possible -- we do not want your financial information, but the old sign off seemed to indicate that. We also only do one background check, but the old sign-off gave us permission to do ongoing background checks. We are trying to be as transparent as possible with this one, and pushed hard with AmericanChecked to clarify the language for you all. The sign off is the most official document you can get -- I will go out and see what other advisory docs Ron is referring to and get them cleaned up.
The policy on this page:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bret Steffen
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-e...34624FCAD&_z=z
...still states the employment history check, as does the PDF.
Ron Wanttaja
By the way, configuration management of any document can be a nightmare when you publish it in differing locations in differing formats. Publish it in ONE place, in ONE format. That way, when it changes, updating is easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Ron Wanttaja
Bret,
where is is "there" where the changes definitely are?
i and others appreciate the effort to fix things. Right now, however, action on our part requires a little bit more than faith that "there" is really there.
Hoping to to be able to comply in time to make the next YE rally.
Chris
Plus one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
I want to continue to fly YEs but I have sidelined myself until there is sufficient consideration given to taking care of us members and our identities.
However, I will not go away and I will occasionally pop up at the most inopportune times in order to be the grain of sand that irritates the oyster into making the pearl. Can't wait till the annual membership meeting at OSH.
Ted
SOCATA Rallye N381
I have been an EAA member for over 25-years. Because of my legal background I have never participated in the YE program because I was/am keenly aware of the potential liabilities due to participation, but did believe that it is worthwhile effort.
I have followed all the concerns mentioned since the first salvo was fired. I am of the mind that EAA management made a serious tactical mistake in how this was initiated and subsequently handled. I hope it get resolved without permanent damage to the organization.
'There" is the actual agreement on the actual sight-off page when you actually do the background check. The other materials were intended as informational/advisory. Hope that helps, if you have questions let me know.
We tried that one at the start Ron, which is a large part of what confused and angered folks, so we had to split the policy and have three places where much of the language lives. Best intentions and all...Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Umm....you cannot find out what the policy says, unless you start the background check? This seems...a bit like a pig in a poke. Since another company is handling the background check does this mean that the official EAA policy is *not* available on an EAA web site? Considering the controversy about the program, that's bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bret Steffen
Ron Wanttaja
Splitting the policy into three pieces is fine, as they're referring to three different circumstances. I'm referring to ONE of the pieces (the YE one) being available both in an HTML version and a PDF version.. When it gets updated, one has to ensure both versions reflect the same text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bret Steffen
And....the true *official* version isn't even on an EAA-controlled location. Hmmmm.....
Ron Wanttaja
So it is better to have three places for info and the one claimed to be "correct" is only on a third party website and only AFTER you have started the process?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bret Steffen
Not only that, but EAA *disavows* the versions on their own web page.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
If it's wrong, TAKE IT DOWN and provide a link to the true version. Better still, the Background Check company should give a link the true version ON THE EAA WEB PAGE instead of having their own local version.
Ron Wanttaja
Is that kind of like, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bret Steffen
Yeah, it's just a further indication of how much of a half-assed and ill-planned effort the EAA gives. It's such a half-assed cavalier approach that causes the problems that this is trying to solve to begin with. My wife, a professional in the aviation industry (she's the education department for the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum and a school teacher by training), came up to me yesterday and asked "what the **** is going on with the EAA. The crap is rolling down from Oshkosh all over the aviation community and the EAA rather than smelling like roses for protecting children is smelling like ****
It's going to take a concerted effort rather than the pathetic lip service response to keep support for the EAA from running like droves because they look like either a bunch of pathetic idiots or outright dishonest liars with their current behavior. Neither is really something anyone should aspire to.
Gents -- no the policy is the policy -- it is in PDF and web text. The sign off on the background check that I was referring to is the sign off -- not the policy. Sorry for your confusion on this.
Up until last night I thought I understood. Now I am confused. Where is the statement that limits the background check?
Bret called me. He explained that the information is found at the sign off for the background check. I will continue the process and see. I informed him that this needs to be made clear on the EAA YPP page, and it should be noted as a change. I also send him a little information about the BSA's program, and how that restriction (limited to the NCI check) is clearly stated on their YPT information page.
It really seems like the EAA program was developed based on what someone told them the BSA program was like, rather than doing any serious research into that program.
Young Eagles Day today at Haller Field, Green Cove Springs, FL Chapter 1379 - we flew more than 70 Young Eagles today. I am not terribly happy with the protection policy myself, but I won't give up the joy I see in their eyes. They are the future of GA. The wrinkles need to be worked out, but let's not lose the kids!
Based on what has been done to begin to respond to important issues, and in particular the limitations and restrictions on the background check, I completed the process. I am not happy with the way it is right now. I am especially unhappy with the lack of information about the process, what information will be collected, how, and what will be done with it. This includes the back door method of informing us about the change. That language still needs to be tightened. It also need to be published up front in sections describing the screening and training requirements on the YE volunteers webpage. Whether or not AmericanChecked agrees to language changes proposed in the best interest of EAAs members is irrelevant. If American Checked does not like the restrictions, limitations, and restrictions required by the EAA then EAA HQ should find another provider. The language used for other programs, such as the BSA's, provides an excellent example of what a good program can look like. (Or use. The BSA allows other organizations to use their program.)
Nonetheless, I told Bret that I would complete the process if the proposed changes were made to the language describing what information was authorized to be accessed. It changed, so I did my part. Not for EAA HQ but for my chapter's YE program and the kids we fly.
But I don't feel good about it.
Fantastic. Great to hear your Young Eagles event was a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hstaton
Let's hear some more positive reports.
Here's one: I am POSITIVE that I and hundreds of others won't be flying YE's anymore due to this abomination of a program!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark van Wyk
We held our first event under the new rules. We have lost 50% of the pilots. We also had to cut short the program as we didn't have enough vetted personnel for the two deep on the ground. This sucks. We are cancelling the June 11 event.
I know this is a stale thread but EAA HQ needs to know that this issue is not dead. Perhaps it will generate a more thoughtful approach when some other pearl-clutcher identifies a problem that simply must be fixed.
Our chapter was an early YE sponsor and I was one of the first pilots. We held rallies all over the state on behalf of other chapters who lacked the resources or expertise. Most summers, we held a YE rally nearly every weekend, somewhere. Few rallies were for less than a hundred kids; many were multiples of that. We pioneered the computerization of rally registration, big-grin photos, instant printing of certificates, and many other organization standards and tools. Our chapter bought tables, chairs, tents, stanchions, and an enclosed trailer to haul them. We have a "Rally in a Box" that can be set up at any airport and be ready to fly kids in an hour.
Our YE Chapter Coordinator became the State Coordinator and has been given every Young Eagle award possible. For over a decade, until this year, he presented the YE Forum at Airventure. I set up a state-wide discussion listserver for pilot coordination and scheduling. You couldn't find a more committed group of YE pilots; one of our members has over 3000, many flown one at a time in his Cub.
The YE program took a gut-punch when he-who-shan't-be-named sat in his high tower and fired Steve Buss, among many other valuable staffers. But our YE pilots soldiered on because it was good for kids, good for EAA, and good for general aviation. We were sad for Steve but, other than losing a tireless advocate and friend at HQ, it didn't affect our operations.
Then the word came out about the YPP. To say that its design and promulgation was stupendously mishandled is a thesaurus exercise. This forum alone is evidence that there are only so many synonyms for "brain-dead", "insulting", and "unnecessary".
All the nibbling around the edges of exactly what would be included in the background check, the platitudes, and all the other ways that HQ has attempted to pat us on the head and hand us a sucker, all miss a fundamental point:
It is not perfectly safe to go up in an airplane.
In fact, we've already killed at least one Young Eagle (probably more, but you know how hard it is to get numbers on that sort of thing from HQ).
