My Dad went to show a friend of his the FAA database and that his son is
a pilot. It didn't find me so he called me. I checked and low and
behold it didn't find me. It now even asked me for a state or country
to search! I had requested my address not be displayed very shortly
after getting my license over two years ago and the database just always
said something like "address not available".

So this morning I use the link to send a question to airmen services.
And in less than 4 hours get a response that I have a PPSEL that was
issued on XX/XX/XX and on XX/XX/XX they received notice that I didn't
want my address made available to the public and my information would
not longer be available to the public. What amazed me is that I'm
removed from public view in the database. What was even more amazing
was getting a response from the FAA in a matter of hours!

Chris

Chris Ehlbeck wrote:
> My Dad went to show a friend of his the FAA database and that his son is
> a pilot. It didn't find me so he called me.

No, it means that the FAA is finally complying with the LAW!

A few years back the FAA came to the realization that they
were in flagrant violation of the Privacy Act in making
the airman information public. They immediately took
the database down. This was immediately followed by
a bunch of whining and crying from commercial interests
who looked to exploit the data in exact ways that the
privacy act was designed to prevent.

Congress passed an exemption to the Privacy Act that said
that the data may be made public provided pilots were
given the chance to opt out. However, for several years
the FAA chose to misimplement this as only making the
mailing address unavailable. This is CONTRARY to the
LAW. The LAW and the legislative history that led up
to it was clear. A pilot could request ALL data to be
removed from public view.

I have been fighting this battle up the FAA heirarchy
and even enlisted my US Senators. Finally, I think
someone realized that it is a bad idea in the name of
national security and the ever growing problems with
identity theft to not implement it the right way.
Since they only really have one field for "releasability"
it looks like that has gone from just being the "no
address given out" to the "no records given out.

I am no longer listed. The public has no business
knowing what ratings I have, when my medical expires,
and the nature of any restrictions to my medical
certificate (this I found particularly annoying for
the several years that I was operating under a special
issuance).

Ron Natalie > wrote:
> The public has no business knowing what ratings I have

I'm not sure I agree with you. Let's say I want to hire you as a pilot.
Should I not have the right to verify your credentials?

If you want to hire me as a limo driver, I have to request a copy of my
driving from the RMV. You also need my permission to do a criminal
background check or credit check on me. It should work the same way for
pilots.
"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> The public has no business knowing what ratings I have
>
> I'm not sure I agree with you. Let's say I want to hire you as a pilot.
> Should I not have the right to verify your credentials?

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm not sure I agree with you. Let's say I want to hire you as a pilot.
>> Should I not have the right to verify your credentials?
>
> If you want to hire me as a limo driver, I have to request a copy of my
> driving from the RMV. You also need my permission to do a criminal
> background check or credit check on me. It should work the same way for
> pilots.

Exactly. Someone seeking employment has the right to have any party
disclose any records they may have about that person. The point is that the
party should not be disclosing that information without the express
permission of the person.

Pete

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > If you want to hire me as a limo driver, I have to request a copy of my
> > driving from the RMV. You also need my permission to do a criminal
> > background check or credit check on me. It should work the same way for
> > pilots.
>
> Exactly. Someone seeking employment has the right to have any party
> disclose any records they may have about that person. The point is that the
> party should not be disclosing that information without the express
> permission of the person.

any relevant records, not any records.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Ron Natalie wrote:
> I am no longer listed. The public has no business
> knowing what ratings I have, when my medical expires,
> and the nature of any restrictions to my medical
> certificate

hey! neither am I; cool! do you know when they
made the switch?

--Sylvain

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...
>>> I'm not sure I agree with you. Let's say I want to hire you as a pilot.
>>> Should I not have the right to verify your credentials?
>>
>> If you want to hire me as a limo driver, I have to request a copy of my driving from the RMV. You also need my
>> permission to do a criminal background check or credit check on me. It should work the same way for pilots.
>
> Exactly. Someone seeking employment has the right to have any party disclose any records they may have about that
> person. The point is that the party should not be disclosing that information without the express permission of the
> person.
>
> Pete

Permission in implied by the act of applying for the job, or the offering of services, etc...

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
news:ZTDdg.85116
> Permission in implied by the act of applying for the job, or the offering
> of services, etc...
>

No it's not. Most state and federal regulations require explicit permission
for protected information.

Sylvain wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> I am no longer listed. The public has no business
>> knowing what ratings I have, when my medical expires,
>> and the nature of any restrictions to my medical
>> certificate
>
> hey! neither am I; cool! do you know when they
> made the switch?

