drugs and flying common in GA?

Actually Dave is very close to something. We do know that there is an "addictive personality" and that their PET scans, when presented with pleasure really light up the basal ganglia of the brain. Folks with this pattern, based on relatively small samples, apparently have higher rates of drug addiction than the general population.

We also know that some of these patterns (not all) are quite different that what you get from your grizzled old 58 y.o. train engineer with a career free of accidents.

The question is, can we select the ones who can contain the "pleasure signal" or if this whole line of $$sive study is not going to pan out.

Very interesting stuff.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
You've been posting with less than a million?
Click to expand...

:lol:

What my point is, is that I have no doubt that this theory has validity. I just don't think its really practical to change anything about the way you fly due to it. I understand the necessity to respect aviation as something that is potentially dangerous; I just think there may be a better way to go about it.
 
bbchien said:
Actually Dave is very close to something. We do know that there is an "addictive personality" and that their PET scans, when presented with pleasure really light up the basal ganglia of the brain. Folks with this pattern, based on relatively small samples, apparently have higher rates of drug addiction than the general population.

We also know that some of these patterns (not all) are quite different that what you get from your grizzled old 58 y.o. train engineer with a career free of accidents.

The question is, can we select the ones who can contain the "pleasure signal" or if this whole line of $$sive study is not going to pan out.

Very interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

The next question is, "Is there a correlation between addiction and accidents?" I know several old timers with a whiskey bottle in their plane for inflight refreshment. One of them is one of the slickest rally pilots I have ever flown with who is always wheels down within a couple of seconds if not exact. He was also an MD/AME and when he'd pull up on the ramp I'd drive the tug out and park the hood under his wing and he'd roll out, slide down the wing and onto the hood where he'd ride in with me. To my knowledge he'd not had an accident in 30,000 hrs. Those who flew in WWII came from an entirely different era with a different mindset.
 
What my point is, is that I have no doubt that this theory has validity. I just don't think its really practical to change anything about the way you fly due to it. I understand the necessity to respect aviation as something that is potentially dangerous; I just think there may be a better way to go about it.
Click to expand...

Which is?

What is your reason for it not being practical to change? Changes in operational procedure when an issue is identified is common in all aspects of aviation except for GA which has a possibly unhealthy affinity for doing things simply because "we've always done it that way".

The next question is, "Is there a correlation between addiction and accidents?" I know several old timers with a whiskey bottle in their plane for inflight refreshment. One of them is one of the slickest rally pilots I have ever flown with who is always wheels down within a couple of seconds if not exact. He was also an MD/AME and when he'd pull up on the ramp I'd drive the tug out and park the hood under his wing and he'd roll out, slide down the wing and onto the hood where he'd ride in with me. To my knowledge he'd not had an accident in 30,000 hrs. Those who flew in WWII came from an entirely different era with a different mindset.
Click to expand...

I know you're bright enough to know the phrase "n=1". Let's look at the difference in the crash rate for say the 1950s (when the WWII pilots were still flying all the time) and the past 10-20 years where swilling booze while flying has become something that will get you reported by almost everyone. I can think of only a couple of cases in the past few years where the pilot was unequivocally drunk as opposed to 1950s or 1960s where it was not unheard of to have a dozen or more boozed up pilots. Your friend was lucky that he did not meet the same end as Paul Mantz.

Then again, the FAA treats practically non-sedating antihistamines and other medication you can drive after taking (in normal doses) as a flight safety risk akin to alcohol so I argue that the "standards" we operate by aren't ground in anything approaching scientifically based reality. This is another reason why the "we've always done it this way" attitude holds aviation back. I have some folks that I respect that work (or have worked) out in OKC but there are some really dense bastards out there that cling to ideas for seemingly nothing more than the sake of tradition. No offense to present company of course Bruce.
 
bbchien said:
Actually Dave is very close to something. We do know that there is an "addictive personality" and that their PET scans, when presented with pleasure really light up the basal ganglia of the brain. Folks with this pattern, based on relatively small samples, apparently have higher rates of drug addiction than the general population.

We also know that some of these patterns (not all) are quite different that what you get from your grizzled old 58 y.o. train engineer with a career free of accidents.

The question is, can we select the ones who can contain the "pleasure signal" or if this whole line of $$sive study is not going to pan out.

Very interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

Yep, concur.

I've studied addiction at some length, been trained on the airline's employee assistance program, busted a few drunk ground employees and saved the jobs of a few.