So EAA HQ has mandated an intrusive vetting of volunteer pilots, who are giving out of altruism, not to fix a known problem but one that has yet to be in evidence. One could make a better case (but only barely) that requiring pilots to display proof that they are current and that their aircraft is airworthy might have a greater effect on the safety of the children than a background check. But EAA HQ doesn't require that, despite at least one YE fatality.
So the real problem is the attitude at EAA HQ, as eloquently stated by Dennis Jenders back in March, "The back and forth here in the forum isn't going to change the very important decision to keep youth safe. Even one incident is one too many."
Allow me to parse that for you:
1. There was a decision to keep youth safe.
Therefore, before this "very important decision" was made, no one (besides the YE pilots of course) had made any decision to keep youth safe. One has to wonder why we had absolutely no issues with child molestation despite such an obvious abrogation of corporate responsibility.
2. Nothing said in this forum will change the "decision to keep youth safe".
Well, fair enough. I don't recall anyone suggesting that such a decision by EAA HQ was wrong, if surely twenty years late. Who doesn't think we should keep them safe? What sticks in the craw is the presumption that we YE pilots, who have been keeping the youth safe all along, should be subjected to invasive scrutiny in order to continue to keep them safe for another generation or two.
3. "Even one incident is one too many."
And there it is.
In a futile attempt to achieve the unattainable perfect safety, all YE pilots will be sacrificed on the altar of "Do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong, won't work, and alienates the very core you depend on." Can we anticipate an equivalent approach to safety at Airventure? Lord knows, "even one accident is one too many" there!
You know what else will achieve the not "even-one-incident" goal? Stop flying Young Eagles. Problem solved.
At least it has been for our chapter. We have not held a rally since the rule went into effect. Our YE State Coordinator (ex-mil, lifetime FAA) called HQ to discuss it and was told "my way or highway". He decided the highway looked better. We now have no YE Chapter Coordinator, our state has no State Coordinator, no pilots willing to submit to the YPP requirements, and no rallies scheduled. The loss of experience holding a safe YE rally is staggering.
Anyone want to put in a bid on a "YE Rally-in-a-Box"?
-Chip-
Hmm. I'm guessing you haven't been reading the positive YE press releases. "Nothing to see here. Everything is business as usual."
Our chapter has cancelled three of the four annual events. The fourth was postponed due to lack of pilots, but they plan to try again. I expect I'll be dropped from the list here as my membership expires in a couple of months and I won't be renewing. Sorry to see what was once such a solid promotional program and great association go under due to corporate mismanagement. I already miss the EAA, but it's no longer what it once was, and I miss what it once was. The current abomination of corporate managers won't be missed.
-Cub Builder
It's kind like politicians, Chip...if you don't CONTINUALLY remind them, they'll naturally slip back into Omnipotent Mode and do the same damn thing again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aviatrexx
In this age, something like the YPP was inevitable. But EAA's refusal to involve the membership in its development (except for one or two tame chapters) was inexcusable, and their failure to wait to announce it until after the symbolic two-millionth YE is inexplicable.
Ron Wanttaja
I think the EAA YE Youth Protection policy is just fine. Don't change a thing, EAA.
I think there is a pretty cynical view of EAA shared here, far too often. At the end of the day its about keeping children safe (who can argue with that), protecting our pilot members (from lawsuits, etc), and continuing to find a way to share aviation with a younger demographic (which we desperately need). e
Well, the first point is arguable whether there is a problem that needs solving.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
The second is certainly NOT accomplished nor even a goal of the YPP. The purpose of the YPP, first and foremost, is to protect the EAA (the organization) not the pilots and not the children.
The third point the essential point. The YPP is KILLING YE. If you can't fly the YE, you can't operate your youth outreach, then whether you have a YPP is moot.
1st to Mark: NOTHING in life, and especially aviation, can not be improved. (Except maybe a Piper Cub.) Continual improvement is the hallmark of a healthy organization.
