Young Eagles and Background Security Checks

[Byron J. Covey]

Thoughts?

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

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

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

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


BJC

[TomBush]

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

In my opinion, a workable policy would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

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

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

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

Period.

[lutorm]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mayhemxpc]

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

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

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

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

[Sam Buchanan]

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

[Byron J. Covey]

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

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

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


BJC

[rv builder]

Thoughts?

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

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

[rwanttaja]

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

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

Ron Wanttaja

[cub builder]

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

Ron Wanttaja

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

-Cub Builder

[Floatsflyer]

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

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