Young Eagles and Background Security Checks

[Onex33]

While I fully support protecting children or anyone else from abuse of any kind, I think this whole background check will kill the Young Eagles program. I have volunteered at several events as ground support(my plane is single seat) and have seen the smiles from kids after their flights concluded. That said I think of what happens when a dog hurts a child or adult for that matter-the dog is often euthanized. I would be ok with that when it comes to pedophiles but it won't happen in today's society where nobody is responsible for their actions. If punishments were known to be more severe for certain crimes, those crimes might go down-just saying.

Loren Sievila
Onex 33
N331EX

[Jim Rosenow]

While I fully support protecting children or anyone else from abuse of any kind, I think this whole background check will kill the Young Eagles program. I have volunteered at several events as ground support(my plane is single seat) and have seen the smiles from kids after their flights concluded. That said I think of what happens when a dog hurts a child or adult for that matter-the dog is often euthanized. I would be ok with that when it comes to pedophiles but it won't happen in today's society where nobody is responsible for their actions. If punishments were known to be more severe for certain crimes, those crimes might go down-just saying.

Loren Sievila
Onex 33
N331EX

Loren, I concur completely with your statement about lack of personal accountability in our society. I was third-generation law enforcement, and watched the de-generative process from the inside as part of my earliest recollections. Given the state of affairs, I am happy that our current fourth-generation LE is a prosecutor (attorney), and not on the road.

I see the flip side of the coin as the 'guilty till proven innocent' attitude of administrative and 'corporate' law, such as the example we have been provided by EAA corporate. In my opinion, it does nothing to protect pilots flying YE's, very little to protect potential victims (previously known as kids), but could potentially save corporate some grief (aka cya).

My wife and I will continue to fly kids. (My first logged 'kid' flight was in 1971, just for perspective.) We love sharing the thrill of flight, and I think it's done some good. She's a CFII, and several kids have come back to her a few years later for training. While I applauded the YE program when it began, neither of us signed up. We continued on our own then, and will do so now.

Jim

[CraigCantwell]

Bret: Even if the policy was not designed to kill off YE participation, it will by it's very wording. Under this new policy, if a chapter has an under 18 year old member, at EVERY MEETING, chapter staff will have to determine if the minor is there, and if so, is their parent there. If not, then does he have a permission slip to be there. IF he has the slip, then are there at least 4 cleared members present that will supervise the minor so he can remain at the meeting, or are we going to have to send them home. How is this going to help encourage kids to be a part of the chapter, and how many adult members are going to keep coming to the meetings if they are required to monitor minors and their monitors? In reality, smaller chapters are most likely going to respond by either discouraging under 18 membership, or outright not allowing it. When your cost of compliance for something exceeds the benefits gained, organizations invariably cut the item.

[AcroGimp]

Balance.

For every Geyen, we have 20,000 or more volunteers and pilots who are very fine people.

This is Raymond Griffin:



Raymond was one of the ten charter members of our Chapter, and big believer in the YE program. Early on, he noticed something; parents who brought their kids to YE events very often had younger children (less then 7 years old) in tow, and very often those children were hugely disappointed when told they were not old enough for a flight. So Raymond, at around age 80, decided to do something about it. Over the next ten years, working mostly alone in a small shop behind his house, he built two biplanes on powered pedestals, with fully operating controls. And then he donated them to the Chapter.



The "simulators" are very popular. We've taken them to regional fly-ins and the local Air Force base, as well as setting them up at our own YE/Airport Open House events. Naturally, since they're intended to serve the needs of very small children, they require a lot of supervision. And I might add, since many of the children need a bit of help to enter and exit these "real" airplanes, that means picking them up...you know, actually touching them. We depend heavily on volunteers to run the simulators. Here's one:



I apologize sincerely, but I don't know this young lady's name. I think she is related to one of our members. The point here is that she was a true volunteer that day, a walk-on, someone who offered to spend her day making small kids very happy with an airplane experience.

Raymond died a few weeks ago. I knew him as well as anyone, and I'm pretty sure he would have told HQ to stuff their background check. I can't speak for the young lady. I can say that YE is a heck of a lot more than paperwork and rules and corporate style CYA, and demanding pedophile checks from such people is a gross disconnect from reality at the Chapter level.

Just wanted to recognize how incredibly awesome this post is - those simulators are amazing. THIS is what EAA is about (or at least was about), and the Unified Flying Octogenarians in my chapter, and IAC, and Warbirds, and designing and building and flying our own planes, and yes introducing new people to aviation. EAA is (or was) about so much more than OSH or being like 'other' organizations that have succumbed to security theater.

As with most recent gun control pushes the proposal would do nothing about anything that either has happened or could have happened using the story posted earlier as an example, it is 'doing something' for something's sake, with no real benefit but actual impacts (both intentional as well as unintended) to those of us doing the volunteering.

Ending my YE affiliation and support does not mean I won't continue to take kids, or coworkers, or family members flying - it just means I'll do it on my own terms.

It was a good run while it lasted.

'Gimp

[dougbush]

Please note the context of my post...someone implying that private industry would do better than the government, when, in fact, the failure was in private industry. Ron Wanttaja

So, the private contractor was held accountable. You forgot to tell me how the government involvement made the situation better.

[rwanttaja]

So, the private contractor was held accountable. You forgot to tell me how the government involvement made the situation better.

I made no such claim. Someone accused Party #1 of being at fault, and I merely stated that the Party #2 was the actual guilty party.

Frankly, the Government DOES protect sensitive information better than private industry does. When it choses to. But the cost is very, very high, and, as the Snowden case showed, it's not perfect either. The cost is not just money, either, but convenience.

Ron Wanttaja

[dougbush]

You implied a private company would be less trustworthy.

So no, I'm not impressed with a *private* company trying to accrue the same information

When a private company exposes your social, people get fired. When government officials expose secrets so sensitive congressional intelligence committees can't know about them, they're still eligible to run for President.

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Let's leave perceptions out of this thread - especially those that might align with our political affiliations. There is enough hysteria in our lives -especially now. Getting our nickers all wound up and making rash decisions in the heat of the moment is not productive.
Let's work with facts and be constructive in our feedback. The more we know about this (any) change makes our decisions more intelligent.
This thread is about change.

[RickG]

Just curious ...

Does the FAA run background checks against these "lists" when you first apply for a rating? Or each time your FAA Medical is renewed? How about CFI's who (potentially) could spend countless hours with a minor during early training. Are they required to have similar checks?

[WLIU]

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

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS