Jump to content

Obese Pilot Pays The Price.....

fantom

By fantom
in Miscellaneous Aviation Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

carusoam Grand Master

carusoam

Posted
Posted

Be aware that a heart attack can come at any weight or any age...

You can be a non-smoking, married, IR pilot, jogging a couple miles, a few times per week...

Cholesterol can coat the arteries and then get released, leading to a fatal blockage.

This may not happen to everyone. Having your cholesterol checked, is a good idea.

Where you have your heart attack and the people you meet on your way to the hospital may be key to your immediate future.

Reviewing family history can be helpful.... If your grandfather had a heart attack in his 40s, you may bring this up with your doctor.

I have limited experience in this area(n=1, statistically speaking). But it has become a point for me to share the detail that some people may be unaware of.

Now back to the gear.... Was it up or down???

Best regards,

-a-

fantom Grand Master

fantom

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Where did it say he was obese?
Interview with one of the two MD's who gave the 300+ pound pilot CPR in the first class area.
Joe Zuffoletto Mentor

Joe Zuffoletto

Posted
Posted

I like the way the photo in the Guardian news story shows an Airbus A319 and calls it a 737.

 

RIP to the pilot. And carusoam is absolutely right... it can happen at any weight, age, etc. One of my college classmates was a triathlete his entire adult life, with less than 10% body fat. He died of a heart attack in his sleep at age 38.

N201MKTurbo Grand Master

N201MKTurbo

Posted
Posted

I used to compete in the esoteric sport of inline speed skating. There was a man in our club who could skate a marathon in 1:20. He was as fit as they come. We were training one day and when we got to the top of this hill, Randy says he is feeling real bad, couldn't hardly breath. We tried to skate back to the cars (about 5 miles) and he said he could not make it! A couple of us sprinted back to the cars and came back to get him. We took him back to his truck and he drove home. When He got home his wife took him to the hospital and sure enough he was having a heart attack. He was in the hospital for a week. He is OK now but he hasn't skated sense.

 

Now maybe if he wasn't in as good a shape as he was he might have dropped dead right there. Nobody will ever know.

 

Within the next month about half of the club went and had their hearts checked out, including me.

David Mazer Mentor

David Mazer

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know his age?  There are many risk factors for heart disease but weight isn't one of them in and of itself (surprisingly).  I'm not advocating obesity or saying being over weight doesn't have health consequence but, with heart disease, it isn't an independent risk factor.  A fatal heart attack is more likely for people having a heart attack at a relatively young age since the blockage occurs suddenly and doesn't give the body time to build additional little arteries, called collaterals, as it does when the blockages develop slowly.  This sounds like the classic "widow maker" lesion blocking one of the main arteries of the heart called the left anterior descending artery that supplies blood to the left ventricle.

 

Just to raise the interest (ire) of our members, I for one am against the physical exam requirements for pilots.  Statistically speaking, the second pilot requirement is far more important and there is no statistical evidence of which I am aware that a physical exam requiement has ever prevented an incident or accident.  The most recent study after 7 years of a driver's license requirement (sport pilots, a group with a theoretical higher risk for medical events) has not resulted in a single health related event.

  • Like 2
Marauder Grand Master

Marauder

Posted
Posted
Does anyone know his age? There are many risk factors for heart disease but weight isn't one of them in and of itself (surprisingly). I'm not advocating obesity or saying being over weight doesn't have health consequence but, with heart disease, it isn't an independent risk factor. A fatal heart attack is more likely for people having a heart attack at a relatively young age since the blockage occurs suddenly and doesn't give the body time to build additional little arteries, called collaterals, as it does when the blockages develop slowly. This sounds like the classic "widow maker" lesion blocking one of the main arteries of the heart called the left anterior descending artery that supplies blood to the left ventricle. Just to raise the interest (ire) of our members, I for one am against the physical exam requirements for pilots. Statistically speaking, the second pilot requirement is far more important and there is no statistical evidence of which I am aware that a physical exam requiement has ever prevented an incident or accident. The most recent study after 7 years of a driver's license requirement (sport pilots, a group with a theoretical higher risk for medical events) has not resulted in a single health related event.
Agreed, you are more likely to get run over by a octogenarian who squeaked by the driver's eye exam because Betty at the DMV felt sorry for them.
David Mazer Mentor

David Mazer

Posted
Posted

Well, it turns out that you are more likely to be in an accident with a teenager between the ages of 16-18 then an octogenarian.  With all the complaints about old drivers, they are still safer than teenagers.  I also don’t believe we should limit these old (as opposed to older like me they are just plain old) drivers until we raise the legal age to drive to 18. Those damn statistics can be so irritating.

  • 2 months later...
mooniac15u Veteran

mooniac15u

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know his age? There are many risk factors for heart disease but weight isn't one of them in and of itself (surprisingly). I'm not advocating obesity or saying being over weight doesn't have health consequence but, with heart disease, it isn't an independent risk factor. A fatal heart attack is more likely for people having a heart attack at a relatively young age since the blockage occurs suddenly and doesn't give the body time to build additional little arteries, called collaterals, as it does when the blockages develop slowly. This sounds like the classic "widow maker" lesion blocking one of the main arteries of the heart called the left anterior descending artery that supplies blood to the left ventricle.

Just to raise the interest (ire) of our members, I for one am against the physical exam requirements for pilots. Statistically speaking, the second pilot requirement is far more important and there is no statistical evidence of which I am aware that a physical exam requiement has ever prevented an incident or accident. The most recent study after 7 years of a driver's license requirement (sport pilots, a group with a theoretical higher risk for medical events) has not resulted in a single health related event.

