What's everyone's opinion on convicted and registered sex offenders being TI's?

[promise5 17]

Was discussing this with someone and I thought about asking here. But I want to be clear. I'm talking about those that have been convicted and then required to register. Also I'm not talking about an 18 year old guy that slept with his 16 year old girlfriend. I'm talking about those that have been convicted of a serious sex crime.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[quade 4]

I think I'm glad I'm not in a position where it would be my responsibility to either hire or not hire the person.

I'm certain there are some who would make a blanket statement one way or the other, but I think I'd have to look at the individual case, talk to the person and then decide if it was worth the risk to my business.

Fortunately, as I said before, I'll never have to know.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[promise5 17]

That's if they're truthful about what was involved in the crime.
My opinion is simple if it's assault and rape or involving a child then No. Enjoy the sport all you want but I don't see allowing them to be TI's or instructors.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[quade 4]

Quote

That's if they're truthful about what was involved in the crime.

You're assuming I wouldn't check it out? It's a matter of public record; I wouldn't just be relying on the guy's word.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

promise5

That's if they're truthful about what was involved in the crime.
My opinion is simple if it's assault and rape or involving a child then No. Enjoy the sport all you want but I don't see allowing them to be TI's or instructors.

This is going to be an unpopular post.....


But you have not spent much time around DZ's........ I would say the amount of sexual predators is quite a bit higher than in the general population. They would see the DZ as good hunting grounds as a never ending supply of new meat showing up weekly. The experienced predator starts long before the beer light comes on, picking out his prey. The application of alcohol makes it harder for the prey to escape.

[promise5 17]

See that's where I think it's one thing for them to be involved in the sport is fine. But, if they've been convicted of crimes I mentioned and must register then I don't think they should be instructors and that's something that should be researched before certification. My opinion probably isn't popular but that's fine. I put it here for discussion.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[quade 4]

promise5

But, if they've been convicted of crimes I mentioned and must register then I don't think they should be instructors and that's something that should be researched before certification.

Emphasis mine.

By who? The Instructor of the candidate? The Tandem Examiner? The USPA Headquarters?

I think the ONLY person other than the sex offender that has any responsibility to protect the public is the "school" that hires him. The certification isn't the issue, it's the person's actual contact with the public.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[promise5 17]

I'm thinking the USPA. I don't know the process to get certified or recognized by the USPA. So I'll ask is there an application of some sort. Why not put it on there. But then again that's if the people are truthful.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[quade 4]

promise5

I'm thinking the USPA. I don't know the process to get certified or recognized by the USPA. So I'll ask is there an application of some sort. Why not put it on there. But then again that's if the people are truthful.

Never going to happen. Never. It's none of their business and they're smart enough to know it would open them up to lawsuits.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

promise5

See that's where I think it's one thing for them to be involved in the sport is fine. But, if they've been convicted of crimes I mentioned and must register then I don't think they should be instructors and that's something that should be researched before certification. My opinion probably isn't popular but that's fine. I put it here for discussion.

No.. it is not.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=643272;search_string=predator;#643272

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1242690;search_string=predator;#1242690

[promise5 17]

I would think it would be the opposite. Not asking and researching it would more likely open them up to a lawsuit. It's something that's asked in other sports.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[quade 4]

promise5

I would think it would be the opposite. Not asking and researching it would more likely open them up to a lawsuit. It's something that's asked in other sports.

Nope.

Here's a link to the tandem proficiency "card."
http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_TandemProficiencyCard.pdf

You'll notice it doesn't ask a LOT of questions. The entire point is if the guy knows how to be safe on a tandem jump. Nothing beyond that is their business.

Again, the problem would be who is going to check out the person's check box? If, they let somebody slip by (which is almost a 100% inevitability), would they be held accountable?

Let's turn this around just a bit, would YOU be willing to say, in court and with the possibility of a lawsuit hanging over your head, that "Person A" was NOT a threat; was somebody would who isn't going to commit a future crime?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[promise5 17]

Alright then why not just do a mandatory check. I don't know how many they get a month but I don't think checking the registry would take up that much time.

I still see them as having a bigger problem with liability for not checking.
They don't check but certify someone and a crime is committed by that person with a student. You bet that's going to come back and bite them in the butt.
But thankfully I don't think it happened, or if it has I haven't heard about it.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[turtlespeed 212]

promise5

Alright then why not just do a mandatory check. I don't know how many they get a month but I don't think checking the registry would take up that much time.