2d to Dennis -- mostly rephrasing Ron: Cynical. To believe that we are cynical of EAA is to say that we think that it is corrupt or insincere. Some may think that, others may think that some in the EAA senior levels are just wrong, without judging their motivation for being wrong. I would hope that those who believe it is corrupt or insincere are a small minority. In both cases, I believe, that most or all of the posters here do so with the intent of improving EAA. Therefore, since we have hope and expectation of improvement we are not cynical.
The language of the YPP and EAA management has been quite clear. The YPP program protects the EAA as an organization. Not its members. From reading the processes, it may not be effective at protecting the kids -- at least no more so than in pre-YPP days. It certainly does not reflect best practices of other organizations with a history of implementing similar policies (e.g., BSA and CAP.)
Now, if I were a LITTLE more cynical, I might argue that the reduction in YE flights might even be an intended effect of the YPP program. After all, basic risk management is that risk is a combination of exposure and effect. If you limit exposure, you reduce risk. I am NOT saying that was the intent, but curiously, it is a likely outcome: Reduce risk to EAA corporation by reducing the exposure/the number of youth participating in the program.
I won't argue with protecting children, but I will argue with your methods. The background checks and overreaching corporate intrusion have nothing to do with protecting children. I don't supposed it occurred to corporate EAA that those of us that have been flying YE for the last 20 years have been in the business of protecting them all along. A two adult rule has always been in effect in most chapters to protect the pilots and helpers from accusations as well as to protect the children involved in the program. That's just common sense, and is reinforced in the program. I agree with that part of the YPP program as absolutely essential to protect everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
However, the background checks are pointless and only there to as a lawyers CYA move. (The Boy Scouts do it, so we should do it. Never mind that we are doing 15 minute rides and they are doing overnight camping trips.) You don't find registered sex offenders hanging out at events like YE as that is enough for them to get a return trip to prison. To call it a close call because there was a registered SO that was a chapter member, but never attended a YE event is ludicrous. That is an example of the SO registry working as designed.
We already protected ourselves by implementing a two adult rule 20 years ago, thank you very much. Nice to see that the EAA Corporate is catching up.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
The Corporate EAA is successfully killing the YE program. I don't suppose anyone at Corporate EAA would be willing to compare and share the number of YE flights from June - Aug of 2015 vs 2016?Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
The fact is, many of the smaller chapters no longer have a YE program. Many of the larger chapters are still scraping up enough pilots to fly YE. Is that really the way you want the program to operate? For years, a number of us used to do YE flight rallies at dirt strips in remote areas specifically to get to some of the ranch kids that have been working horses and driving tractors since they were 5, but have never seen a light plane up close. It pains me to see those events now dead as they were the most fun of all the YE events we did. But that's the outfall of the corporate YPP program.
-Cub Builder
Very thoughtful reply Chris.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
RE: Cynical. Electronic messages are so devoid of emotion, nuance, and inflection that it becomes difficult to read what is written. For a newcomer, or even a current member like myself, some of the conversation here just dwells on the negative instead of the positive. I bring it up just to highlight that maybe some members don't realize how cynical the conversation sounds. YPP has been implemented, it is here to stay, and the sun still came up this morning... and will tomorrow. :)
And I really don't say any of this to name call or point fingers. I just wanted to share my observation as a daily lurker on the message board. We all have opinions, and I respect that. I truly believe the diversity we have has made EAA a stronger organization over the years.
RE: YPP as implemented.
When I consider the program, I think in terms of results and outcomes. The reason YPP exists is to achieve a specific result – ZERO incidents. Outcomes just happen to include protecting pilots, protecting the organization, and modernizing processes. All good things and well intentioned. When reading some of the posts it seems like we can't even agree on that.
The policy was written to protect all parties and have leveraged best practices from other major organizations. Yes, that includes the Boy Scouts. And council included very seasoned professionals that have helped implement with a variety of organizations much larger than EAA.
As you and a few others have mentioned, other organizations have implemented similar policies. It is a necessity. Why? Because we are trying to protect children. As a former employee, a caring member, and active member in other youth-based activities I recognize the importance of protecting children. We just can't expose kids to the nastiness of this world. As mothers, fathers, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whatever... we all want to keep kids safe.
And you guys are right in saying it is to protect the organization as well. But that isn't because EAA is looking to cover their ass only, it really starts with the kids. It is also there to reduce legal exposure. If something were to happen, there is a good chance a multi-million dollar lawsuit would so negatively impact EAA that the organization may never recover.
But this is also here to protect the YE pilots. No one wants a YE pilot to be accused of something they didn't do.
Perhaps I'm just reading too much into the posts here. Just wanted to fire back with my thoughts / opinions on YPP. Have there been some negative outcomes, absolutely! I don't want to see reduced flights and opportunities for kids. And I certainly don't want to see anyone offended by the policy. But if protecting our youth is the goal here, and the result... we should be 100% in support of making that happen.
I hope EAA can continue to develop programs that attract new audiences to aviation. Right now, the numbers are still disappointing. We may never see the golden age of aviation again, but we do need to crack the code on bringing more people into aviation – and EAA. I have plenty of thoughts on that, but I'll save that for another day.
Cheers!
Dennis
Very well stated, Dennis, and please don't think any of us are taking things personally or attacking you. As you mention, electronic communications are devoid of nuance, and people may not realize how that affects their communications. At a chapter meeting, we can say to someone, "Boy, are you an idiot," laugh, and slap them on the back and no one has a problem with it. On the internet, without the non-verbal gestures, the target of such a comment might justifiably take umbrage.
I do want to take a slight issue over this comment:
The policies do tend to change occasionally, but I do not believe the YPP protects the pilots. If a YE pilot is accused of molestation as part of an event, EAA does not provide them with an attorney. EAA will only get involved if they're listed as a co-defendant...and if it's criminal charges, that ain't going to happen.Quote:
But this is also here to protect the YE pilots. No one wants a YE pilot to be accused of something they didn't do.
EAA will have zero interest in proving the pilot's innocence, *except* to minimize its own liability. If a child's parents sue for $5M, and the lawyer says, "We'll settle for $100K and an apology," the EAA will quickly write a check. The pilot will be stuck with the blame.
Ron Wanttaja
some of that cynicism was nurtured by a statement o so many months ago that the volunteers being checked wouldn't have to pay for the background check process, EAA would pay for it. somebody in Wisconsin forgot who EAA is.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
.Quote:
Originally Posted by djenders
Could be because we feel that the EAA has stopped listening to the members. And as someone already pointed out... "Members will not have to pay for the background checks"..... Uh, where did they plant the magic money tree?
I have LONG known that the EAA was more about Airventure and not the members... It just gets shown over and over. I avoided being a member till I started doing acro and wanted to compete.
Nothing in the background check protects the pilots. It is 100% to protect the EAA.Quote:
At the end of the day its about keeping children safe (who can argue with that), protecting our pilot members (from lawsuits, etc), and continuing to find a way to share aviation with a younger demographic (which we desperately need). e
If I didn't have to be an EAA member to be an IAC member, I'd drop my EAA membership in a second. The EAA does not care about the members, only the airshow and its own survival.
I was looking to fly YE.... And then this BS came out. Funny, I am an LEO but not trusted to fly a kid for 10-15 mins from the EAA. And the chance that I give this organization my personal information, after the OPM lost my information.... Well, it just is not going to happen.
So count me as a guy that will never fly a YE.
You just insulted all your fellow EAAers who don't happen to be LEOs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
I find it interesting that you feel entitled to a free pass because you are an LEO. How long do you suppose it will take Google to find court cases of LEO's guilty of inappropriate behavior with a kid? 0.49 seconds? There's bad apples in almost every barrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive