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

[quade 3]

turtlespeed

Instead of belittling, have a conversation, without condescension, and explain why.

Turtle, buddy, you've got to realize this is pretty hilarious coming from you, of all people; right?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Southern_Man 0]

Coreece

***> I would think that a DZO, who knowingly hired a sex offender, would have one
>hell of a time defending a civil lawsuit brought on by a passenger who claims they
>were harassed or assaulted.

I would think he would have a similar problem with a TI who committed ANY violent crime. (There are worse crimes than sex crimes.)

Not according to the prison justice system when it comes to pedophilia.

It seems that the public also views sexual predators as the bottom feeders of society. They tend to be more skeptical of their capacity to rehabilitate.

pedophilia in particular has an extremely high rate of recidivism. The public's skepticism of their capacity to rehabilitate is back by lots of academic research.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Amazon 7]

Southern_Man

******> I would think that a DZO, who knowingly hired a sex offender, would have one
>hell of a time defending a civil lawsuit brought on by a passenger who claims they
>were harassed or assaulted.

I would think he would have a similar problem with a TI who committed ANY violent crime. (There are worse crimes than sex crimes.)

Not according to the prison justice system when it comes to pedophilia.

It seems that the public also views sexual predators as the bottom feeders of society. They tend to be more skeptical of their capacity to rehabilitate.

pedophilia in particular has an extremely high rate of recidivism. The public's skepticism of their capacity to rehabilitate is back by lots of academic research.

That is why I think that the island of Attu would be a great place for child predators... put them all out there and air drop supplies to them once a month.

[DanG 1]

Quote

pedophilia in particular has an extremely high rate of recidivism. The public's skepticism of their capacity to rehabilitate is back by lots of academic research.

I used to believe that, then I read this article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/14/130114fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all

- Dan G

[Squeak 17]

You need a police clearance to work with minors here in OZ.
You dont get a clearance with a sex offence angainst you.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[billvon 2,381]

>pedophilia in particular has an extremely high rate of recidivism.

Recidivism rates from the Bureau of Justice statistics, 3 year reconviction rate:

Homicide 20.9%
Assault 44.8%
Other violent 33.9%
Robbery 47%
Rape 27.5%
Other sexual 23.3%

So if you have:

a former thief on staff you have a 47% chance he'll be convicted of theft within 3 years of being released (how much are those tandem rigs worth?)

a violent criminal on staff you have a 34-44% chance of him being convicted within 3 years (perhaps of "taking it out to the parking lot" with a student who pissed him off?)

A rapist or other sex offender on staff you have a 23-28% chance of him being re-arrested within 3 years (perhaps due to groping a female student?)

So overall your odds are better with the sex offender. (Although your odds are the best with none of the above.)

[Doug_Davis 0]

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.

You are right. Even Match.com got sued and is finally running every member through the national sex offender registry after losing the law suit.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/04/18/match.rape.lawsuit/

Even the famous actress Gabrielle Union has sued a former employer for "being negligent in providing a safe environment". She won.

There are HUNDREDS of such cases, if one wishes to Google it. Like this one where a hospital hired an employee who was fired from his previous job for inappropriate contact with female patients. The hospital was sued after he raped a paralyzed patient.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2008/08/11/rape-victim-sues-employer-of-attacker/

Andy9o8

but you can see the "slippery slope" argument that comes from it, of course... Should DZOs do general criminal records checks on all their instructors? How about all their employees/contractors. And what prior convictions do and do not get included in the "don't hire" category.

As a business owner with two retail stores and a regional training center I do background checks on every single employee who works for me.
These days if you're an employer/business owner and you dont, you are putting yourself at risk of being stolen from or opening yourself up to potential liability. Its crazy not to.

[quade 3]

Quote

As a business owner with two retail stores and a regional training center I do background checks on every single employee who works for me.
These days if you're an employer/business owner and you dont, you are putting yourself at risk of being stolen from or opening yourself up to potential liability. Its crazy not to.

Agreed. That said, there is a WORLD of difference between issuing a TI certificate, which is what the USPA does and hiring an employee, which is what a DZ does.

What promise5 was suggesting was the USPA/Tandem Examiner/chain be the responsible party as opposed to the DZ itself.

In my view, the responsible party should be the one responsible for the actual hiring.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

AndyBoyd

***Negligence in any form can be raised to criminal with the right attorney. I have a hard time believing that the governing court would be all that forgiving in it's evaluation of what is allowed. Of course this is completely dependent on what the sex offender did.

No, negligence in any form cannot be raised to a criminal offense with the right attorney. Only state, federal, or county appointed prosecutors can instigate criminal charges. You are not a lawyer, and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are flat out wrong. Give it up.