I still see them as having a bigger problem with liability for not checking.
They don't check but certify someone and a crime is committed by that person with a student. You bet that's going to come back and bite them in the butt.
But thankfully I don't think it happened, or if it has I haven't heard about it.

. . . yet

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wolfriverjoe 1,496]

promise5

I would think it would be the opposite. Not asking and researching it would more likely open them up to a lawsuit. It's something that's asked in other sports.

Bolding mine.

Are those "other sports" ones that involve children?

In most cases, background checks that involve finding out if a person is a registered sex offender are for jobs that involve kids.

And skydiving participants, by BSR, have to be adults.

And there's no differentiation on the registration list for "serious" or "not-so-serious" offenders or offenses.

So the reality is "not going to happen."

And, for the reasons stated above by others, I don't think it should happen.

After all, some of the worst predators have never been caught. (Follow the links Amazon posted).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[promise5 17]

That's really sad and unless they are turned in they will continue.

But, here's the thing. I'm talking about someone that has been convicted of this kind of crime and then is required to register.

No there's not a difference on the list but when checked it would state what the committed crime was and let it go from there. I just don't see allowing someone like this to be certified.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Amazon 7]

wolfriverjoe

***I would think it would be the opposite. Not asking and researching it would more likely open them up to a lawsuit. It's something that's asked in other sports.

Bolding mine.

Are those "other sports" ones that involve children?

In most cases, background checks that involve finding out if a person is a registered sex offender are for jobs that involve kids.

And skydiving participants, by BSR, have to be adults.

And there's no differentiation on the registration list for "serious" or "not-so-serious" offenders or offenses.

So the reality is "not going to happen."

And, for the reasons stated above by others, I don't think it should happen.

After all, some of the worst predators have never been caught. (Follow the links Amazon posted).

Skydiving might be an adult activity but in my experience many of those DZ's are family oriented with lots of kids around.

[wmw999 2,388]

If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[champu 1]

promise5

No there's not a difference on the list but when checked it would state what the committed crime was and let it go from there.

I think this is likely where you'd open yourself up to liability. You can't have an official policy of what constitutes a "minor sex offense" and that's exactly what you'd be doing if you checked the registry and then only denied the application for a selection of specific crimes.

[chutem 0]

What's the chances of a "registered sex offender" getting a class III FAA medical?

[promise5 17]

Not a problem at all getting it. and that's sad.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Andy9o8 2]

chutem

What's the chances of a "registered sex offender" getting a class III FAA medical?

That made me curious. Here are the hits I got from a quick Google search: https://www.google.com/#q=faa+class+III+medical+criminal .... and here's the link for the following hit at the top of the results list: (Note: the bold emphases are mine.)

http://www.leftseat.com/ame993.htm

Quote

III. DISPOSITION

A. General Considerations

It must be pointed out that considerations for safety, which in the "mental" area are related to a compromise of judgment and emotional control or to diminished mental capacity with loss of behavioral control, are not the same as concerns for emotional health in everyday life. Some problems may have only a slight impact on an individual's overall capacities and the quality of life but may nevertheless have a great impact on safety. Conversely, many emotional problems that are of therapeutic and clinical concern have no impact on safety.

The reasons that an applicant has seen a mental health professional needs to be revealed, but may be found not to have significance for medical certification. For instance, growth and adjustment problems requiring psychotherapy are usually not considered significant for safety when there have been no vocational disruptions and medications have not been used. This might include marital counseling or psychotherapy for

Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners | Page 70

identity problems or issues of growth and personal fulfillment. A history of brief situational problems secondary to such life events as marital disruption, business problems, and the death of loved ones may likewise not be significant. Also, sexual behavior that does not reflect upon overall judgment and self-control is not a concern for safety.

B. Denials

The FAA has concluded that certain psychiatric conditions are such that their presence or a past history of their presence is sufficient to suggest a significant potential threat to safety. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Examiner to be aware of any indications of these conditions currently, or in the past, and to deny or defer issuance of the medical certificate to an applicant who has a history of these conditions. An applicant who has a current diagnosis or history of these conditions (listed below) may request the FAA to grant an Authorization under the special issuance section of Part 67 (14 CFR 67.401) and, based upon individual considerations, the FAA may grant such an issuance.