Some new research suggests that obesity may be a bigger independent risk factor than previously thought. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/815277

Jamie Rising Star

Jamie

Posted
Posted

No, but it reaffirms the whole "lose weight, lift weight" thing.

 

Flying is not a physically demanding sport, but there are some tasks that require strength (hangar door, moving plane), and I find I'm more alert and mentally capable now that I'm in better shape.

 

Getting in and out is much easier now that I'm thinner. I took a "normal" american (no worries... no pictures) for a ride recently and watched how much harder it was for them.

David Mazer Mentor

David Mazer

Posted
Posted

Sorry, my access to some of these things is so seamless that I forget they require subscriptions. Here's a summary from a mainstream media source: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/12/02/healthy-obesity-is-a-myth-report-says

 

Thanks.  Any information about the validity of the study?  For example, do you know the p value or the power?  It is hard for me to gauge the validity of thiese from the mainstream reports.  They always leave out the important details as far as I'm concerned.

RJBrown Mentor

RJBrown

Posted
Posted

Well, it turns out that you are more likely to be in an accident with a teenager between the ages of 16-18 then an octogenarian.  With all the complaints about old drivers, they are still safer than teenagers.  I also don’t believe we should limit these old (as opposed to older like me they are just plain old) drivers until we raise the legal age to drive to 18. Those damn statistics can be so irritating.

 At some point teenagers must be allowed to drive. Inexperience is what happens at first. You seem to want to delay that period of inexperience until later. When the "new" inexperienced 18 year old does as bad as the old inexperienced 16 year old do we raise it to 21?

 My son in law complained just yesterday about the older first time drivers in Florida.  Non drivers who just moved down from New York or immigrants from further south all performing poorly as first time drivers.

 How about the experience of my sister and her many children in South Dakota. I know 8 is a small sample statistically but they all received driving privileges at age 14 without dangerous result. Getting experience Before a child turns into a raging teenager may make that teenager a safer driver.

 

 As a parent the freedom felt when the kid can finally drive themselves and their siblings is not to be trifled with.

 

As to heart attacks my "fittest" uncle died in his 50s of a heart attack sitting and resting on a bench after a tennis match. Obesity is an enormous health risk and should not be discounted but it is not as high a heart risk factor as most assume.

mooniac15u Veteran

mooniac15u

Posted
Posted

 

 How about the experience of my sister and her many children in South Dakota. I know 8 is a small sample statistically but they all received driving privileges at age 14 without dangerous result.

 

There's not much traffic in South Dakota so it's a pretty low-stress place to learn.  I got a learner's permit at 14 in Iowa, and like South Dakota, the traffic was almost non-existant.  It's an entirely different story in any large metro area.

mooniac15u Veteran

mooniac15u

Posted
Posted

Thanks.  Any information about the validity of the study?  For example, do you know the p value or the power?  It is hard for me to gauge the validity of thiese from the mainstream reports.  They always leave out the important details as far as I'm concerned.

 

It's a meta-analysis but it looks pretty solid as far as that type of study goes.  It is in a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal (Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(11):758-769. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-11-201312030-00008).

 

Here's the data summary from the abstract:

 

"Data Synthesis: Eight studies (n = 61 386; 3988 events) evaluated participants for all-cause mortality and/or cardiovascular events. Metabolically healthy obese individuals (relative risk [RR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.55) had increased risk for events compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight individuals when only studies with 10 or more years of follow-up were considered. All metabolically unhealthy groups had a similarly elevated risk: normal weight (RR, 3.14; CI, 2.36 to 3.93), overweight (RR, 2.70; CI, 2.08 to 3.30), and obese (RR, 2.65; CI, 2.18 to 3.12)."

Marauder Grand Master

Marauder

Posted
Posted

It's a meta-analysis but it looks pretty solid as far as that type of study goes.  It is in a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal (Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(11):758-769. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-11-201312030-00008).

 

Here's the data summary from the abstract:

 

"Data Synthesis: Eight studies (n = 61 386; 3988 events) evaluated participants for all-cause mortality and/or cardiovascular events. Metabolically healthy obese individuals (relative risk [RR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.55) had increased risk for events compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight individuals when only studies with 10 or more years of follow-up were considered. All metabolically unhealthy groups had a similarly elevated risk: normal weight (RR, 3.14; CI, 2.36 to 3.93), overweight (RR, 2.70; CI, 2.08 to 3.30), and obese (RR, 2.65; CI, 2.18 to 3.12)."

 

Translation: If you are fat, the FAA wants you to submit to additional testing! What amazes me is that a really fat truck driver who doesn't have Type 2, can get his 400+ pound arse in a truck carrying 70,000 pounds and drive down the highway, pass school bus loaded with kids on a field trip and do so without additional tests. 

 

Don't get me wrong, if you fly for hire, I can see the need.

fantom Grand Master

fantom

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Don't get me wrong, if you fly for hire, I can see the need.

 

Are you really a pilot, and stop hugging me!

 

tumblr_l7c6l2xNxb1qc823io1_500.jpg

  • Like 2
mooniac15u Veteran

mooniac15u

Posted
Posted

Translation: If you are fat, the FAA wants you to submit to additional testing! What amazes me is that a really fat truck driver who doesn't have Type 2, can get his 400+ pound arse in a truck carrying 70,000 pounds and drive down the highway, pass school bus loaded with kids on a field trip and do so without additional tests. 

 

Don't get me wrong, if you fly for hire, I can see the need.

 

This particular study doesn't draw any conclusions about sleep apnea. 

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.