Nearly 4 years ago I disappeared from the "airmen" database. After many
phone calls to my AME who had retired and to the FAA the trouble was the
FAA had lost the record of my medical examination. I had the doc
resubmit and a few months later (!) all was fine.

> No, it means that the FAA is finally complying with the LAW!

Entry in the FAA database is voluntary. You can opt out if you wish.
Gees, I think its kinda cool. Are you running from someone? Worried
about back child support? ;)

-Roberts

I just noticed my dad is missing now. He's been dead for 20 years now
but it was cool to see him in there. I think its because you now need
to specify a state or country, neither which are in his records
anymore.

-Robert

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. com...
> Permission in implied by the act of applying for the job, or the offering
> of services, etc...

As Gig says, permission is not implied. Nor should it be. It's reasonable
for a prospective employer to make disclosure of such documents a prequisite
for hiring, but the employer needs to be explicit about that requirement,
and the applicant needs to be explicit about giving permission.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> Exactly. Someone seeking employment has the right to have any party
>> disclose any records they may have about that person. The point is that
>> the
>> party should not be disclosing that information without the express
>> permission of the person.
>
> any relevant records, not any records.

While I agree that the disclosure should be limited to "relevant" records,
that's just not how it works. The person asking for the documents gets to
decide what's "relevant", and the person about whom the documents pertain
gets to decide whether to release the documents or not. At no point is
actual relevance a determining factor.

Pete

Roy Smith wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> The public has no business knowing what ratings I have
>
> I'm not sure I agree with you. Let's say I want to hire you as a pilot.
> Should I not have the right to verify your credentials?

Then if they feel that is necessary, they should do so within the
law. They can't just violate the law because the feel that they
have a good reason to do otherwise.

In fact, there exist ways for commercial certificate holders to
check up on the status of employees through the FAA without using
the public database. Further, I wouldn't ever hire anybody
without actually seeing the paper anyhow.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> No, it means that the FAA is finally complying with the LAW!
>
> Entry in the FAA database is voluntary. You can opt out if you wish.
> Gees, I think its kinda cool. Are you running from someone? Worried
> about back child support? ;)
>
> -Roberts
>
No it wasn't voluntary up until of late. I have been beating on
the FAA since 2001 to get me out of the public database. I've
already indicated my reasons smart ass.

> No it wasn't voluntary up until of late. I have been beating on
> the FAA since 2001 to get me out of the public database. I've
> already indicated my reasons smart ass.

You must not be in the club. The FAA asked me about 4 years ago if I
wanted out of the public database. They sent me a letter saying all I
needed to do was to send the reply card to opt out. I know several
people who did.

-Robert

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Permission in implied by the act of applying for the job, or the offering of services, etc...
>
> As Gig says, permission is not implied. Nor should it be. It's reasonable for a prospective employer to make
> disclosure of such documents a prequisite for hiring, but the employer needs to be explicit about that requirement,
> and the applicant needs to be explicit about giving permission.
>

The permission is usually in the form of the applicant's signature on the application form with all the fine print....

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> >> Exactly. Someone seeking employment has the right to have any party
> >> disclose any records they may have about that person. The point is that
> >> the
> >> party should not be disclosing that information without the express
> >> permission of the person.
> >
> > any relevant records, not any records.
>
> While I agree that the disclosure should be limited to "relevant" records,
> that's just not how it works. The person asking for the documents gets to
> decide what's "relevant", and the person about whom the documents pertain
> gets to decide whether to release the documents or not. At no point is
> actual relevance a determining factor.

How it works in practice (or the abuse that occurs) does not change that the
right to records is limited to those rights that are relevant.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

> Nearly 4 years ago I disappeared from the "airmen" database. After many
> phone calls to my AME who had retired and to the FAA the trouble was the
> FAA had lost the record of my medical examination. I had the doc resubmit
> and a few months later (!) all was fine.

Same exact thing happened to me. Were it not for that FAA database, I might
NEVER have discovered the problem.

Honestly, why are you guys so worried about being in one of the most obscure
databases in cyberspace? Why would you care if you're listed? As a new
pilot, it was a "Red Badge of Courage" to see my name in that list; now,
it's just something I check from time to time, just to make sure my doctor's
silly clerk has actually mailed the damned paperwork.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> How it works in practice (or the abuse that occurs) does not change that
> the
> right to records is limited to those rights that are relevant.

The right to records is NOT limited to those rights that are relevant. The
only limitation is what the person to whom the records refer permits.