The use of a psychotropic drug is considered disqualifying. This includes all sedatives, tranquilizers, antipsychotic drugs, antidepressant drugs (including SSRI's), analeptics, anxiolytics, and hallucinogens. The Examiner should defer issuance and forward the medical records to the Aeromedical Certification Division, AAM-300.

1. The category of personality disorder severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts refers to diagnosed personality disorders that involve what is called "acting out" behavior. These personality problems relate to poor social judgment, impulsivity, and disregard or antagonism toward authority, especially rules and regulations. A history of long-standing behavioral problems, whether major (criminal) or relatively minor (truancy, military misbehavior, petty criminal and civil indiscretions, and social instability), usually occurs with these disorders. Driving infractions and previous failures to follow aviation regulations are critical examples of these acts.

2. The category of psychosis includes schizophenia and some bipolar and major depression, as well as some other rarer conditions. In addition, some conditions such as schizotypal and borderline personality disorders that include psychotic symptoms at some time in their course may also be disqualifying.

3. A bipolar disorder may not reach the level of psychosis but can be so disruptive of judgment and functioning (especially mania) so as to interfere with aviation safety. All applicants with such a diagnosis must be denied or deferred. However, a number of these applicants, so diagnosed, may be favorably considered for an Authorization when the symptoms do not constitute a threat to safe aviation operations.

Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners | Page 71

4. Certain personality disorders and other mental disorders that include conditions of limited duration and/or widely varying severity may be disqualifying. Under this category, the FAA is especially concerned with significant depressive episodes requiring treatment, even outpatient therapy. If these episodes have been severe enough to cause some disruption of vocational or educational activity, or if they have required medication or involved suicidal ideation, the application should be deferred or denied issuance.

Some personality disorders and situational dysphorias may be considered disqualifying for a limited time. These include such conditions as gross immaturity and some personality disorders not involving or manifested by overt acts.

Although they may be rare in occurrence, severe anxiety problems, especially anxiety and phobias associated with some aspect of flying, are considered significant. Organic mental disorders that cause a cognitive defect, even if the applicant is not psychotic, are considered disqualifying whether they are due to trauma, toxic exposure, or arteriosclerotic or other degenerative changes.

(See Item 18.m. for Nos. 1-4).

5. Substance dependence refers to the use of substances of dependence, which include alcohol and other drugs (i.e., PCP, sedatives and hynoptics, anxiolytics, marijuana, cocaine, opioids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and other psychoactive drugs or chemicals). Substance dependence is defined and specified as a disqualifying medical condition. It is disqualifying unless there is clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance for not less than the preceding 2 years.

Substance dependence is evidenced by one or more of the following: Increased tolerance, manifestation of withdrawal symptoms, impaired control of use, or continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning. Substance dependence is accompanied by various deleterious effects on physical health as well as personal or social functioning. There are many other indicators of substance dependence in the history and physical examination. Treatment for substance dependence-related problems, arrests, including charges of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and vocational or marital disruption related to drugs or alcohol consumption are important indicators. Alcohol on the breath at the time of a routine physical examination should arouse a high index of suspicion. Consumption of drugs or alcohol sufficient to cause liver damage is an indication of the presence of alcoholism.

6. Substance abuse includes the use of the above substances under any one of the following conditions:

a. Use of a substance in the last 2 years in which the use was physically hazardous (e.g., DUI or DWI) if there has been at any other

Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners | Page 72

time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which the use was physically hazardous;

b. If a person has received a verified positive drug test result under an anti-drug program of the Department of Transportation or one of its administrations; or

c. The Federal Air Surgeon finds that an applicant's misuse of a substance makes him or her unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held, or that may reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the applicant unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.

Substance dependence and substance abuse are specified as disqualifying medical conditions.

[wolfriverjoe 1,496]

Amazon

Skydiving might be an adult activity but in my experience many of those DZ's are family oriented with lots of kids around.

Very true. But for the most part the families & other spectators don't interact very much with the staff.

And parents should keep a close eye on their kids at the DZ for a lot of reasons. Safety being one that is far above any potential predators.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[AndyBoyd 0]

wmw999

If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

+1

Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes.

[turtlespeed 212]

AndyBoyd

***If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

+1

Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes.

So . . . that begs the question of whether or not the DZO should be charged as an accomplice, or at least implicated, if the sex offender commits another sex offence.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun