COPA for Kids pilots now require police check

[confusedalot]

Just perusing the thread without looking at the content. Speed reading so to speak.
It is soooo...........sad, that the forces of what is right have become so terribly wrong.
Yeah right, airplane owners may be pedophiles. Can anyone say paranoia?
Pretty soon, all of us will be thrown in jail because we ordered the wrong amount of creme and sugar at Tim Horton's.
I used to be afraid of the bad guys. Now, I am afraid of the average Canadian.

[C-GKNT]

Further to the C4K/Young Eagles thing:

When the switch was made, it was explained that the EAA couldn't/wouldn't insure future Canadian participation.

Anybody got any info on that?

Yes. Absolutely incorrect. I am an EAA Young Eagles Field Representative for Central Alberta. For the insurance to extend to the ground volunteers, a field rep needs to be present at a rally if it is not held by an EAA Chapter...it is not difficult to be a Field Rep.

There was a point where we were told that a COPA OR an EAA membership (I wasn't organizing rallies then and I had both memberships so didn't personally verify this at the time) would qualify you to fly Young Eagles. Then COPA announced they were going to do something but didn't get it together for a year or so leaving all the COPA member hanging.

In my opinion, the COPA insurance IS better which was an factor in why our club did make the switch a few year later. The other factor was there was a slightly more in our club who were non-EAA members vs. non-COPA members at the time.

To be honest, I don't know why COPA for Kids was developed from scratch rather than COPA putting their support (or existing as an add-on) to Young Eagles where all the infrastructure was already in place.

We have invited the Grade 6 class from the same local schools for almost 20 years. Even though we have flown under the COPA for Kids banner for the past few years, the kids/parents still call it Young Eagles from when their older siblings flew with us. In the end its about the kids and they don't care which program under which we fly them.

Glenn

[Schooner69A]

Thanks, Glenn...

[digits_]

Hi Glenn,

what is the advantage for a pilot volunteer to have the COPA for kids insurance vs just going flying with kids hemselves?

Assuming you follow the program guidelines, COPA for kids adds $2MM in extra liability insurance (Young Eagles $1MM US). COPA adds $5MM liability insurance for any COPA event which would cover the ground volunteers as well.

Under both programs the minimum liability insurance you need to participate is $100,000. If that is all you carry it is a significant benefit.

Aviation is meant to be shared...In a good year, I'll give rides to around 100 people with 1/2 of that under COPA for kids or Young Eagles. I carry a $2MM smooth limit on my aircraft and am comfortable with that but extra insurance never hurts.

Glenn

Thank you for the clarification!

[AirFrame]

I really don't see the big deal here. If you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem? And yes, I have had background checks done. And YES, I have had to go for secondary screening, due to the fact I apparently share the same birthdate as one of those scum.

You pretty much answered your own question by giving an example of one thing that might "catch" you. What if you shared a name? or a physical description? What if, as a result of these or other, more private, irrelevant factors, you fail the background check? What do you then say when you go back to the next CFK planning meeting? That you failed a background check? Great! Now everyone immediately assumes you're a pedophile who can't be trusted with kids. Oh, but reasons, reasons... Never mind, you're already branded.

The statement "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is basically a false dichotomy - the same kind of conundrum as "you're either with us or against us." It presents a false choice: you are either guilty of something and therefore have a reason to hide it, or you are not guilty of anything and therefore have no reason to hide anything. It is based on the (false) premise that privacy's sole purpose is to conceal wrongdoing, and it excludes the possibility that someone may be innocent of any wrongdoing buy may still want to conceal their activities. Why? Because something is embarrassing (or perceived to be embarrassing, by the applicant or society in general), but not wrong. Something may be deeply personal. Someone may have concerns about their information being used for marketing purposes or stolen (lower probability in this case, but private records *do* get transported and lost publicly from time to time). The list goes on and on.

[Heliian]

You need a check now for pretty much any work done with kids. It's not just this one case, it's a blanket safety net because there have been problems in other sports and disciplines.

[CanadianBird]

You pretty much answered your own question by giving an example of one thing that might "catch" you. What if you shared a name? or a physical description? What if, as a result of these or other, more private, irrelevant factors, you fail the background check?

Trust me... I have an EXTREMELY common name. So common, in fact, that I once had a conversation in a bar, with two other people with the exact same name. One of which, had the same middle name.

Physical description? "He was about 5'10" , brown hair, thin build with dark clothes.... I challenge you to go stand on the street and see how many people walk by with that description in 15 minutes.

I'll also admit, I wasn't an angel growing up. I've had Customs officers ask me if "I've ever been arrested?", and had to answer yes, then explain why. No, I don't have a criminal record.

I think your comments all circle back to the main issue with society in general now: Cover your own arse, just in case the sky starts falling.
Is it unfortunate? Yes. Is it necessary? In a world where there's lawsuits for individuals spilling coffee on themselves, and winning... I'd say Yes.