I can disclose my full medical history to my auto mechanic if I want. The
fact that those records are irrelevant to them fixing my car matters not one
bit. It's still legal for them to ask, and legal for me to agree to it.

A smart person won't allow disclosure of irrelevant records, but there's no
legal requirement for them to limit disclosure to relevant records.

Pete

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. net...
> The permission is usually in the form of the applicant's signature on the
> application form with all the fine print....

That's right. The fine print grants explicit permission, not implicit (as
you claimed).

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Honestly, why are you guys so worried about being in one of the most
> obscure databases in cyberspace?

there is nothing obscure in cyberspace.

you might want to have a look at the following video to get an idea
of what some of us worry about:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

we are not quite there yet, but I reckon, we'll be there before
the current administration complete their third term(*)

--Sylvain

(*) I know about the 22nd amendment of the constitution, but I wonder
why it should hold any longer than the 4th (the thing about unreasonable
searches) or 5th (the thing about due process) which have gone the way of
the dodo already

On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:29:19 -0400, Stubby
> wrote:

>Nearly 4 years ago I disappeared from the "airmen" database. After many
>phone calls to my AME who had retired and to the FAA the trouble was the
>FAA had lost the record of my medical examination. I had the doc
>resubmit and a few months later (!) all was fine.

Hm. So it does appear that the database serves a valid purpose!




-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Sat, 27 May 2006 03:37:02 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Honestly, why are you guys so worried about being in one of the most obscure
>databases in cyberspace? Why would you care if you're listed? As a new
>pilot, it was a "Red Badge of Courage" to see my name in that list; now,
>it's just something I check from time to time, just to make sure my doctor's
>silly clerk has actually mailed the damned paperwork.

My feelings exactly.

As a matter of fact, one of the downsides I see to seguing into a
recreational certificate this fall is that my listing on the database
will then say: NO CURRENT MEDICAL, just as it does with Dubya Bush.

Omigosh! Dubya isn't listed any longer!

It used to be no current medical, current address unknown.... I guess
they shook out the unknown addresses as well as delisting the opt-out
ones.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Sylvain wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>Honestly, why are you guys so worried about being in one of the most
>>obscure databases in cyberspace?
>
>
> there is nothing obscure in cyberspace.
>
> you might want to have a look at the following video to get an idea
> of what some of us worry about:
>
> http://www.aclu.org/pizza/
>
> we are not quite there yet, but I reckon, we'll be there before
> the current administration complete their third term(*)

Except that the ACLU is about the only organization I trust less than
the government. They continuously oppose my most basic right of
self-protection. That is hardly a group supporting liberty. Oh, I
forgot, that the L now stands for Liberal...


Matt

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> No it wasn't voluntary up until of late. I have been beating on
>> the FAA since 2001 to get me out of the public database. I've
>> already indicated my reasons smart ass.
>
> You must not be in the club. The FAA asked me about 4 years ago if I
> wanted out of the public database. They sent me a letter saying all I
> needed to do was to send the reply card to opt out. I know several
> people who did.
>
I did, and all they did was delete my mailing address.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Except that the ACLU is about the only organization I trust less than
> the government.

I have some problems with the ACLU myself (for instance the fact that
they want me, and people like me, i.e., people with disabilities,
dead -- which is a bit of a snag you might agree); but this video
is worth watching nonetheless;

--Sylvain

> you might want to have a look at the following video to get an idea
> of what some of us worry about:
>
> http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

Now THAT is hilarious. And well done.

I do find it pretty sadly ironic that all the computerized/automated
stuff we all dreamed of in the 1960s is perceived by a small (but
vocal) minority who believe them to be threat to our privacy.

Personally, I am happy when my pizza delivery place knows who I am --
it saves time and hassle. However, I really don't like it much when
the video place knows that we returned our last movie late, and that we
owe a $2 late fee -- but, hey, that goes with the territory.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I do find it pretty sadly ironic that all the computerized/automated
> stuff we all dreamed of in the 1960s is perceived by a small (but
> vocal) minority who believe them to be threat to our privacy.

It's only a "small minority" because the number of people who actually stop
to think about the issue (or any issue, for that matter) is small. The main
reason most people don't care is because they have much more immediate
issues to deal with, such as putting food on the table.

That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate issue.

> Personally, I am happy when my pizza delivery place knows who I am --
> it saves time and hassle. However, I really don't like it much when
> the video place knows that we returned our last movie late, and that we
> owe a $2 late fee -- but, hey, that goes with the territory.