I had read his original comment as, "Negligence in any form can be raised to criminal with the right [district] attorney." and so thought you were being kinda harsh, but given his follow up post I may have been giving him too much credit.

[Doug_Davis 0]

quade

Quote

As a business owner with two retail stores and a regional training center I do background checks on every single employee who works for me.
These days if you're an employer/business owner and you dont, you are putting yourself at risk of being stolen from or opening yourself up to potential liability. Its crazy not to.

Agreed. That said, there is a WORLD of difference between issuing a TI certificate, which is what the USPA does and hiring an employee, which is what a DZ does.

What promise5 was suggesting was the USPA/Tandem Examiner/chain be the responsible party as opposed to the DZ itself.

In my view, the responsible party should be the one responsible for the actual hiring.

Quade,

Yeah I see the difference and for the most part agree with you.

However in comparison what she is advocating isn't unheard of. The American bar association isn't a government entity nor are they typically the employer, but to be admitted to the bar and be employable as an attorney you must meet their standards to include a background check and moral standards.
So in reality other professional organizations have done it and enforced it.
Not that I'm saying the USPA should. I agree its better implemented at the employer level. Of course if the TI in question opens their own DZ.....

[normiss 620]

I'm curious about the "previous felony conviction" box on the Class III medical.
Will the FAA not issue if you are?

Or sometime in the future?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The American bar association isn't a government entity nor are they typically the employer, but to be admitted to the bar and be employable as an attorney you must meet their standards to include a background check and moral standards.

Well, you're close. Standards to be admitted to practice are set by each individual state's governing body. The ABA issues recommended guidelines, standards, codes of conduct, etc. In turn, most (possibly all?) states do voluntarily choose to adopt the ABA recommended standards - sometimes in whole, sometimes in larger part. There is a bit of variance from one state to another, but widespread (albeit voluntary) acceptance of the ABA's guidelines has led to a great deal of standardization nation-wide. And, the applicant's background check is done by each individual state to which s/he seeks admission. So yes, the ABA's guidelines do carry a lot of persuasive weight. But at the end of the day, the ABA itself has no actual governing authority, and technically the ABA's guidelines are recommendations only.

[promise5 17]

normiss

I'm curious about the "previous felony conviction" box on the Class III medical.
Will the FAA not issue if you are?

Or sometime in the future?

Do you need this type of medical in order to get certified as a TI?

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

[normiss 620]

Confusingly, yes.

[promise5 17]

Well then either it doesn't matter or they lie and don't check the box.

so that's kinda useless

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

[quade 3]

normiss

I'm curious about the "previous felony conviction" box on the Class III medical.
Will the FAA not issue if you are?

Or sometime in the future?

That is there almost entirely to catch drug users and drug runners from becoming pilots. It is not a blanket disqualifier.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 620]

What makes you think that?

[quade 3]

normiss

What makes you think that?

10 years of being a flight instructor and a lot of contact with FAA offices.

A felony conviction is not a blanket disqualier to getting a Class III medical.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 620]

Thanks.

Having gone through the new process for my medical, I was left with a LOT of WTF is this? type questions.
I dug through the new process looking for some explanations, and in typical government babble, there don't appear to be any.

I still don't understand the doc's insistence on a tattoo inventory.
Thankfully she stopped when I reached for my zipper.

[quade 3]

Here is what they are specifically concerned with that is obvious, there may be something unobvious the DHS is looking for as well;
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title14-vol2/xml/CFR-2014-title14-vol2-sec65-12.xml

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

normiss

Thanks.

Having gone through the new process for my medical, I was left with a LOT of WTF is this? type questions.
I dug through the new process looking for some explanations, and in typical government babble, there don't appear to be any.

I still don't understand the doc's insistence on a tattoo inventory.
Thankfully she stopped when I reached for my zipper.

Not to delve into the macabre... but the tattoo ID thing might be for post crash identifications of the airman.....

[normiss 620]

But as the TI, you are the PIC, which does make you part of the flight crew?
Right?


I can't believe I'm willingly creating a government protocol brain cramp!

[normiss 620]

Oh I fully understand....but it just continues to highlight the issue of requiring the Class II for TI's in the first place.
Bureaucratic BS.

[promise5 17]

So its required? Then they basically lie about it and that's that.
But I'll say it even though I got a TON of crap for my thoughts.

I still don't think they should be certified and would advocate for them not to be. (I'm prepared to be given even more crap about it now)

But thanks for everyone that's answered and been respectful.

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

[Rick 67]

promise5

So its required? Then they basically lie about it and that's that.

not necessarily. it may not be a dis-qualifier for the FAA

from Quade's post "That is there almost entirely to catch drug users and drug runners from becoming pilots. It is not a blanket disqualifier."

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!