So, going back to your comments: What if, as a result of these or other, more private, irrelevant factors, you fail the background check? Could happen for many reasons.
What do you then say when you go back to the next CFK planning meeting? Nothing to hide.. explain why (DUI? Assault? Drug possession when 18? Suicidal tendencies? Emotional instability? )
That you failed a background check? Great! Now everyone immediately assumes you're a pedophile who can't be trusted with kids. Oh, but reasons, reasons... Never mind, you're already branded. Okay. So, refusing to take a background check isn't going to raise suspicions???

Reasons for the checks, are to protect the kids! Simple as that.

[jakeandelwood]

I really don't see the big deal here. If you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem? And yes, I have had background checks done. And YES, I have had to go for secondary screening, due to the fact I apparently share the same birthdate as one of those scum.

You pretty much answered your own question by giving an example of one thing that might "catch" you. What if you shared a name? or a physical description? What if, as a result of these or other, more private, irrelevant factors, you fail the background check? What do you then say when you go back to the next CFK planning meeting? That you failed a background check? Great! Now everyone immediately assumes you're a pedophile who can't be trusted with kids. Oh, but reasons, reasons... Never mind, you're already branded.

The statement "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is basically a false dichotomy - the same kind of conundrum as "you're either with us or against us." It presents a false choice: you are either guilty of something and therefore have a reason to hide it, or you are not guilty of anything and therefore have no reason to hide anything. It is based on the (false) premise that privacy's sole purpose is to conceal wrongdoing, and it excludes the possibility that someone may be innocent of any wrongdoing buy may still want to conceal their activities. Why? Because something is embarrassing (or perceived to be embarrassing, by the applicant or society in general), but not wrong. Something may be deeply personal. Someone may have concerns about their information being used for marketing purposes or stolen (lower probability in this case, but private records *do* get transported and lost publicly from time to time). The list goes on and on.

I bought a trailer once that had the same serial # as a stolen motorcycle. When I went to insure it they called the cops on me. I was assumed a thief in front of a gathering audience until it was cleared up.

[C.W.E.]

Reasons for the checks, are to protect the kids! Simple as that.

When I owned a flying school I did many free kids rides under that program.

However we live in a different world now and the above comment speaks for it's self so there is no way I would be part of the program today.

In the world I lived in we were innocent until proven guilty.

In today's world of having to prove you are innocent before you are accepted I can't be bothered offering my services for free.

So by refusing it takes the worry away from those who wonder of I am a child molester.

And it makes it easier for COPA because I am one less risk for them to worry about.

Oh, I just remembered I quit COPA many years ago.

[HansDietrich]

It's "funny" how we have double standards and nobody seems to give a sh*t. I love it how some women go out of their way to hint or suggest that men have it better, or that they (the women) are being discriminated. As a man I have to watch my every move when I'm volunteering for my kids' school. It got to the point I'm afraid to give a kid high five, in fear it would be interpreted wrong. No way kid, I'm not doing that unless your idiot mom and dad(or whatever type of "modern family" you have), is there watching it and gives me written permission. I remember in the old country, when I was a kid, we were fighting with sticks (sword fight) and making a lot of noise. Some old fella came out of his house and said "I'll take those sticks and stick them up your ass if you don't quit it!" You think we told our parents? Hell no. They would've brought out the belt and my old man wouldn't stop belting me until he finished his cigarette. My ass would be so sore I couldn't sit for a week.

[A346Dude]

The “I have nothing to hide” group has done more harm to society than the actual criminals and wrongdoers. And it’s only getting worse.

[C-GKNT]

I really don't see the big deal here. If you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem? And yes, I have had background checks done. And YES, I have had to go for secondary screening, due to the fact I apparently share the same birthdate as one of those scum.

I was told by the clerk at the RCMP that someone on the registry may have a SIMILAR birth date as mine and that is why I need to be fingerprinted. Does not even need to be the same date, just similar. However, I don't know if this is true. I believe he was mistaken.

It is my understanding that there are 12,000+ names on the registry. If they all had unique birthdates (of course they don't but if...) that would be every single date over a 32 year period. When I discussed this with someone at COPA he felt that 30% of people were requiring secondary screening. That seems VERY low to me. I can't see less than 50% (probably a lot more) of males requiring secondary checks.

My issue at this stage is no longer with COPA it is with the RCMP. COPA has decided on vulnerable sector checks(VSC)...OK. The RCMP has designed the VSC in a way that requires finger printing for a LARGE number of people to pass their checks.

I am not a conspiracy type of guy and I don't wear a tin foil hat but I am simply uncomfortable with giving the RCMP biometric data for something like this. Yes they claim the data will destroyed after the checks but also that the fingerprint data has to go to Ottawa for 2 weeks for verification.

Should I trust that there is no record of my fingerprints after a VSC as promised based on the ethics of the RCMP...probably.
Should I trust that there is no record of my fingerprints after a VSC as promised based on the technological competence of the RCMP...nope.

Theoretical question (a bit of a stretch but not that much), if asked would you give a DNA sample for a VSC?

