COPA for Kids pilots now require police check

[5x5]

Just wondering, does anyone have any personal knowledge of even a single instance of a volunteer pilot - or for that matter a volunteer of any kind - at this type of aviation event being a pedophile? Any documented evidence of any such occurrence?

[rookiepilot]

Haven’t read through the entire thread, so not sure if any has already covered this off. There’s little to no risk of a pedophile pilot molesting some kid during a 20 minute flight. However, a pilot who is a pedophile will very likely seize the opportunity to meet kids, start building relationships, meet parents and start building trust.

And a pilot who's a pedophile and wants to meet kids and start building relationships, will simply volunteer to assist on the CFK day instead. Because the ground crew isn't required to get a background check. So they get past the VSS screening, *and* they get more time with the kids! All of the stuff about offering to fly another day can still happen.

I really wonder about those who are eager to volunteer with kids and yet voraciously complain about such a simple requirement.

Security theatre, which this is, does not deserve support. Make the requirement mandatory for everyone at the CFK event, and I will support it 100%.

I'm not opposed to everyone involved having the same requirement. It's really up to COPA and the insurance companies' risk assessment of contact at events. I think Wilbur's comments nail it.

I've done the check and don't recall it being a big deal.

[rookiepilot]

If had a dollar for every pervert I worked with who had a bible tucked under his arm, I could have retired years earlier. If your god is the only thing keeping you from harming others, you need mental health care.

I support your other comments about police checks -- which I have done myself, but your blanket characterization is as inaccurate as if you said it about the LGTBQ, soccer coaches, or any other community --

People regretfully hurt other people, from every community you can name.

[C-GKNT]

COPA for kids is a Canadian "knock-off" of Young Eagles. We used to do Young Eagles but switched because our club had more COPA vs. EAA members (albeit by a small margin).

Young Eagles has a background check as well but it is not as "invasive". Further their online "in the background" support is superior. COPA for kids additional insurance is superior but with the weak CDN$ the difference is not a significant as it once was. In order for the liability to extend to the ground crew, a rally must be held under an EAA Chapter. In the absence of an EAA Chapter, it can be done in conjunction with an EAA Field Representative (which I have been for 10+ years and is trivial to sign up for).

At our next meeting I am going to propose that our flying club goes back to doing EAA Young Eagles. It's all about the kids and there are alternatives.

Glenn

[digits_]

COPA for kids additional insurance is superior but with the weak CDN$ the difference is not a significant as it once was.

Hi Glenn,

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

[C-GKNT]

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

[Schooner69A]

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?

[CanadianBird]

Think what would happen if a security check was required for all and many said "Eff it!".

If that's what they did, I wouldn't be standing down. I would agree that it's a reasonable action to take. But to require *only* the pilots, who have the smallest window of opportunity to interfere with a child at a CFK event, is insane. I'm disappointed in the COPA board for agreeing to this, but i'm also not impressed with an insurance company that thinks it will improve their bottom line.

I don't think that's where it would "happen". The ones that don't get caught are the smart ones. Primary example would be Graham James. Even when he was arrested, current WHL coaches who knew him didn't believe it. I feel that what they're trying to do is:
1- Ensure that aviation isn't a "segway" for child molesters to find, and approach potential victims.
2- Prevent a lawsuit further down the line, because they didn't have due diligence with #1.

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.

[Wilbur]

Rookie, I wasn’t characterizing all or most people of faith as perverts, or implying religious people are more likely to be so. Rather, I was simply making the point that many sex offenders use religion for cover. Talking about your faith tends to work better at building trust than does talking about your sexual orientation or most other things in life.

[rookiepilot]

Rookie, I wasn’t characterizing all or most people of faith as perverts, or implying religious people are more likely to be so. Rather, I was simply making the point that many sex offenders use religion for cover. Talking about your faith tends to work better at building trust than does talking about your sexual orientation or most other things in life.

Gotcha.

Sadly, Don't disagree this probably happens. Though could be an expressed passion for soccer" too, Ect...other kids sports -- or other things used for cover.

[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.