Halliday Tox report

Lachlan said:
What's the point, then? If you're not going to restrain your risk-taking just enough to live through it, then wouldn't it be considered suicide? Living fully may rank high, but dying fully means there's no more living at all.
Click to expand...
I do restrain my risk taking - just don't want to restrain other's. Sure, some limits, like not walking your pet tiger at the mall. But low flying and steep turns over open water, with a possible buzz on? Not for me, but I'm all for you making your own call. I doubt suicide was his intent - just coming a bit closer to it than most of us would be comfortable with.
 
Drugs can absolutely affect an accident situation, but IMO, this is not an example of that.
 
Sundancer said:
As in, it was part and parcel of the calls he made, the choices he made. Absent some unusual circumstance, likely he knew what he'd put in his body, likely had some concept of the effects. Not arguing, pro or con, on the chemical effects on his judgement - I do like he was mostly free to do so, whether the rest (or majority) of us approve.
Click to expand...
By your ‘logic’ drunk driving is fine. Turn it around and ask if he would have crashed if he hadn’t ingested the chems.
 
James331 said:
For the baseball player, apparently not, as he'd been quoted many times and seen in a few interviews saying he liked to fly low and fast "like a fighter pilot" which is also how ICON markets their planes and likely conducts their inhouse training for new inexperienced buyers, flying low and fast, that's exactly what he was doing when he crashed.

Stoned, sober, it's really just a rounding error when your default style of flying is best described as "full retard".
Click to expand...
Well it's good to know that you've figured everything out. You should notify the NTSB of your findings post-haste, save them the time and effort of an investigation.
 
James331 said:
For the baseball player, apparently not, as he'd been quoted many times and seen in a few interviews saying he liked to fly low and fast "like a fighter pilot" which is also how ICON markets their planes and likely conducts their inhouse training for new inexperienced buyers, flying low and fast, that's exactly what he was doing when he crashed.

Stoned, sober, it's really just a rounding error when your default style of flying is best described as "full retard".
Click to expand...
The same could be said about any drunk or druggie that kills someone in a car.
 
mryan75 said:
Well it's good to know that you've figured everything out. You should notify the NTSB of your findings post-haste, save them the time and effort of an investigation.
Click to expand...

They'll conclude the same, were the drugs an additional factor, sure, but his well documented habit/trend of flying low and fast was ultimately his undoing.


I love the puritans, it's like if someone axe murdered a bus load of nuns, people would say off the bat that he was a mad man, something wasn't right in his head, but if it came out he had one bud light at lunch first, now all of a sudden it's the Devils juice that made him do it lol
 
James331 said:
They'll conclude the same, were the drugs an additional factor, sure, but his well documented habit/trend of flying low and fast was ultimately his undoing.


I love the puritans, it's like if someone axe murdered a bus load of nuns, people would say off the bat that he was a mad man, something wasn't right in his head, but if it came out he had one bud light at lunch first, now all of a sudden it's the Devils juice that made him do it lol
Click to expand...
Again, I'm glad you've completed your investigation. Please let the NTSB know, I'm sure the will just wrap it up and say, "James got this one, fellas."

And you know what I love? Strawmen.
 
James331 said:
They'll conclude the same, were the drugs an additional factor, sure, but his well documented habit/trend of flying low and fast was ultimately his undoing.


I love the puritans, it's like if someone axe murdered a bus load of nuns, people would say off the bat that he was a mad man, something wasn't right in his head, but if it came out he had one bud light at lunch first, now all of a sudden it's the Devils juice that made him do it lol
Click to expand...
Yeah, drugs don’t modify inhibitions against doing dangerous things.
 
weilke said:
Prozac, Ambien, Amphetamine and Morphine.

Sounds like typical prescription drug abuser. 'Better living through pharmaceuticals'. Uppers in the morning, downers to go back to sleep.

His level of Zoldipem (Ambien) at 72ng/ml was significant. It's not uncommonly found in DUI arrests. Those drivers eventually wake up in county lockup and can't remember a thing.

I doubt that 'the drugs made him do it', they are just another sign that point to the underlying problem: bad judgement.
Click to expand...

It also sounds like a typical treatment plan for a chronic pain patient (he'd had chronic back problems and shoulder surgery) except for the amphetamines, but I don't know what the toxicology means there: Was he taking Sudafed? Do the metabolites look the same for that as for meth?

Even if this was all legitimate treatment, it certainly would be disqualifying for medical certification and it appears he must have been hiding it from the FAA. And I agree with you the drugs did not "make him do it" but maybe the same cavalier attitude toward risk that had him pushing the envelope of flight physics also had him pushing the envelope with not being careful what drugs were on board when he "operated machinery" and pushing the envelope with complying with federal agencies rules.

But without further information I am not jumping to the conclusion he was snorting crystal meth, drinking booze and stealing grandma's prescriptions. He might not have been an abuser so much as a legitimate patient who used terrible judgment by not grounding himself. Let's not hang him with more crimes than are currently in evidence. For one, I'll go with corpse rot alcohol for now and wait to see what comes out in the wash with the rest of it.
 
Salty said:
Yeah, drugs don’t modify inhibitions against doing dangerous things.
Click to expand...

Suppress some inhibitions, like make it easer to talk to that girl at the bar, sure. Change a entire person, no.

But don't believe me, just as I wouldn't want the NTSB to take anyone at their word, well minus reading the words of the man who described doing many time what he was foolishly and illegally doing when he got himself killed.
 
Rushie said:
It also sounds like a typical treatment plan for a chronic pain patient (he'd had chronic back problems and shoulder surgery) except for the amphetamines, but I don't know what the toxicology means there: Was he taking Sudafed? Do the metabolites look the same for that as for meth?
Click to expand...

Nothing in that tox result says 'legitimate pain treatment'. Unless you mean 'pain treatment in a depressed insomniac with ADHD'. That tox result is what happens if you 'take some of the green pills, some of the capsules and some of the little white ones' and all of them mixed in 10 different prescription bottles.
None of these drugs have to be obtained by illegal means. Plenty of money, a couple of different prescribers who fail to check the prescription drug monitoring program and you can end up with both stimulants (dexamphetamine) on one hand and narcotics (morphine/hydrocodone) on the other.
 
Clark1961 said:
By your ‘logic’ drunk driving is fine. Turn it around and ask if he would have crashed if he hadn’t ingested the chems.
Click to expand...
That's a large leap; all analogy is suspect, but you missed a bunch on that one; I guess I'm fine with him doing high risk flying (low level, steep turns, while somewhat chemically impaired) if he's doing it with low-to-no real risk to others. You and I both know that's not the when case drunk-driving, unless it's on a deserted highway, or on the Salt Flats, etc.

So, his choice, as it is certainly yours to consider him foolish, reckless, etc. I'm not gonna fly like that, but, again, I'd prefer to have the option to do so, vice having restrictions imposed by folks I don't share values with. I've never heard someone say "I wish they'd make a rule to stop me from doing X" . . .

I don't know if the chems were a causal factor or not - my intuition is they weren't, presuming his tolerance might have been higher than the average bear. Pretty sure he did/did know he intended to fly, in whatever state of impaired (or non-impaired) faculties he experienced. I'm sorry he was killed, but I like he had the option to manage his own experiences, however misguided or risky the rest of us considered them.

That said, If he was my friend or acquaintance, I'd have talked to him about pulling back on it. Once: "That's high risk activity, Bud; I hope you're thinking about the consequences - you have a family, etc."
 
Sundancer said:
That's a large leap; all analogy is suspect, but you missed a bunch on that one; I guess I'm fine with him doing high risk flying (low level, steep turns, while somewhat chemically impaired) if he's doing it with low-to-no real risk to others. You and I both know that's not the when case drunk-driving, unless it's on a deserted highway, or on the Salt Flats, etc.

So, his choice, as it is certainly yours to consider him foolish, reckless, etc. I'm not gonna fly like that, but, again, I'd prefer to have the option to do so, vice having restrictions imposed by folks I don't share values with. I've never heard someone say "I wish they'd make a rule to stop me from doing X" . . .

I don't know if the chems were a causal factor or not - my intuition is they weren't, presuming his tolerance might have been higher than the average bear. Pretty sure he did/did know he intended to fly, in whatever state of impaired (or non-impaired) faculties he experienced. I'm sorry he was killed, but I like he had the option to manage his own experiences, however misguided or risky the rest of us considered them.

That said, If he was my friend or acquaintance, I'd have talked to him about pulling back on it. Once: "That's high risk activity, Bud; I hope you're thinking about the consequences - you have a family, etc."
Click to expand...
it wasn’t a leap at all. He was not operating in a deserted area as documented by witnesses and his GPS track. Many more problems with your analysis of the situation. Far too many to list. I’ll just remind you that folks who claim tolerance of chems so they aren’t impaired are only fooling themselves. I’ll leave it at that.
 
Sundancer said:
That's a large leap; all analogy is suspect, but you missed a bunch on that one; I guess I'm fine with him doing high risk flying (low level, steep turns, while somewhat chemically impaired) if he's doing it with low-to-no real risk to others. You and I both know that's not the when case drunk-driving, unless it's on a deserted highway, or on the Salt Flats, etc.

So, his choice, as it is certainly yours to consider him foolish, reckless, etc. I'm not gonna fly like that, but, again, I'd prefer to have the option to do so, vice having restrictions imposed by folks I don't share values with. I've never heard someone say "I wish they'd make a rule to stop me from doing X" . . .

I don't know if the chems were a causal factor or not - my intuition is they weren't, presuming his tolerance might have been higher than the average bear. Pretty sure he did/did know he intended to fly, in whatever state of impaired (or non-impaired) faculties he experienced. I'm sorry he was killed, but I like he had the option to manage his own experiences, however misguided or risky the rest of us considered them.

That said, If he was my friend or acquaintance, I'd have talked to him about pulling back on it. Once: "That's high risk activity, Bud; I hope you're thinking about the consequences - you have a family, etc."
Click to expand...
I guarantee you his tolerance was higher. He had ten times the therapeutic level of amphetamines. He was clearly an addict. And flying on prohibited meds isn't the only law he broke that day. I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but give me a break.
 
Rushie said:
It also sounds like a typical treatment plan for a chronic pain patient (he'd had chronic back problems and shoulder surgery) except for the amphetamines, but I don't know what the toxicology means there: Was he taking Sudafed? Do the metabolites look the same for that as for meth?
Click to expand...
No meth metabolites are distinct from pseudoephedrine metabolites. Some of the other amphetamines produce the same metabolites as meth.
But as we stated, there are legal amphetamine uses (including methamphetamine). But you are right, he shouldn't have been flying WHILE taking it.
 
Clark1961 said:
it wasn’t a leap at all. He was not operating in a deserted area as documented by witnesses and his GPS track. Many more problems with your analysis of the situation. Far too many to list. I’ll just remind you that folks who claim tolerance of chems so they aren’t impaired are only fooling themselves. I’ll leave it at that.
Click to expand...
I don't know if he'd ever made that claim - haven't heard that he did. . . I think driving drunk would usually be a lot riskier for others than flying a very lightweight AC over the water. Focus on the content, as I didn't offer any analysis, other than mild advocacy for self determination, even if the neighbors don't like your choices.

I'd be quicker to condemn if I had never texted while driving, drove home on three beers, passed on the right, or got involved in a land war in asia. I don't do any of that anymore. Just think a little elbow room is good for all. From the little I saw, he appeared to have control, so not sure how much, if any, real danger others were in. I concede there may have been some.
 
mryan75 said:
I guarantee you his tolerance was higher. He had ten times the therapeutic level of amphetamines. He was clearly an addict. And flying on prohibited meds isn't the only law he broke that day. I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but give me a break.
Click to expand...
Oh, I concur, sounds like he definitley broke some laws and rules. Absent a real threat to others, though, I'm content to accept his choices, however gruesome the outcome.

When someone takes a chance, without a "good" reason, and pays with their life, it seems a waste to most of us - we wouldn't do that. I accept that another may have a diffrent standard. Or diffrent needs. If he isn't doing slow rolls over a playground at 100' AGL, then I'm mostly good with it. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Oh, I concur, sounds like he definitley broke some laws and rules. Absent a real threat to others, though, I'm content to accept his choices, however gruesome the outcome.

When someone takes a chance, without a "good" reason, and pays with their life, it seems a waste to most of us - we wouldn't do that. I accept that another may have a diffrent standard. Or diffrent needs. If he isn't doing slow rolls over a playground at 100' AGL, then I'm mostly good with it. . .
Click to expand...
I would argue he was endangering others. It was certainly not a safe manner to operate the aircraft (obviously).
 
Sundancer said:
Oh, I concur, sounds like he definitley broke some laws and rules. Absent a real threat to others, though, I'm content to accept his choices, however gruesome the outcome.

When someone takes a chance, without a "good" reason, and pays with their life, it seems a waste to most of us - we wouldn't do that. I accept that another may have a diffrent standard. Or diffrent needs. If he isn't doing slow rolls over a playground at 100' AGL, then I'm mostly good with it. . .
Click to expand...

But apparently doing steep turns and such over an "adult playground" (a public lake) and over / near houses (75 feet away???) is acceptable behavior to you?
 
Not sure what exactly happened to this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top