Nothing is as easy as it looks.
 
We avoid the negative affects of "drugs" by training. Often we are juggling many tasks and training is the only way we get to prioritize them. I am not saying I agree that endorphins are necessarily a distracting factor in the cockpit, but it is possible thus something we should be aware of.
Train like you fight. Fight like you train. There are no laws that say you cannot get a couple of hours with a local CFI outside your flight review.
 
Ok, I think I am hearing that SOME people may have a problem. I can buy that. Never have had an addiction problem with anything, would guess that applies to most people. Generalizing, akin to anthropomorphizing, is just not something I am willing to buy. My dog is not human, all pilots aren't affected by endorphins because they have fun. Maybe some are. So?

I guess when I read the Nall report I don't see drug induced bad decision making. I see poor training, lack of recent experience, poor aircraft handling skills, fatigue, and stupidity. Is some of the stupidity from endorphins? I bet it is a lot smaller percent than the drugs that show up in the post crash blood test and even hypoxia related is a bigger category than endorphin related.
 
I don't have an addiction problem either, I smoke, drink and imbibe in anything presented to me, no problem...:lol:
 
Skydivers ring that bell. They fly just fine and some of the best are on something all the time. I don't think the addictive personalities make inferior pilots, just the ones that suck and are addictive will fly more and hence crash sooner(in calendar time.)
bbchien said:
Actually Dave is very close to something. We do know that there is an "addictive personality" and that their PET scans, when presented with pleasure really light up the basal ganglia of the brain. Folks with this pattern, based on relatively small samples, apparently have higher rates of drug addiction than the general population.

We also know that some of these patterns (not all) are quite different that what you get from your grizzled old 58 y.o. train engineer with a career free of accidents.

The question is, can we select the ones who can contain the "pleasure signal" or if this whole line of $$sive study is not going to pan out.

Very interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
 
ebetancourt said:
Ok, I think I am hearing that SOME people may have a problem. I can buy that. Never have had an addiction problem with anything, would guess that applies to most people. Generalizing, akin to anthropomorphizing, is just not something I am willing to buy. My dog is not human, all pilots aren't affected by endorphins because they have fun. Maybe some are. So?

I guess when I read the Nall report I don't see drug induced bad decision making. I see poor training, lack of recent experience, poor aircraft handling skills, fatigue, and stupidity. Is some of the stupidity from endorphins? I bet it is a lot smaller percent than the drugs that show up in the post crash blood test and even hypoxia related is a bigger category than endorphin related.
Click to expand...

So many factors of aviation safety are a matter of degree. Illicit drug use in flying, is already widely known to be detrimental to flight safety and strongly regulated against. It is a different subject than the effects of synergy between naturally produced endorphins and hypoxia, although related.

As others have mentioned for flight safety, one of the best and well accepted ways to combat both known distractions and more subtle, possibly unknown ones, is for the pilot to get on the procedure checklist by mentally and physically reading it, plus scanning.

The effects, degree, and mechanism of the naturally occurring endorphin/hypoxic synergy, whether initiating from fatigue or other experiences, is just another important item for totally aware PICs to consider in their whole flight picture. It's undesirable effects can be mitigated just as so many other dangers are, by proper procedure.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
So many factors of aviation safety are a matter of degree. SNIP
The effects, degree, and mechanism of the naturally occurring endorphin/hypoxic synergy, whether initiating from fatigue or other experiences, is just another important item for totally aware PICs to consider in their whole flight picture.
Click to expand...

Dave,

I believe you mean well. You are taking a snippet of available research and making a broad, make that incredibly broad, generalization with no science behind it. When I read the Nall report, I believe safety would be well served by improving the BFR and IPC events. But I have no evidence for that. Just like I have no evidence for my belief that the requirements to acquire instructor certification should be increased dramatically. I recently flew with a commercial pilot that couldn't really slip the airplane we were flying (Citabria) and wasn't sure about the difference between a slip and a skid. Or the purpose of a slip. Interpreting the Nall is just that an interpretation and it can be pretty subjective.

Projecting some unproven idea that endorphins rule our minds while flying into a "control your mood while flying lest you generate endorphins and do something stupid," is just not (in my opinion) productive. There is a lot more low hanging fruit we can pick, and improve safety. If you had presented this as a "I wonder if..." I would have had no problem with it. General aviation, and especially the recreational aviation portion, is fighting to survive. This kind of (at best) weakly supported generalization doesn't help. Again, my opinion.

