It’s known many employers now check job applicant’s social media accounts for postings that might affect hireability. Might insurance companies be checking the same for pilots? They could be looking for postings of activity they find questionable such as flying to difficult mountain airstrips, sand/gravel bar or other off airport operations. Any thoughts?

It seems like an inordinate amount of work for an insurance policy. But I guess that's one of the risks of putting your life on stage for the public to goggle at.

A friend of mine did background investigations for the sheriff's office, and the very first thing he did during an employment interview was tell people to unlock their public media accounts so he could have a look. Said it saved a lot of wasted time talking to people who weren't going to pass anyway.

People...

neoflyer wrote:Might insurance companies be checking the same for pilots? They could be looking for postings of activity they find questionable such as flying to difficult mountain airstrips, sand/gravel bar or other off airport operations. Any thoughts?

Yes this definitely happens. One insurer declined to quote after seeing off-airport videos posted on YouTube.

So, isn't this a companion thread to 'insurance for older" (than dirt) pilots? Stats from the NTSB seem to say oldsters & back country afficinados both are higher risk insurance pools.

Hammer wrote:It seems like an inordinate amount of work for an insurance policy. But I guess that's one of the risks of putting your life on stage for the public to goggle at.

A friend of mine did background investigations for the sheriff's office, and the very first thing he did during an employment interview as tell people to unlock their public media accounts so he could have a look. Said it saved a lot of wasted time talking to people who weren't going to pass anyway.

People...

I have nothing to hide on social media, but I would never work for an employer who invaded my privacy like that. If I needed a security clearance that's one thing, but what I do after work hours is none of their business.

...but what I do after work hours is none of their business.

I recall a few A&P mechanics that thought this way until they failed their random drug test....

Good luck with that!

hamer wrote:I have nothing to hide on social media, but I would never work for an employer who invaded my privacy like that. If I needed a security clearance that's one thing, but what I do after work hours is none of their business.

Guess you'll never work in law enforcement then. People aren't one way at work and another way off work. You can't give someone that much power and responsibility and only judge them by how they say they'll behave on the clock or how they do in an interview. Just doesn't work.

And LEO background investigations go WAY beyond what someone might put on social media, so checking those first saved a lot of man-hours investigating an applicant who was clearly unsuitable. I'm sure some people refused to open their social media accounts or (more likely) said they couldn't remember their passwords, and they were politely told the interview was over.

That said, I quit working as a wild-land firefighter when they implemented mandatory drug testing. I wasn't doing drugs, but it felt like a draconian overreach from a government I didn't respect for a seasonal job with no benefits, so I understand your perspective.

Getting off topic, but mandatory drug testing is pretty much standard everywhere for any job where people's safety is on the line, and for most corporate jobs. Pretty much a worldwide standard now in developed countries.

Battson wrote:Getting off topic, but mandatory drug testing is pretty much standard everywhere for any job where people's safety is on the line, and for most corporate jobs. Pretty much a worldwide standard now in developed countries.

But the unions have pushed back and made them illegal in some cases. Which drives me up the wall. I don't want to he working with someone under the influence...

Back to topic, I very much appreciate the training value of video from the pilots point of view. I am too old and technology inept to film, but I find CFOT's, Jughead's, Motoadve's and others videos better for training than what I could produce myself. Again thanks. Insurance companies should appreciate actual training. Would they rather everyone learned by trial and error? Yes, in flight instruction is better. Is it mostly going to happen?

My policy specifically allows off-airport operations. As long as I’m not violating any FARs, I don’t understand what they could see that would cause them to drop me — especially on my boring accounts! (“Sir, we see on your Instagram account that you’ve been flying with a Beagle and landing at airports without indoor plumbing. . . .”) When it comes to being bitten by online content, I’d worry more about the FAA than the insurance companies. The FAA gets tips from viewers and, supposedly, is duty-bound to investigate them all.

I can’t imagine what motivates the tipping viewers.

In many cases it would still be possible to find insurance. They will price the insurance in accordance with the risk. If they fine that a person operates within the law and has a higher risk than someone else by the activities the premium will reflect that risk.

If you think about it the insurance that I carry specifically allows off airport activity. Do you really think that they have not thought of the risks this brings and what the words mean in real life?

I do love the videos that people post. It does leave a record of what you were doing. By participating, like I am right now on social media my thoughts and intentions and in some cases what I did is recorded.

However, it seems that at this point in our evolution all we have to do is deny that it happens or say it was a joke and somehow it did not happen.

My point is it behooves us all to think about how we present ourselves to the world. Simply think it's a word to the wise.

Thank you all for your well thought out posts.

However, it seems that at this point in our evolution all we have to do is deny that it happens or say it was a joke and somehow it did not happen.

Yes ! In today's America you CAN whip out your "alternative facts" and all is ok

A1Skinner wrote:

Battson wrote:Getting off topic, but mandatory drug testing is pretty much standard everywhere for any job where people's safety is on the line, and for most corporate jobs. Pretty much a worldwide standard now in developed countries.

But the unions have pushed back and made them illegal in some cases. Which drives me up the wall. I don't want to he working with someone under the influence...

Reminds me of about 25 years ago, I was on a big construction job at Bremerton Navy Yard.
The subject of piss testing came up at a pre-con meeting,
and the general foreman for the drywall outfit said his guys couldn't do it.
He was asked "is that a union thing?"--
no, he said that he just couldn't get enough people that would pass to man the job.
End of discussion.

I always thought that drug testing was kind of BS--
a guy who smoked a joint last weekend wouldn't pass,
but a guy who drinks himself into oblivion every night (usually starting on the drive home from work) would.
I think I'd rather work alongside a weekend pothead than an alky with the DT's.

-0-

In every two or three states away gig I got spraying, the only question on the phone was, "can you be here tomorrow?", or "can you go over there and bring that old Stearman with you tomorrow?"