I don't think it's inappropriate for any retailer to maintain records like
that. As you say, it can greatly enhance convenience, and in many cases
allows the retailer to serve you better.

The problem is that the use of the data doesn't stop there. It can be used
by the retailer in less-than-honorable ways, including selling the data to
third party who aggregrates a lot of seemingly unrelated information and
discovers new and irritating ways to take advantage of it (and you). There
does need to be legal standards about how information collected about you
can be used.

One of the biggest problems is that those third parties who aggregate the
information are a lot better at marketing their efforts than making them
accurate. Unfortunately, a lot of other third parties, from government
officials to investigators to legal staff to businesses, believe the
information to be much more reliable than it is. The databases have lots of
errors in them, and they presume to have an accurate record of your life
when in fact they often don't. Pity the poor person who as a result of
inaccurate and negative information in these big databases winds up being
deprived of something they need, or perhaps even arrested.

Of course (to bring this back to aviation), the TSA has avoided all of these
issues by relying on just a name. After all, a person's name is unique,
right? It makes perfect sense to deny boarding or otherwise subject a
person to increased scrutiny and invasive searches if their name shows up on
a list provided by other government officials. And I'm sure that a name
never shows up on that list as a result of data that's been aggregated by
all those innocent sources you're referring to.

Right?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> Of course (to bring this back to aviation), the TSA has avoided all of
> these issues by relying on just a name. After all, a person's name is
> unique, right? It makes perfect sense to deny boarding or otherwise
> subject a person to increased scrutiny and invasive searches if their name
> shows up on a list provided by other government officials. And I'm sure
> that a name never shows up on that list as a result of data that's been
> aggregated by all those innocent sources you're referring to.
>
> Right?

I wish. My name is on some kind of list, that will not allow me to get self
check in boarding passes. I have to go through the agent.

To get off the list, I have to fill out a form, and have notarized copies of
my birth certificate, driver's license, and a couple other things I can't
remember right now.

PITA, if you ask me.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>> [...] And I'm sure that a name never shows up on that list as a result
>> of data that's been aggregated by all those innocent sources you're
>> referring to.
>>
>> Right?
>
> I wish.

I was being sarcastic, in case you couldn't tell.

Your situation is a perfect example of why the American public should *very*
cautious about how they allow people, including the government, to
accumulate personal data and use it.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
> . net...
>> The permission is usually in the form of the applicant's signature on the application form with all the fine
>> print....
>
> That's right. The fine print grants explicit permission, not implicit (as you claimed).
>

Sounds good to me.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> I do find it pretty sadly ironic that all the computerized/automated
>> stuff we all dreamed of in the 1960s is perceived by a small (but
>> vocal) minority who believe them to be threat to our privacy.
>
> It's only a "small minority" because the number of people who actually stop to think about the issue (or any issue,
> for that matter) is small. The main reason most people don't care is because they have much more immediate issues to
> deal with, such as putting food on the table.
>
> That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate issue.
>
....snip...
>
> Right?
>
> Pete
>

The biggest problem from my point of view is that more folks know and care about who the Amerikan Idol is!

Steve Foley wrote:
> If you want to hire me as a limo driver, I have to request a copy of my
> driving from the RMV. You also need my permission to do a criminal
> background check or credit check on me. It should work the same way for
> pilots.

Ok but what or who is "the RMV?"

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Chris Ehlbeck wrote:
>> My Dad went to show a friend of his the FAA database and that his son
>> is a pilot. It didn't find me so he called me.
>
> No, it means that the FAA is finally complying with the LAW!
>
> I am no longer listed. The public has no business
> knowing what ratings I have, when my medical expires,
> and the nature of any restrictions to my medical
> certificate (this I found particularly annoying for
> the several years that I was operating under a special
> issuance).

When was the last time you looked?
I just did a query and found Ronald Bruce Natalie, Jr.
I also seemed to remember in years past you mentioned being an amateur
radio operator, went to a call sign database and had no trouble finding
an address. You have more to worry about than just the FAA.

Kris

Kris Kortokrax wrote:

> When was the last time you looked?
> I just did a query and found Ronald Bruce Natalie, Jr.
> I also seemed to remember in years past you mentioned being an amateur
> radio operator, went to a call sign database and had no trouble finding
> an address. You have more to worry about than just the FAA.
>
>
The address was not the part I was concerned about. As a matter
of fact if you look me up in the phone book or in the FAA database
by my plane's N number you'll find it.

I find it particularly objectionable to have details of my medical
status available for the world to exploit.