San Diego Will Run Federal Background Checks on All Foreign Aviation Students

By Michael Klazema on 2/18/2014

A new law that will enforce strict federal background checks for foreign aviation students has earned unanimous approval from county supervisors in San Diego. Numerous students receive flying lessons at local airports on a regular basis, and going forward, student pilots that hail from foreign countries will be subject to federal background screenings prior to flying planes in training procedures of any sort. The local law is an extension of a federal mandate that has, since the September 11th attacks, required foreign pilots learning to fly planes on United States soil to undergo thorough background investigations

In fact, it appears that the federal law involving foreign trainee pilot background screenings should have been being enforced in San Diego and elsewhere for some time now. The law mandates that any student pilots who are not citizens be subject to different treatment than trainees with United States citizenship. What sort of background checks United States pilots-to-be are required to complete, if any, is not clear.

What is clear is that the federal laws involving background screenings of pilots in training have been largely ignored since their inception. In 2012, the Government Accounting Office published a report on the pilot background check system, noting that there were "concerning gaps" in the system, and that plenty of aviation schools were still not running background checks of non-citizen students. That news was especially resonant to county supervisors in San Diego, where - according to local publication East County Magazine - 14 private flight schools are based, where 1,200 flight instructors work public airports, and where "at least two of the 9/11 hijackers" lived prior to the attacks.

San Diego county officials were so concerned about the pilot background check oversights that they began drafting an ordinance to correct the issue back in 2012 - around the 11th anniversary of the September 11th tragedies. The ordinance, which was just passed recently, will require aviation schools and flight instructors from around San Diego County to run background checks on all foreign, non-citizen students. Of course, county officials will not be looking over the shoulders of flight instructors to make sure that the background checks are actually happening. However, each school will required to sign forms swearing compliance with the federal government's aviation training laws. In other words, the ordinance is just a measure to remind aviation educators about rules regarding the training of foreign pilots.

The ordinance - and the government legislation it enforces- could be doubly effective if they were expanded to include citizen aviators as well. A background check process looking for criminal history and scanning terrorist watch lists - both screening services offered by - would be a way to improve the safety and security of aviation education. After all, the threats could come from anywhere and could involve citizens and non-citizens alike.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.