Freaking out about flying

[Mori Anne]

Hi, I am planning my trip for next week, and I overlooked one very important detail. I hate flying!!! I freak out. To make a long story short, I was on a plan that had some major issues, so I hate flying now. My sister uses some type of prescribed drug from her dr to eliviate stress during flight, but she has a nasty headache the next day from it. I was wondering if anyone has these same issues and if you do, what does your DR perscribe you that has little to no side effects? Hope this is okay to ask this question here. Thanks

 

[Holly]

One more tip ...

www.fearofflyinghelp.com

It's run by a former pilot and the online course is AWESOME. And it's completely free.

It explains pretty much everything about flying ... even the "dinging" sounds that you sometimes hear. (That actually made me feel better, don't know why, but all the explanations help.)

 

[Mori Anne]

Thanks all! I am still taking notes. Write now I have meds, good book, dvd player, and a happy spot. Oh, and two cups for equalizing my ears.

Oh, please please please don't post anything horrible about the Airbuses and 737's. That is what i am taking. lol..... I heard about all the flaws after I booked the flight.

 

[Monty]

Oh, please please please don't post anything horrible about the Airbuses and 737's. That is what i am taking. lol..... I heard about all the flaws after I booked the flight.

I think the negative posts about those aircraft are misleading... There have been issues, but no crashes. Both Airbus and 737s have been used extensively in remote areas of the Arctic because they are rugged, reliable aircraft. They do have higher maintenance costs, but commercial air companies in North America actually pay those costs as a matter of course [some foreign companies are less rigorous in that regard... ]. "Flaws" don't mean "not airworthy".

You'll be fine! Be HAPPY! You're going to the magic :sohappy:

 

[dandaman]

Word of caution: don't book with Oceanic Airlines. :lookaroun

 

[tikiman]

I think the negative posts about those aircraft are misleading... There have been issues, but no crashes. Both Airbus and 737s have been used extensively in remote areas of the Arctic because they are rugged, reliable aircraft. They do have higher maintenance costs, but commercial air companies in North America actually pay those costs as a matter of course [some foreign companies are less rigorous in that regard... ]. "Flaws" don't mean "not airworthy".

You'll be fine! Be HAPPY! You're going to the magic :sohappy:

Misleading?

Don’t read this if you are nervous about flying!!! The odds are in your favor.

I pay attention because I care about what I fly on and the people I know that worked for the companies that designed some of these planes tell me I should pay attention. Here are results from just this year.

Crash and accidents of a 737
December 8, 2005
October 22, 2005
September 5, 2005
August 23, 2005
August 14, 2005
February 3, 2005

I was in Maui when the roof ripped off the 737 coming from Oahu.

Now the design and testing standards used over seas for the Airbus is what concerns me. Also look at the Jet Blue that had to land with the landing gear sideways. That should never happen. Also the plane that went down right after 9/11 in NY. It was an Airbus in good weather where some over steer caused the tail to shear off.

I will pay the extra to be on a different plane.

 

[lawyergirl77]

I think that would work for anxiety too. I know that after seeing you with those plastic cups on your ears, I would be laughing so hard that any fear of flying would be overcome by the amusement! :wave:

:lol:

Like I said, if you don't mind looking a little Goofy... :lookaroun

I've seen it work for kids (esp. toddlers) quite nicely. They were crying so hard with the pain that they clearly didn't care!!! :lol:

 

[tikiman]

Very good points TAC except the Aloha Airlines incident was metal fatigue which I consider a design flaw but I can also see your point about maintenance since it should have been taken out of service. The Airbus crash after 9/11 was not a maintenance issue at all but improper training of the pilots by Airbus since the controls of the Airbus are different than American built planes resulting in over steer and failure of the tail. Not sure they should be making the tail of a composite instead of Aluminum but it saves weight if that is more important.

I will send you some of the details in a PM since I don’t think anyone here wants the details. You are correct that not all the incidents are due to the design but back in the 90s some incidents happened to 737’s during good weather and no apparent cause that they crashed. It is one thing if the problem is found and fixed on all models but if no problem was ever found that concerns me.

Here is the rating of the planes based on fatalities and not even amount of accidents.

Top 5 and the rating number is based on amount of miles flown and fatal events.

Starting with the worst:

Model Rating
Airbus A310 1.23
Boeing 747 0.84
Boeing DC10 0.70
Boeing MD11 0.70
Airbus A300 0.62
Boeing DC9 0.59
Boeing 737 100/200 0.57
Boeing 727 0.50
Lockheed L1011 0.49
Boeing 767 0.47

Fatal events

Model Fatal Events
Boeing 737 (all models) 58
Boeing 727 48
Boeing DC9 43
Boeing 747 28
Boeing DC10 15
Boeing MD80/MD90 12
Airbus A300 9
Boeing 757 7
Boeing 767 6
Airbus A310, 319
320 & 321 5

Just as a comparison the 777 has a rating of 0.00 with 0 Fatal events

This is just how I decide. It does not mean everyone else has to. I have just heard too many stories about things that happened behind the scenes and when people who helped design the planes won’t fly on them you have to wonder. We obviously have design issues of our own in this country and things have to happen before they get fixed. I guess I can make myself feel better about a plane by knowing its history.

 

[MissM]

Hold your nose, close your mouth and blow. Works like a champ unless you have a bad headcold at the same time. If so, well, you're just gonna have to bear it. Happened last weekend to me. One ear was closed up for a day. :lol:

Nope. Doesn't work. Nothing does. I also can't dive more then about 2 feet under water. Same problem. I have inner ear issues. My ears are often clogged up - without a head cold - at sea level and there's nothing I can do about it. Vertigo runs in my family as well.

Trust me, if it were that easy I wouldn't have been in agony and I might actually consider getting on a plane again at some point in my life. Right now? No. I can't fathom ever doing it. That's a level of sickness that's just not worth it to me.
-m

 

[MouseMadness]

You can sit next to me! I get on the plane, put on my seat belt and then please don't look at me, talk to me or touch me until the plane is on the ground and no longer moving!

*note to self: never be on same flight as Mad* :lol: :lookaroun

Okay, it's more the kids who can't fly with you. They are old pro's at this point. :lol: Up and down and coloring and peeking out windows and asking when they get their snack and drink. I get to fly with them all by myself tomorrow. *sigh* AZ to MI. Should be a delightful 4 hours.

 

[miles1]

I was in Maui when the roof ripped off the 737 coming from Oahu.
QUOTE]

I was on that very flight the week before it happened, which is the experience I alluded to earlier. We were flying between islands with minor turbulence. The attendents were serving drinks, when the captian sounded the chimes frantically. The attendants literally shoved the cart out of the way, then DOVE into their seats and buckled up just before we dropped what seemed like 2000 feet.

Scared the daylights out of us, but didn't discourage me from flying again. I always wondered if something similar happened on the plane with the roof torn off.

 

[tikiman]

Aloha Tom,

I agree that it is nice to have a debate and have different opinions but not have it get ugly. I actually enjoy reading your point of view.

I would have to agree that many of the upgrades have improved the 737 and I am too stubborn to change my opinion of the plane. I still feel better myself if I don’t fly a 737 especially to Hawaii. You are also correct that in many cases for most who are flying shorter lengths than me (from the west coast) that there are few times the 777 is available but sometimes it is. We took a 777 from Chicago to Orlando.

As far as my understanding of the tail failure on the Airbus, Airbus was aware of the differences in controls and did not relay this to the pilots who are use to the controls of American planes. They later admitted it was a problem and there is still debate as to the strength of the composite tail compared to the aluminum. The investigation stated that if the tail did not shear it would not have crashed just from the jet wash from the 747 but I am sure some of that is speculation.

Composites can have the same tensile strength but sometimes the fracture toughness is a lower number. I am a big fan of lightening up the planes but my area to target would not be in any critical structural areas.

Here is how the rating was determined:

“In spite of the amount of media coverage and industry attention given to aviation accidents and aviation risk, there is no single standard for summarizing aviation safety events. Some of the most common ways of doing so involve the use if risk figures that express a combination of the frequency of an event and the severity of that event.
Until now, the summary statistic most widely used has been the fatal event rate, defined as the number of events involving at least one passenger fatality divided by the number of underlying airline flights. While this statistic provided a way to consistently compare airline or aircraft model risks, it had the disadvantage of weighing all events equally, regardless of the proportion of people killed. An event killing one out of 300 counted as much as one that killed 300 of 300 passengers.
This new method of computing fatal event rates, based on the work of Prof. Arnold Barnett of MIT, sums the proportion of passengers killed and divide that by the underlying number of flights. The sum of these proportions would be the full-loss equivalents among the underlying flights, where the full-loss equivalent for a given flight is the proportion of passengers who did not survive the flight. For example, as of the end of 2000 the 757 had a total of five fatal events. In three of the five events, some passengers survived. The sum of the proportions of passengers killed was 3.4. Given the total of 8.7 million flights, that implied a fatal event rate of 0.39 per million flights. The previous method would have give a rate of 0.57 per million flights.
This new risk measurement provides the passenger mortality risk per randomly chosen flight. By weighing individual accidents by the proportion of passengers killed, this provides somewhat more information than the previous method. The previous method, while easy to compute and to understand, provided no insight into the likelihood of passenger deaths in a group of fatal events.”

