Is your fear of flying getting better or worse?  After the successful outcome of the Miracle on the Hudson Flight,  I posted a poll on Fearless Flight.com to take the fear of flying “temperature” of site visitors.   Presumably the visitors are fearful flyers.  Since I’ve posted the poll, there have been two other not-so-miraculous crashes.  Definitely not good PR for the flying business.

Almost 300 people have responded to the poll.  The results show that fearful flyers definitely are affected by plane crashes.

• Nineteen percent  have said that their fear of flying is WAY (my emphasis in the poll’s wording) worse than before.
• Thirty-one percent say that their fear of flying is slightly worse.
• Seventeen percent said they’ve experienced no change because flying really isn’t safe (again my wording of the poll’s question).

But  here’s the good news:

• Seventeen percent responded that the accident in the Hudson helped them to be less afraid to fly.
• And 15% of the respondents selected the answer,  “My fear is much less because of my increased confidence in pilots.”

That last group of respondents may be changing their minds after the Buffalo crash which is  looking like pilot error. Of the Buffalo crash, one Twitter user summed up what many were likely thinking:  “Damn.  The Buffalo plane crash kinda wipes out all the good will from the Hudson landing. Too many NY crashes.”

There is much speculation on what caused the Netherlands crash of a Turkish airliner.  Unfortunately nine people died, including several crew members and Boeing employees. But 126 of the original 135 people onboard survived.  A much better outcome than the Buffalo crash that killed 49 people on the plane and one on the ground.

The Reality of Plane Crashes

The fact is, airplanes do crash.

And with the recent New York, Buffalo, and Netherlands incidents, a fearful flyer tends to get more anxious.  Some wonder, “If accidents are so rare, what’s up with these three crashes so close together? And how do I know mine isn’t going to be the next one?”

Well, no one knows.  We can’t even predict what’s going to happen five minutes from now, can we?  But I like to look at the positive side of things:

• The fact that there was an amazing miracle flight that landed in the Hudson, and everyone walked away safely.
• The fact that more people on the ground weren’t killed in Buffalo.
• The fact that there were so many survivors in the Nethlands crash.
• And yes, even the fact that people have responded to my poll that they’re feeling a little less afraid than they were.

I like to point to evidence on Flightmemory.com that people are flying all over the place and living to record their trips.  It’s easy to think that flying isn’t safe when you look at the three recent incidents.  It’s even easier to narrow your microscope and look at THOSE THREE and say, “You can’t get me on any darn airplane!”

But yesterday alone, Flightmemory.com reports that its users logged 593,825 miles.  In case you’re math challenged, if you flew THAT many miles, you would circle the globe 23.85 times.  Hey, you could even fly me to the moon 2.486 times logging those kind of miles!

The users of the Flight Memory service also report that they flew on 494 flights, 127 of those being domestic and 34 intercontinental.  This data from yesterday applies only to the people who use this service to keep track of their trips.  Think of ALL the flights all over the world that took off, soared, and landed safely–just yesterday alone.

So, my fearful flyer readers, how much longer are you going to let your fear of flying keep you from logging some fearless miles?

About the Author:  Diane Owens has been helping people overcome their fear of flying since 2005.  She writes about fear of flying for Fearless Flight.com and assists Capt. Ron Nielsen in spreading the message that flying is the safest way to travel on the planet.

Related posts:

1. Miracle on the Hudson Flight and Fear of Flying
2. What Puts the Fear in Fear of Flying?
3. Leaving Fear of Flying Worries Behind

The Best Seat in the House for a Pilot

As a fear of flying and aviation expert, the aftermath of the Miracle on the Hudson brought requests from the local media for my take on US Airways Flight 1549’s ditching in the Hudson River.  In one day, I appeared on one channel three times as an aviation expert and once for my fear of flying expertise.

Then I received a request for a live interview with a nationally known host famous for his aggressive style and flair for the dramatic.

As I sat there watching the lead-in headlines for the nationally syndicated news show, I began to feel butterflies in my stomach.  These weren’t your typical butterflies that accompany public speaking.  These had to do with fear of not meeting expectations of the host.  What was he going to try to make me say?  I was beginning to wish I knew nothing about airplanes!

The producer had sought me out based upon a previous interview published in large newspaper in which I had been asked if a mechanical irregularity on the same airplane and same flight 1549 between La Guardia and Charlotte just two days before could have been a factor in the fateful series of events that resulted in the water landing.  I responded with a qualified “yes” that any mechanical problem could become part of a history with a subsequent problem.  The producer’s interest centered around an Airworthiness Directive (AD) the FAA issued on December 31, 2008,  requiring 14-day compliance for the Airbus A320 airplane with the particular manufacturer’s engines that powered the airplane that splash-landed in the Hudson.

Until I watched the beginning of the show on Saturday night waiting for my turn, I didn’t realize that the host was so invested in his  belief that the A320 in question shouldn’t have been in service on the day it ended up in the Hudson.  However, the facts released (including some I heard on the show awaiting my interview) didn’t support the airplane not being airworthy prior to the January 15th flight.

In fact, statements released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) revealed that the pilots reported suddenly flying into a “brown cloud” followed almost immediately by “pops,” “bangs,” the smell of burnt birds, and silence.  From my own personal experience, all of these sensations are consistent with bird strikes.

The host began by asking if the fact that this particular airplane had experienced a “compressor stall” just two days prior to the accident was just a “cosmic coincidence” or if it suggested some sort of mechanical problem that caused or exacerbated a problem caused by a bird strike.   He seemed to suggest that the issue was a failure to “fix” the airplane as required by the FAA issued AD.

Having read the AD, I attempted to explain that it did not require a “fix” in the mechanical sense at all.  The underlying problem was that occasionally during high thrust requirements such as takeoff and climbout, some engines had experienced high pressure compressor stalls (HPC).  Analysis thus far from maintenance logs indicated that a tendency for some engines’ exhaust gas temperature to burn slightly hotter than normal seemed to be a precursor to some of the HPC’s.  Therefore, the remedy was to inspect (as opposed to “fix”) each engine’s records.  If an airplane was found to have both engines meeting this temperature criteria, then one of the affected engines would be removed and replaced, thereby reducing the likelihood of both engines experiencing simultaneous HPC’s.

My explanation fell on deaf ears.  The host insisted that improper maintenance was still the likely culprit in his eyes.  He bet me a dollar he was right.

With the NTSB, opinions don’t matter; just the facts.  And we’ll all have to wait to see what those facts turn up.

Capt Ron’s Moral:  No good comes from catastrophizing before the facts are in!

Related posts:

1. Fear of Flying Is No Joke