Obese Pilot Pays The Price.....

[Marauder]

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.

Just further commentary on the trucking industry -- since I have a card carrying union trucker brother (all 6'7" 340 lbs. of him). Other than sharing being ugly, we share some genetic conditions that run in our family. In his "medical exam", one of those genetic conditions was made known. In his case, he was seen fit to continue on the road hauling those big rigs. In my case, I had to submit to a battery of tests costing thousands that came to the same conclusion. I'm fit to fly...

So why are the DOT and FAA handling these things differently?

[mooniac15u]

Nope, it doesn't. So then why is the FAA going after fat people?

 

I don't think the FAA is going after fat people per se and this study is not related to the FAA in any way.  There was a comment early in this thread about obesity not being an independent risk factor for heart disease.  Now some new research suggests that it might be.  Nobody said anything about the FAA using this study to justify anything.

 

In terms of sleep apnea (which is what I think you are referring to with respect to the FAA) the correlation with body mass is well established.  Whether or not the FAA is justified in pursuing pilots at risk for sleep apnea is a whole different topic and there's at least one other thread here on Mooneyspace on that topic.

[David Mazer]

 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.

Let's take these on one at a time.

 

First, No, states where the driving age is 18 rather than 16 show dramatically lower accidents among new drivers and far fewer deaths of teenage drivers.  Sixteen year old adolescents aren't just 11% younger than 18 year olds they are far more immature disproportional to their chronological age.  Delaying driving to 18 is just safer for our kids.  A sample size of 8 is entirely irrelevant.

 

I don't really believe your freedom as a parent trumps your child's safety and certainly doesn't trump my family's safety on the road.  As a parent, and I'm one too, one doesn't get that option in my humble opinion.  At some point we feel it is appropriate to allow our children to drive, I submit that there are significant advantages to slightly delaying that time to 18.

 

On what basis do you make your claim, "it is not as high a heart risk factor as most assume"?  The nature of our forum make our opinions appear equal when they may be far from that.  You may be a researcher in the field with years of experience and vast knowledge of the available data or you may just be stating your opinion on another small sample (n = 1). I'm not sure of which.  Mooniac15U has cited a source for rebuttal and been able to show the basis of the study.  Further, based on his source, I'm guessing he is a medical professional.  And, to me, 24% increase in relative risk is significant (although I'd still like to see a p value).  Mooniac15U's study also doesn't demonstrate causality but that is another entire question.  To add to the double standard, I haven't cited sources either but I am a practicing Internist and deal with these issues on a daily basis and you can use that to decide what weight to put on comments.  I can tell you that I have encountered many who feel a physician’s opinion about healthcare and safety issues are of extremely little value (I have a sister who feels that way!).

[RJBrown]

Let's take these on one at a time.

 

First, No, states where the driving age is 18 rather than 16 show dramatically lower accidents among new drivers and far fewer deaths of teenage drivers.  Sixteen year old adolescents aren't just 11% younger than 18 year olds they are far more immature disproportional to their chronological age.  Delaying driving to 18 is just safer for our kids.  A sample size of 8 is entirely irrelevant.

 

I don't really believe your freedom as a parent trumps your child's safety and certainly doesn't trump my family's safety on the road.  As a parent, and I'm one too, one doesn't get that option in my humble opinion.  At some point we feel it is appropriate to allow our children to drive, I submit that there are significant advantages to slightly delaying that time to 18.

 

On what basis do you make your claim, "it is not as high a heart risk factor as most assume"?  The nature of our forum make our opinions appear equal when they may be far from that.  You may be a researcher in the field with years of experience and vast knowledge of the available data or you may just be stating your opinion on another small sample (n = 1). I'm not sure of which.  Mooniac15U has cited a source for rebuttal and been able to show the basis of the study.  Further, based on his source, I'm guessing he is a medical professional.  And, to me, 24% increase in relative risk is significant (although I'd still like to see a p value).  Mooniac15U's study also doesn't demonstrate causality but that is another entire question.  To add to the double standard, I haven't cited sources either but I am a practicing Internist and deal with these issues on a daily basis and you can use that to decide what weight to put on comments.  I can tell you that I have encountered many who feel a physician’s opinion about healthcare and safety issues are of extremely little value (I have a sister who feels that way!).

No state force youth to wait untill 18 to allow a drivers license. So where did your data come from.

South Dakota allows the youngest drivers at 14y3m while New Jersey is last and only state in the nation at 17 years. Generally the states that wait till after 16 are the New England states. Many in that area wait much longer to get to drive by choice. When states are no bigger than counties out here driving is different.

 

My heart attack statement was not was not a claim based on any statistics but a flip observation made to tie back into the title of the thread.

[David Mazer]

NY State grants a license at 18, however a license can be obtained at 17 with some education requirements.  NYC suggests teens wait until they are 18 to drive in the city (I suppose they can't trump state law).  According to Wikipedia, Conecticut is 18 and Washington DC and Maine are 21.  Several other states have numerous restrictions on kids under 21. My mother started driving when she was 13.  She'd shoot me if I mentioned her age but, suffice it to say, there were no licenses required then.  My father, on the other hand, didn't drive until he was 21 (+/-, he isn't around to clarify unfortunately).

 

I'm not sure that distance is as great an issue as other availble modes of transportation and in sparsely populated areas it doesn't make sense to develop mass transit. Rather oxymoronic to create mass transit with no masses, eh.  That must mean it is the government's next big push - a subway stop at every farmhouse.  I'm equal unsure that allowing a 14 yo to charge down country roads at 100 mph (just 15 mph above the highest US speed limit) is safe despite the incovenience.

[RJBrown]

Dave you are misreading Wiki's chart. NY is 16y6m. DC is 16y6m. Maine is 16. Conn is 16y4m.

These states are all in what I consider the "nanny" state contingent. Government should butt out and quit trying to be so OVER protective. Next thing you see some idiot trying to legislate what we can and cannot eat for lunch. I apologies if this crosses the "no politics" line but we need way less of big brother and way more common sense. I believe the vast majority of 16 year olds are responsible enough to drive. The biggest contributor to irresponsibility is the lack of control and discipline in children's lives.
 

[David Mazer]

I don't think I'm miss-reading or misrepresenting the chart.  Those ages are for a restricted license not a full license.  I specifically stated that NY allowed drivers under 18 if they have additional education.  Some of the other states also have education restrictions but some also have pure age limit restrictions.  Chose the column you want but the statistics still show that people that start driving at 18 are way safer than people that start below that.  I agree government is way too intrusive but I also believe that there are reasons to have government restrictions and limitations on children (like no tobacco sales to minors, for example).  Driving age is one I agree with and wish more states would move to 18 as a driving age.  So, we disagree.  I can accept that too.