As an individual requiring a VSC, I have little standing with the RCMP to complain about the process. COPA doesn't have much standing either but much more than I have. I have suggested that COPA formally petition the RCMP for a method to pass a VSC WITHOUT resorting to fingerprinting. As COPA members, more of us should make this request. I think other volunteer organization should do the same.

Glenn

[C-GGGQ]

Just playing devil's advocate here. I assume you probably (as someone in aviation) have a RAIC? Fingerprints taken (heck retina scan at the airport's I had). Nexus card? Fingerprinted. At this point there isn't a single agency that doesn't have my (and likely many of us) fingerprints on file, in two countries! (at least) So for the VSC I don't see getting fingerprinted being a big deal.

[C-GKNT]

Just playing devil's advocate here. I assume you probably (as someone in aviation) have a RAIC? Fingerprints taken (heck retina scan at the airport's I had). Nexus card? Fingerprinted. At this point there isn't a single agency that doesn't have my (and likely many of us) fingerprints on file, in two countries! (at least) So for the VSC I don't see getting fingerprinted being a big deal.

C-GGGQ,

Fair comment but this is for a volunteer activity. Several other people I have discussed this with (not C4K, but other volunteer activities) who required fingerprinting didn't go back to complete their VSC and just decided to not volunteer.

C4K is too close to my heart to do that and at some point I will likely just go and get fingerprinted for my VSC. However, I still believe requiring bio-metric data for this is an overreach and push-back is warranted.

Glenn

[5x5]

Reasons for the checks, are to protect the kids! Simple as that.

I'll ask again - protect them from what? Has there ever been a case of child molestation at any CFK or Young Eagles volunteer flight program? You can't say your protecting anybody if the event you're concerned about has never happened. And if you claim that you're doing it to prevent a "what if" from happening, you're paranoid. And in my opinion paranoia is never a good reason to do anything.

And if the spectre of the possibility of ramifications should such an occurrence happen is used to justify it, then I'm with . and agree today's society makes me say "Sorry, not worth it."

[C-GGGQ]

Just playing devil's advocate here. I assume you probably (as someone in aviation) have a RAIC? Fingerprints taken (heck retina scan at the airport's I had). Nexus card? Fingerprinted. At this point there isn't a single agency that doesn't have my (and likely many of us) fingerprints on file, in two countries! (at least) So for the VSC I don't see getting fingerprinted being a big deal.

C-GGGQ,

Fair comment but this is for a volunteer activity. Several other people I have discussed this with (not C4K, but other volunteer activities) who required fingerprinting didn't go back to complete their VSC and just decided to not volunteer.

C4K is too close to my heart to do that and at some point I will likely just go and get fingerprinted for my VSC. However, I still believe requiring bio-metric data for this is an overreach and push-back is warranted.

Glenn

I understand completely, and agree this is overkill for a volunteer event especially if it's just the pilots and not everyone who is required to do it. Just saying that the whole "I don't want the RCMP to have my prints" thing doesn't matter... They have them already. I guarantee it.

[C.W.E.]

And if the spectre of the possibility of ramifications should such an occurrence happen is used to justify it, then I'm with . and agree today's society makes me say "Sorry, not worth it."

Exactly, I have a pile of old passport books with visas for over fifty different countries around the world and having been checked and examined in every possible method known to man it was my experience the more deplorable and primitive the countries were the more difficult it was getting the visas and going through their medieval checking process.

So I'll be damned if I will submit to proving to anyone I am not a child molester for the privilege of giving freely of my time and money to an organisation that demands I submit to further checks and that includes COPA.

[CanadianBird]

Reasons for the checks, are to protect the kids! Simple as that.

I'll ask again - protect them from what? Has there ever been a case of child molestation at any CFK or Young Eagles volunteer flight program? You can't say your protecting anybody if the event you're concerned about has never happened. And if you claim that you're doing it to prevent a "what if" from happening, you're paranoid. And in my opinion paranoia is never a good reason to do anything.

And if the spectre of the possibility of ramifications should such an occurrence happen is used to justify it, then I'm with . and agree today's society makes me say "Sorry, not worth it."

Was there a case of Child molestation in Junior hockey before Graham James? What about Catholic churches? US gymnastics? That's what they're trying to protect. Having someone slip through the cracks, and at the same time, protecting themselves from any potential lawsuits, with due diligence. Welcome to 2019.

[C.W.E.]

So assuming someone goes through a check to see if they have a record of child molestation and they have no record is that proof they are not a child molester?

[aeroncasuperchief]

So I'll be damned if I will submit to proving to anyone I am not a child molester for the privilege of giving freely of my time and money to an organisation that demands I submit to further checks and that includes COPA.

So assuming someone goes through a check to see if they have a record of child molestation and they have no record is that proof they are not a child molester?

It is refreshing to hear your non-politically correct and honest replies, soon that will not be allowed. ( look at Germany, Sweden )

I confess, I am a molester of this 8 % beer at this very moment ! but you would NEVER find out on a criminal check !

I wonder if the RCC has pedofile insurance , If they did, I would imagine it is for the priests only ( PIC of the pulpit lol )
Laws are made for the sheeple, those in power are mostly above the law !