Ernie
 
If the theory holds true shouldnt there be evidence from skydivers and glider pilots on strong days? Both happy undertakings at the hypoxia levels.
 
ebetancourt said:
Dave,

I believe you mean well. You are taking a snippet of available research and making a broad, make that incredibly broad, generalization with no science behind it. When I read the Nall report, I believe safety would be well served by improving the BFR and IPC events. But I have no evidence for that. Just like I have no evidence for my belief that the requirements to acquire instructor certification should be increased dramatically. I recently flew with a commercial pilot that couldn't really slip the airplane we were flying (Citabria) and wasn't sure about the difference between a slip and a skid. Or the purpose of a slip. Interpreting the Nall is just that an interpretation and it can be pretty subjective.

Projecting some unproven idea that endorphins rule our minds while flying into a "control your mood while flying lest you generate endorphins and do something stupid," is just not (in my opinion) productive. There is a lot more low hanging fruit we can pick, and improve safety. If you had presented this as a "I wonder if..." I would have had no problem with it. General aviation, and especially the recreational aviation portion, is fighting to survive. This kind of (at best) weakly supported generalization doesn't help. Again, my opinion.

Ernie
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments, Ernie,

I absolutely advise controlling ones mood while acting as PIC, as does every well experienced pilot I've ever known, on a case by case basis for each flight. Pick any reason you like best why, it's always good practice.

The way some of you guys blow this subtle synergy thing up, you've got me considering buying stock in jet-skis, since their market will rise so much from all the balking wannabes and quitting GA pilots you're concerned about!

Checkout chemical synergy, some of the objective brain scan studies mentioned by Dr Bruce, plus endorphins in general, and let's talk again in a few years when things are known with more certainty by scientific method.

While many CFIs would go along with your suggestion of higher pilot training standards, I do not. Ratings are a place to start pilots at their given rating levels for regulatory purposes. What the pilots do with them to increase, maintain, or let perish their concomitant skills, should remain a personal decision. But that is another subject for another thread.
 
saracelica said:
http://www.aopa.org/newsroom/newsitems/releases/2012/12-4-004.html

In case anyone else wants to read what he requires.
Click to expand...
I think they have the right idea here.

“There is always the discussion about how to teach decision-making and help people make the right choice. The vagaries of human nature make this a really difficult problem to hand to flight schools and universities," said Landsberg. “The airlines depend on a system to avoid high risk where one person is never allowed to make a decision in a vacuum. But this is the essence of personal GA flight, especially among private owners.”
Click to expand...
I will add that the airlines are also very procedural and regimented which might not be such an attractive thing for a "fun" activity even though it does make it safer.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Since private flight training, I learned not to relax too much and enjoy a flight too much until I'm back on the ground. People ask me if I find flying relaxing and my reply is always "Hell no! I will relax when I'm on the ground!"
Click to expand...

Seriously??? I'm surprised you've stayed in aviation long enough to get your CFI.

Dave Krall CFII said:
It is mandatory for all my flight students to look up and study the Nall Report and make substantial comments to me on that year's report, and the summary listed of previous year's averages.
Click to expand...

Again, seriously? Do you make them write a 5000 word essay on it too?
 
In the meantime the lives of CFIs are filled (mandatorily) by the 5P, the DECIDE model, 3P and a ton of other "this far from BS" stuff which acutally contains a grain of truth and needs be taught.
 
1) What does the military have to say on this matter? If anyone has studied the effects of anything that might effect the performance of a pilot's mind during flight, it would be the military.

2) If we are going to start worrying about the effects of naturally ocuring chemicals in the brain, what about the $100 hamburger? It's my understanding that anything you put in your body will cause chemical responses that can effect your brain. If you eat a huge meal at Thanksgiving, what happens afterward? What if that hamburger was huge too? Should we not eat and fly?

At some point, if we are to accept flying can be a fun and enjoyable hobby and not profession, then we have to accept that there will be screw ups. The alternative is to do what Japan does. Don't allow anyone to fly over congested areas or cross country unless you can prove to them you have good reason to do so. GA is dead there and their people are very safe.
 