Obviously this rating is not just based on the design of the plane and I apologize if it seemed like that was all I was basing my opinion on.

Thanks again Tom for an interesting discussion. I guess the bottom line is I feel better if I pick the flight taking into account the company record and the type of aircraft. That does not guarantee me nothing will happen but it does make me feel safer.

 

[Computer Magic]

asking when they get their snack and drink. I get to fly with them all by myself tomorrow. *sigh* AZ to MI. Should be a delightful 4 hours.

Those airliners are cheaper and cheaper in their drinks. Our last flight they went gave us a GLASS of pepsi where they use to give you the entire can. :fork: And then they served us Tostada Chips but no salsa :fork: . Now what are they thinking. :brick:

Enjoy your flight :wave:

 

[Erika]

Those airliners are cheaper and cheaper in their drinks. Our last flight they went gave us a GLASS of pepsi where they use to give you the entire can. :fork: And then they served us Tostada Chips but no salsa :fork: . Now what are they thinking. :brick:

Enjoy your flight :wave:

We've always brought our own stuff onboard. You get what you want that way, and as much as you want.

Being pregnant, my carry-on a few weeks ago was STUFFED with food :lol:

 

[DisneyPhD]

We've always brought our own stuff onboard. You get what you want that way, and as much as you want.

Being pregnant, my carry-on a few weeks ago was STUFFED with food :lol:

We had a small cooler bag and asked if we could bring it on the plane. The lady at check in "said that is a great idea, I recomend that to everyone I know." Once again use common sense. No glass, no sharps (real sharps, plastic knifes should be fine.)

Being pregnant don't drink too much. No one wants to use that bathroom every 20 min, especally pregnant. I could barely fit it in when I flew 32 weeks pregnant.

BTW Erkia, how are things going? Over the morning sickness?

 

[dandaman]

*note to self: never be on same flight as Mad* :lol: :lookaroun

Exactly... because Connor's probably the pilot. :lookaroun

I wonder if he's connected with Oceanic Flight 815? :lookaroun
​

 

[tikiman]

No problem. I feel that an intelligent discussion, even leading to a disagreement, can still be on the highest level, without it getting ugly. Unfortunately, many people feel that if someone plays devil's advocate (which I love to do), or take the opposing view, whatever that may be (which I like do to), means that they are being "attacked." Also it is obviously hard to know another persons emotions if you will, by the written word.

I also appreciate your point of view, and I am very happy to also not have it turn to name calling, bickering, etc.

Please stick around this board. I'm sure you will find other topics being discussed, as well as differing POVs.

Re: 737 To each his or her own, of course. Heck, if I had the chance to fly Quantis everywhere I wanted to go, I'd sure as heck would.

re: Airbus crash. It's easy to speculate. I agree that the plane probably would not have crashed, but I do wonder how violent the pilot's maneuvers would have been, and how many passengers might have been injured by such maneuvers. Then again, if there were large differences between the controls of the American version of the plane (vs the European version of the plane), then one may not say for sure that those maneuvers would not have been violent, nor would not have brought the plane down.

I do agree about tensile strength of composites being used in critical assemblies. I don't know exactly what they use, but some composites can be brittle, especially at low temperatures, or may become plasticized at high temperatures. Obviously, Airbus would have tested this, but maybe they did not test for degradibility, nor longevity. I do hope that as a result of that composite failure, Airbus designed some sort of test based on the maneuvers of the pilot, to test for the composite breakage which the stresses of those maneuvers would cause.

Re: data. Well, that's fine, but the resulting data still does not take into account pilot error and/or poor maintaince. It is still a number determined by the number of deaths/accident. If the pilot makes a poor decision, you cannot say that that decision the fault of the airplane. If an engine falls off an airplane, that is not the fault of the airplane - more likely than not, it's a poor maintainance issue. However, if a plane dives instead of rises when the pilot pulls on the stick, that IS the plane's fault (or at least the fault of the manufacturer).

KAL 007: In 1983, the plane flew into Russian airspace. It was not the fault of the plane. The pilot programmed the way points correctly, but they forgot to flip the switch to "follow way points." The switch was set to "follow compass heading," which it did.

Unfortunately, there is no data for "pilot mistake, but nothing happened."

I'll answer your PMs in a bit. I didn't catch your name, btw.

:wave:

Well said Tom. My name is Steve. Look forward to more discussions with you.

Aloha

Steve