Wow! First of all I am not sure the concentration of endorphins that are secreted during fun is high enough to affect thinking adversely enough to make a capable pilot an incapable pilot. The causes of accidents are certainly multifactorial and often can be traced to decisions that were made prior to getting into the plane, before the fun begins and thus no "high" endorphin levels. I think many accidents can be attributed to the inherent difficulty that humans have in multitasking, and flying more so than probably any other activity we do requires quite a bit of multitasking. Take a routine flight, add one or two unexpected variables, thus increasing the stress factor, and a small does of epinephrine from the fear factor(which will do a lot more to your thinking processes than endogenous endorphins) and you got a recipe for a less than favorable outcome.

I may be wrong, but in any case I will still continue to use flying as relaxation. When I fly, I think of nothing else but flying and in many ways it resets my mind.

Doug
 
I have a confession to make....in over two thousand hrs logged pic in a Cessna turbo 206 0n amphibs I have never had an episode of "endorphin induced giggles". What am I doing wrong? I wrote to Ann Landers but it seems she has changed address and is not giving advice anymore. Should I contact Dr Phil?
 
bbchien said:
In the meantime the lives of CFIs are filled (mandatorily) by the 5P, the DECIDE model, 3P and a ton of other "this far from BS" stuff which acutally contains a grain of truth and needs be taught.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if they could come up with a better way to teach that grain of truth than to make people memorize a set of acronyms, though. Of course I don't have any bright ideas...
 
chambers said:
I have a confession to make....in over two thousand hrs logged pic in a Cessna turbo 206 0n amphibs I have never had an episode of "endorphin induced giggles". What am I doing wrong? I wrote to Ann Landers but it seems she has changed address and is not giving advice anymore. Should I contact Dr Phil?
Click to expand...
I would contact Dr. Laura or then again there's the doctor with the column in the comic section.
 
Anymouse said:
Seriously??? I'm surprised you've stayed in aviation long enough to get your CFI.



Again, seriously? Do you make them write a 5000 word essay on it too?
Click to expand...

I got the CFI relatively early, not that it really matters. The point of my statement that eludes you and some others is simply, have fun of course but, don't relax TOO much when you're airborne.

No essay required (your idea)! It takes them 15-20 minutes to scan and then we talk about it for ten minutes or so, and every flight student has found it enlightening and useful. It is time WELL spent.

Most CFIs everywhere have always at least said something about various classifications and "causes" of GA accidents to their flight students and so do I, plus a short discussion of the Nall Report. Pretty radical approach.
 
Last edited:
chambers said:
I have a confession to make....in over two thousand hrs logged pic in a Cessna turbo 206 0n amphibs I have never had an episode of "endorphin induced giggles". What am I doing wrong? I wrote to Ann Landers but it seems she has changed address and is not giving advice anymore. Should I contact Dr Phil?
Click to expand...

You may need to switch to something rated for aerobatics. ;)
 
Aren't the endorphins there for a reason, evolutionarily speaking; perhaps increasing and benefiting performance rather than hurting it? You make an assumption that endorphins are equal to impairment of other external mind altering drugs. Is the current I'M SAFE human factor education and training not sufficient? Taking your thesis to its logical conclusion tells me no humans can be fit for flight.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD
 
PeteJE said:
Aren't the endorphins there for a reason, evolutionarily speaking; perhaps increasing and benefiting performance rather than hurting it? You make an assumption that endorphins are equal to impairment of other external mind altering drugs. Is the current I'M SAFE human factor education and training not sufficient? Taking your thesis to its logical conclusion tells me no humans can be fit for flight.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Sure, they perform many intended and beneficial biochemical functions. My primary focus in the initial post was the "subtle synergy" between endorphins AND mild to moderate hypoxia leading to significant, but not always readily obvious impairments of pilots to varying degrees, both mentally and physically. Hypoxia all by itself was long ago proven to be equal to many external mind altering drugs in its detrimental effects to pilots, let alone in the chemical synergy with other possible biochemical influences that I suggest.

The I'M SAFE checklist is a great place to start every flight and I'm all for the procedure.

I had not reached the conclusion that you did, because for one thing, those many pilots that have flown for many years and many thousands of hours safely, then retired, would strongly tend to disprove your conclusion.
 
From a chemical standpoint, how do endorphins metabolize in an O2 deficit body?
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
From a chemical standpoint, how do endorphins metabolize in an O2 deficit body?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly the endorphin metabolism does not require oxygen. I will have to pull out my old neurochemistry texts and check however. If you are really O2 deficient, well then you are dead and the metabolism is pretty much not an issue. There may be a point where the bodies needs for oxygen slow the process down because of lack of ATP, but I would only be guessing .

Doug
 
I might as well toss a few cents into this pond.

1) To the OP, I'm sorry to hear of a fatal accident involving a friend and someone who made a seemingly bizarre and costly mistake. In a plane I guess they were familiar with, and whom had plenty of hours of experience. Not long ago, three well trained professional pilots flew an airliner 36,000 into water and I'm rather sure that they had no problem with endorphin induced euphoria. If anything, they were likely scared spitless all the way down.

2) I'm an engineer by trade but my post grad is Philo. So, while I'm typically a real black and white kind, I have some sense of the shades of gray that come with almost all human endeavor. As a pilot, I guess I've seen both sides of the equation, the cold calculating engineer, and the essence of Magee 'Oh - I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...', and I guess I can realize that we are affected by the wonders of flight, but to the point of a rush of endorphins causing or exacerbating a crash?

3) I've never taught anyone to fly, but I have taught skiing, and gymnastics, and even engineering. I often see a mistake in correlation with causation and I'm guilty of it sometimes as well. While there might be some evidence of an endorphin rush while flying, there is no definitive, or even speculative link to that causing a lack of flying standards. Again, if there is a correlation to flying and endorphin production is not at debate, but if there is an endorphin affect from flying, does that have an effect on our abilities. This has nothing to do with Bruce linking addictive personalities to drug addiction. Most of us can empirically link an addictive personality to drug use or abuse, but to link natural chemical reaction to some loss of skill is a stretch I'm not willing to make.

4) Postulating that there is an endorphin rush while flying, we can turn to the effets of endorphins on our actions. I know for me, and only for me, I feel a heightened sense of awareness, and accuracy when I'm feeling very good. We know about the link to poor pilotage and fatigue, but now were supposed to make a link between pilotage and the opposite of fatigue, but actual pleasure and some excitement? Sorry, not buying. Sure, there's a happy medium, where we are relaxed but alert, and can operate at an optimum, but there isn't any way I can see that being excessively happy, or feeling some pleasure would impair my ability to fly. On the other hand, I've always done my best work when the endorphins are flowing.

5) I'm aware of some studies done on F1 drivers, and other open-wheel racers a while back that linked improved performance with a kind of euphoric 'zone' of skills, where they were 'in tune' perfectly with the track, the car, the competitors, and it all seems to come together allowing them to operate at their highest achievements. Not sure if this would translate well, but it seems to counter the argument from the OP that one can be too happy, or to well adjusted, or too comfortable, or a combination of all three that they would be less than vigilant.

6) I ski fast. I don't mean in powdery tree, chop-chop fast, I mean Rossignol 9S, point the tips down the hill kind of fast. It's very, very rare for people to keep up with me. When I ski fast, I'm excited, I feel the rush, I know the juices are flowing and it all comes together to make me faster. I can see way down the run further, I can feel the conditions of the snow, I can take in obstacles and how to avoid them, I can basically 'do' everything a little better. I noticed this when I used to shoot the back course app as well. Conversely, when I'm just tootling around with the fam, and maybe a little tired, I ski sloppy and that's usually when I look like a doof. So, at least for me, and I think most others the inverse of what the OP is saying would be true. We are honed, or we get 'up' for the challenges of flying. It makes us alert, and active, and critical, and all the things that make for good pilotage.

So, I'm not worried about the endorphin rush at all. I don't count on it to make me a better stick, or that I will be dangerous without it, but I can tell when I'm being critical on landings that I want them to be better, and with that idea in my mind that it will be a great landing, usually it is.
 
docmirror said:
5) I'm aware of some studies done on F1 drivers, and other open-wheel racers a while back that linked improved performance with a kind of euphoric 'zone' of skills, where they were 'in tune' perfectly with the track, the car, the competitors, and it all seems to come together allowing them to operate at their highest achievements. Not sure if this would translate well, but it seems to counter the argument from the OP that one can be too happy, or to well adjusted, or too comfortable, or a combination of all three that they would be less than vigilant.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the docu-movie "Faster" where they discussed hooking several MotoGP racers to monitors to see their psysiological response and found that most have heart-rates consistent with excitement, but Valentino Rossi was steady and slow. It was at this time that he was considered the racer by which all other racers are judged.
 
Do any of the scenarios you list involve the biochemical synergy of adding various levels of hypoxia, to the endorphin effect?

docmirror said:
I might as well toss a few cents into this pond.

1) To the OP, I'm sorry to hear of a fatal accident involving a friend and someone who made a seemingly bizarre and costly mistake. In a plane I guess they were familiar with, and whom had plenty of hours of experience. Not long ago, three well trained professional pilots flew an airliner 36,000 into water and I'm rather sure that they had no problem with endorphin induced euphoria. If anything, they were likely scared spitless all the way down.

2) I'm an engineer by trade but my post grad is Philo. So, while I'm typically a real black and white kind, I have some sense of the shades of gray that come with almost all human endeavor. As a pilot, I guess I've seen both sides of the equation, the cold calculating engineer, and the essence of Magee 'Oh - I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...', and I guess I can realize that we are affected by the wonders of flight, but to the point of a rush of endorphins causing or exacerbating a crash?

3) I've never taught anyone to fly, but I have taught skiing, and gymnastics, and even engineering. I often see a mistake in correlation with causation and I'm guilty of it sometimes as well. While there might be some evidence of an endorphin rush while flying, there is no definitive, or even speculative link to that causing a lack of flying standards. Again, if there is a correlation to flying and endorphin production is not at debate, but if there is an endorphin affect from flying, does that have an effect on our abilities. This has nothing to do with Bruce linking addictive personalities to drug addiction. Most of us can empirically link an addictive personality to drug use or abuse, but to link natural chemical reaction to some loss of skill is a stretch I'm not willing to make.

4) Postulating that there is an endorphin rush while flying, we can turn to the effets of endorphins on our actions. I know for me, and only for me, I feel a heightened sense of awareness, and accuracy when I'm feeling very good. We know about the link to poor pilotage and fatigue, but now were supposed to make a link between pilotage and the opposite of fatigue, but actual pleasure and some excitement? Sorry, not buying. Sure, there's a happy medium, where we are relaxed but alert, and can operate at an optimum, but there isn't any way I can see that being excessively happy, or feeling some pleasure would impair my ability to fly. On the other hand, I've always done my best work when the endorphins are flowing.

5) I'm aware of some studies done on F1 drivers, and other open-wheel racers a while back that linked improved performance with a kind of euphoric 'zone' of skills, where they were 'in tune' perfectly with the track, the car, the competitors, and it all seems to come together allowing them to operate at their highest achievements. Not sure if this would translate well, but it seems to counter the argument from the OP that one can be too happy, or to well adjusted, or too comfortable, or a combination of all three that they would be less than vigilant.

6) I ski fast. I don't mean in powdery tree, chop-chop fast, I mean Rossignol 9S, point the tips down the hill kind of fast. It's very, very rare for people to keep up with me. When I ski fast, I'm excited, I feel the rush, I know the juices are flowing and it all comes together to make me faster. I can see way down the run further, I can feel the conditions of the snow, I can take in obstacles and how to avoid them, I can basically 'do' everything a little better. I noticed this when I used to shoot the back course app as well. Conversely, when I'm just tootling around with the fam, and maybe a little tired, I ski sloppy and that's usually when I look like a doof. So, at least for me, and I think most others the inverse of what the OP is saying would be true. We are honed, or we get 'up' for the challenges of flying. It makes us alert, and active, and critical, and all the things that make for good pilotage.

So, I'm not worried about the endorphin rush at all. I don't count on it to make me a better stick, or that I will be dangerous without it, but I can tell when I'm being critical on landings that I want them to be better, and with that idea in my mind that it will be a great landing, usually it is.
Click to expand...
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Do any of the scenarios you list involve the biochemical synergy of adding various levels of hypoxia, to the endorphin effect?
Click to expand...

Hypoxia as key doesn't matter as low levels of hypoxia are bad enough on their own.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Hypoxia as key doesn't matter as low levels of hypoxia are bad enough on their own.
Click to expand...

Any level of hypoxia is pertinent in this discussion, since it is chemical synergy between it and endorphins that is the subject of the OP. The detrimental effects of hypoxia alone are well known and extensively documented.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Any level of hypoxia is pertinent in this discussion, since it is chemical synergy between it and endorphins that is the subject of the OP. The detrimental effects of hypoxia alone are well known and extensively documented.
Click to expand...

So when your friend was landing on the water, do you think he was suffering from the effects of hypoxia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top