How flying messes with the mind(bbc.com)
bbc.com
How flying messes with the mind
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170919-how-flying-seriously-messes-with-your-mind
98 comments
10. Try to strike up a conversation with the stranger you’ll be sitting next to for the next X hours. I’m not even an extrovert, but this is my favorite part of flying. I’ve sat next to some really interesting people. Some folks don’t want to chat but in my experience that’s pretty rare.
Some strangers I’ve previously sat next to: a retired nurse flying to take care of her mother in law who had dementia; a radiologist who had previously been a physicist at fermilab returning from an MRI conference; a bar tender/stripper; an evangelical who hosted asian exchange students; a heart surgeon who specialized in ablasions for treating a-fib; a 60’ish year-old man flying for his first time; a nanny/aupair; a Jewish grad student from Cape Town.
The flights pass so much more quickly when you’re engaged in conversation, and it’s pretty easy to get most people talking. Two of those passengers mentioned above I ended up in a car with. I gave the evangelical a ride to his hotel since it was on the way home from the airport for me. And with the radiologist we missed our connecting flight and rented a car together to drive the last 150 miles.
Some strangers I’ve previously sat next to: a retired nurse flying to take care of her mother in law who had dementia; a radiologist who had previously been a physicist at fermilab returning from an MRI conference; a bar tender/stripper; an evangelical who hosted asian exchange students; a heart surgeon who specialized in ablasions for treating a-fib; a 60’ish year-old man flying for his first time; a nanny/aupair; a Jewish grad student from Cape Town.
The flights pass so much more quickly when you’re engaged in conversation, and it’s pretty easy to get most people talking. Two of those passengers mentioned above I ended up in a car with. I gave the evangelical a ride to his hotel since it was on the way home from the airport for me. And with the radiologist we missed our connecting flight and rented a car together to drive the last 150 miles.
I enjoy a little bit of chatting with the person next to me, though I've regretted starting conversations a few times, as some people seem to have to talk on a plane... the entire time.
So, just be aware that some people are just friendly and will keep talking to you because it's polite, but they will still show signs that they're done, like: looking out the window for a while, only responding with head-nods and "mhmm"s, pulling a laptop or tablet out, putting in noise-cancelling headphones, sleeping.
So, just be aware that some people are just friendly and will keep talking to you because it's polite, but they will still show signs that they're done, like: looking out the window for a while, only responding with head-nods and "mhmm"s, pulling a laptop or tablet out, putting in noise-cancelling headphones, sleeping.
There are few things I fear more than being forced into a three hour conversation when I just want to work or browse reddit/hacker news
> Some folks don’t want to chat but in my experience that’s pretty rare.
My favorite part is the plethora of entertainment options these days, catching up on all the movies, which seems to be the more common thing people opt to do.
I've been on a lot of flights over the past several years and what you describe seems to be a serious outlier.
My favorite part is the plethora of entertainment options these days, catching up on all the movies, which seems to be the more common thing people opt to do.
I've been on a lot of flights over the past several years and what you describe seems to be a serious outlier.
Hmm.
Strangers trying to talk to me for the next X hours is one of the worst things that can happen on a flight for me.
Even if they do respect my wishes and dont try and talk to me (doesn't always happen), you then have the remaining 10h 59m of the flight to sit awkwardly knowing that you've both managed to annoy each other for trying to instigate something for your own selfish reasons that the other person doesn't want (i.e. you want to talk and they dont, or you dont want to talk and they do - no one wins).
Or worse if you dont manage to stop the conversation attempt early, you end up talking to someone for the better part of 10 or 11 hours just out of politeness and all that work/reading/sleep/coding you wanted to get done are lost while someone drones on and on about their garden or their last trip to <destination>
Please - only start conversations if you're really sure the other person is interested in talking to you! Particularly on long-haul flights!
YMMV I guess - I suppose on short-haul (<1.5 hours) it would be ok, but please please please never do this on long flights! :-)
Strangers trying to talk to me for the next X hours is one of the worst things that can happen on a flight for me.
Even if they do respect my wishes and dont try and talk to me (doesn't always happen), you then have the remaining 10h 59m of the flight to sit awkwardly knowing that you've both managed to annoy each other for trying to instigate something for your own selfish reasons that the other person doesn't want (i.e. you want to talk and they dont, or you dont want to talk and they do - no one wins).
Or worse if you dont manage to stop the conversation attempt early, you end up talking to someone for the better part of 10 or 11 hours just out of politeness and all that work/reading/sleep/coding you wanted to get done are lost while someone drones on and on about their garden or their last trip to <destination>
Please - only start conversations if you're really sure the other person is interested in talking to you! Particularly on long-haul flights!
YMMV I guess - I suppose on short-haul (<1.5 hours) it would be ok, but please please please never do this on long flights! :-)
My Mileage definitely Varies.
The pretty girl who struck up a conversation with me on the leg from Minneapolis to Regina, SK was a large part of the reason I decided to move to Minnesota. Single, introverted me decided that if women in MN were as attractive and outgoing as her, it should be a nice place to live.
She turned out to be Canadian, but I moved to Minnesota anyway. Still loving it 20 years later!
The pretty girl who struck up a conversation with me on the leg from Minneapolis to Regina, SK was a large part of the reason I decided to move to Minnesota. Single, introverted me decided that if women in MN were as attractive and outgoing as her, it should be a nice place to live.
She turned out to be Canadian, but I moved to Minnesota anyway. Still loving it 20 years later!
> Try to strike up a conversation with the stranger you’ll be sitting next to for the next X hours.
I absolutely despise being spoken to when I'm on a plane (usually because I'm taking early morning flights and am utterly exhausted). Just keep in mind many people reallllly don't want to talk to anyone, so if they are curt or not very talkative don't take it personally. Some people just don't like talking to strangers.
I absolutely despise being spoken to when I'm on a plane (usually because I'm taking early morning flights and am utterly exhausted). Just keep in mind many people reallllly don't want to talk to anyone, so if they are curt or not very talkative don't take it personally. Some people just don't like talking to strangers.
> 9. Don't drink the alcohol, even when it's free
For me it's the opposite. I always liked flying, but airport bars and in-flight drinks took the cake. A lot of these are personal preferences one has to figure out.
For example, to No. 8, I've learned I cannot do red eyes over land, particularly if I'm window. I get distracted by the speckles of passing cities, fantasizing about my 737 being a superluminal spacecraft, and refuse to fall asleep.
Or, to seating. I like watching the ailerons and gentle wobble of the wing and plane, as the plane rises, slows down from its fight with gravity, loses lift, falls, thereby gaining velocity before stabilizing and rising again. Or as the plane gently arcs, side to side, by enormous distances that you can't feel but will observe if you look carefully. Consequently, exit rows--from which the wing occludes one's view--bore me. (Which is a plus if I plan on getting work done.)
For me it's the opposite. I always liked flying, but airport bars and in-flight drinks took the cake. A lot of these are personal preferences one has to figure out.
For example, to No. 8, I've learned I cannot do red eyes over land, particularly if I'm window. I get distracted by the speckles of passing cities, fantasizing about my 737 being a superluminal spacecraft, and refuse to fall asleep.
Or, to seating. I like watching the ailerons and gentle wobble of the wing and plane, as the plane rises, slows down from its fight with gravity, loses lift, falls, thereby gaining velocity before stabilizing and rising again. Or as the plane gently arcs, side to side, by enormous distances that you can't feel but will observe if you look carefully. Consequently, exit rows--from which the wing occludes one's view--bore me. (Which is a plus if I plan on getting work done.)
European economy class is worse than in the USA?
I have no experience flying in the USA, but it thought it would be the other way due to the seemingly massive amount of people complaining about seating.
Maybe it's because of the obesity rate.
I have no experience flying in the USA, but it thought it would be the other way due to the seemingly massive amount of people complaining about seating.
Maybe it's because of the obesity rate.
Yeah, having flown quiet a bit in both the EU and the US I can say for sure that the major American airlines (Delta, United, Southwest) are far more comfortable than European budget airlines (Ryanair, EasyJet, etc.) in economy class. They usually offer a bit more leg room, complimentary drinks, and might even have wifi on shorter hops. LGA -> ROC (a quick 45m hop) on Delta has both!
That being said, perhaps a better comparison would be Ryanair vs Spirit, but American budget airlines are still pretty limited in routes and aren't nearly as entrenched as their European counterparts.
That being said, perhaps a better comparison would be Ryanair vs Spirit, but American budget airlines are still pretty limited in routes and aren't nearly as entrenched as their European counterparts.
Drinks are not complementary on regional flights unless you're in first class or have high enough status with the carrier (Diamond Medallion in Delta's case). Also, leg room on those regionals can be BRUTAL, and don't even think about bringing your rollabord unless you're willing to check it gate-side
> I can say for sure that the major American airlines (Delta, United, Southwest) are far more comfortable than European budget airlines (Ryanair, EasyJet, etc.)
That's an unfair comparison.
If you want to compare major airlines, compare Delta, United, Southwest to AirFrance, Lufthansa, Virgin. For budget airlines, compare Ryanair & EasyJet to Spirit.
The differences are much less pronounced.
That's an unfair comparison.
If you want to compare major airlines, compare Delta, United, Southwest to AirFrance, Lufthansa, Virgin. For budget airlines, compare Ryanair & EasyJet to Spirit.
The differences are much less pronounced.
You can't compare European budget airlines with fares way below $50 (Ryanair average fare is 33 euros! [1] to American airlines which you will never find fares below $50 (one-way) even on the shortest flights.
[1] http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4195350/P...
[1] http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4195350/P...
Actually, I regularly see $49 Southwest flights in california that are 2-400 miles. There are $49 flights from Cincinati to Baltimore and Chicago right now.
I don't love any of the airlines, but the euro-budget are the worst and subsidized Asia/Arabian are the most comfortable. Southwest is in the middle, but typical coach comfort for the US.
I don't love any of the airlines, but the euro-budget are the worst and subsidized Asia/Arabian are the most comfortable. Southwest is in the middle, but typical coach comfort for the US.
US economy flights are definitely worse than EU economy flights. At most US domestic flights you don't have free food or drinks, you don't have an in-flight entertainment system in front of you. People are much worse on US planes than on EU planes (i.e. don't know have to behave).
Of course, that's just my anecdotal experience and I guess it varies based on subjective preferences.
I am comparing Delta etc. to Lufthansa etc., and Spirit etc. to EasyJet etc.
Of course, that's just my anecdotal experience and I guess it varies based on subjective preferences.
I am comparing Delta etc. to Lufthansa etc., and Spirit etc. to EasyJet etc.
I've only been on 4 European flights (all of them were the cheapest I could find) and the flights seemed extra cramped and the people on the flight just seemed grumpier than on the flights I've taken in the US. My perception may be skewed a bit by the anxiety that comes with not understanding the language and culture.
ehhh its a low bar I wouldn't even try to split hairs, only the flights between continents are good, unless you get unlucky with the wrong plane model.
> 9. Don't drink the alcohol, even when it's free.
Why? Air drinks are best drinks!
> Of course, if you are afraid of dying, heights, or falling I doubt any of these tips will help you.
But there is one thing that absolutely does: doing a discovery flight. In a disco flight, you'll fly with a pilot and be given permission to operate some very basic controls (taxiing on the runway, turns mid-air, the beginning of the landing approach). You'll learn how safe flying is. It's a great experience for those that are terrified of flying.
The next best thing is an air tour, since they are usually flown with the same small plane (Cessna 152).
Another thing that's helped me make flying extremely enjoyable is listening to ATC communications while on the ground (and during takeoff/landing if flying with Southwest). Taxiing up to the runway in a major airport is quite dramatic, and the bigger airports usually have small surprises that make it enjoyable (today, for example, I heard, then saw, that the President of Korea and probably Japan were in our same line).
SOURCE: flying every week for the last 1.5 years
Why? Air drinks are best drinks!
> Of course, if you are afraid of dying, heights, or falling I doubt any of these tips will help you.
But there is one thing that absolutely does: doing a discovery flight. In a disco flight, you'll fly with a pilot and be given permission to operate some very basic controls (taxiing on the runway, turns mid-air, the beginning of the landing approach). You'll learn how safe flying is. It's a great experience for those that are terrified of flying.
The next best thing is an air tour, since they are usually flown with the same small plane (Cessna 152).
Another thing that's helped me make flying extremely enjoyable is listening to ATC communications while on the ground (and during takeoff/landing if flying with Southwest). Taxiing up to the runway in a major airport is quite dramatic, and the bigger airports usually have small surprises that make it enjoyable (today, for example, I heard, then saw, that the President of Korea and probably Japan were in our same line).
SOURCE: flying every week for the last 1.5 years
You sound like you’ve never flown Lufthansa (economy). Plane food, I think, is illustrative of how far most airlines in the US have fallen.
I second that - flying across Europe almost every week I can recommend that economy class is decent and comfortable in all LH Group airlines (Austrian, Eurowings, Brussels Airlines etc); if you're regularly getting up at 6am to travel to a business meeting in another country, having someone bring coffee and a sandwich to your seat actually makes it slightly more bearable. Even some of the budget carriers (Vueling, EasyJet, Norwegian) can be bearable over short distances but avoid Ryanair unless you're absolutely desperate to save every last penny and personally I find BA to be almost as bad these days for short haul.
I'm probably unusual but I actually prefer the elimination of a lot of in-flight food service. The food was a bad joke in economy for as long as I remember (which is a long time), it's disruptive if you're trying to sleep or use the aisle, and it stinks up the cabin. Yes, you get over 7 hours or so and it's necessary but, if eating on a flight is important to you, there are lots of options to bring on sandwiches/snacks.
I'm with you. I always book window seats now so I don't get bothered by the person next to me who has to partake in every single item offered by the flight attendants and/or has to get up to go to the bathroom multiple times on a three hour flight. As an added bonus I don't feel pressured by the person next to me to immediately standup when the plane gets to the gate.
I choose between aisles and windows based on a lot of things. If I just want to sleep, I prefer window (early morning flights and, if I can't avoid, red-eyes). For daytime flights, I'm more inclined to sit on the aisle so I can get up and stretch, etc. when I want to.
Unless you're flying overseas having in-flight meals doesn't really make sense. There are far more food options in both airports you will be in and it will be a lot more comfortable. In-flight food should be reserved for when it's required by length of flight. (This is already pretty much the case. I never see meals on planes during domestic travel really.)
> There are far more food options in both airports you will be in and it will be a lot more comfortable.
Counter-argument: If I eat at the airport, I'm cutting into useful time either at home or at my destination. On the plane, I've got nothing to do but kill time anyway.
In practice, I pad time before my flight to deal with traffic and security hiccups. When things go smoothly, that usually leaves me enough time to eat before the flight, so I do that. Sometimes I'll buy food at the airport and carry it on, though I try to avoid that since my fellow passengers might not appreciate the aroma.
Once I reach my destination, the last thing in the world I want to do is hang out in the airport longer. I'd much rather stop at a restaurant on the drive to wherever I'm going.
Counter-argument: If I eat at the airport, I'm cutting into useful time either at home or at my destination. On the plane, I've got nothing to do but kill time anyway.
In practice, I pad time before my flight to deal with traffic and security hiccups. When things go smoothly, that usually leaves me enough time to eat before the flight, so I do that. Sometimes I'll buy food at the airport and carry it on, though I try to avoid that since my fellow passengers might not appreciate the aroma.
Once I reach my destination, the last thing in the world I want to do is hang out in the airport longer. I'd much rather stop at a restaurant on the drive to wherever I'm going.
Idk, if given the choice between eating in the airport and eating in first, I always take eating in first, even though there are better options on the ground. It's part of the experience of being in first.
Re: "I never see meals on planes during domestic travel really": You'll get food (complementary in first, for purchase in main) if your flight is over 2 hour long AND you're not flying a regional jet (which you don't want to do for more than an hour anyway).
Re: "I never see meals on planes during domestic travel really": You'll get food (complementary in first, for purchase in main) if your flight is over 2 hour long AND you're not flying a regional jet (which you don't want to do for more than an hour anyway).
I too enjoy flying! I don't have any rules other than show up and relax. Regular economy on United and Delta seem to have added a tiny bit more leg room in the last 1-2 years, which has helped a lot.
Most of my flights are longer duration, US->EU and back.
Most of my flights are longer duration, US->EU and back.
Why number 9? I actually look forward to a drink on the plane. However I usually don't have more than one.
Personally, alcohol makes me a happier person and just overly excited, which is a bit difficult to contain on an airplane.
I do think for some people who can use alcohol to be more relaxed it could be a good thing. Though I'd be cautious about drinking if I were already anxious about flying, since the cognitive effects of alcohol + low oxygen might not be what'd be expected... not to mention the turbulence, babies, and smelly feet I'd already have to deal with.
I do think for some people who can use alcohol to be more relaxed it could be a good thing. Though I'd be cautious about drinking if I were already anxious about flying, since the cognitive effects of alcohol + low oxygen might not be what'd be expected... not to mention the turbulence, babies, and smelly feet I'd already have to deal with.
Presumably because it has health effects that make flying less fun (drowsyness, worse motion sickness, higher risk of blood clots, etc).
I also often have a single drink near the start of a flight.
I also often have a single drink near the start of a flight.
I fly frequently and enjoy a drink but the two definitely do not work well together for me. Even a single glass of wine, when airborne, has the potential to cause an intense sinus headache. Two to three drinks will guarantee it. On the ground, only air pressure brings on occasional sinus headaches but nothing like the intensity of air travel that combined with alcohol has on me.
For long distance flights, I'm doing the opposite of 2), where I'll stay awake on purpose the day before the flight, so that I can sleep through most of it. However, this only works if you're able to sleep in a plane.
More precisely: Oxygen deprivation, low air pressure, and low humidity can alter your mood.
Those are all true, but I think we will eventually discover that the psychological impact of flights is also real. Being packed in very close proximity to a large number of strangers and having limited mobility and autonomy for hours on end is a really unusual environment to put a hairless primate in, regardless of how well-trained it is.
I'm mild-mannered, low key, and non-claustrophobic and even I get stir crazy being cooped up in a plane after a while.
I'm mild-mannered, low key, and non-claustrophobic and even I get stir crazy being cooped up in a plane after a while.
[deleted]
Growing up in the high dessert and now living in a more humid, sea level location, I find these conditions do alter my mood - for the better.
>There are some studies, however, that show even relatively mild levels of hypoxia (deficiency in oxygen) can alter our ability to think clearly.
I do CO2 and O2 training tables for training longer breath holds. [1] I sometimes do these while playing Overwatch. I have noticed that I play like an absolute idiot while I am on a breath hold. I just end up making really tiny mistakes that I wouldn't normally, or running into situations that I shouldn't have.
1. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gix.apneatrain...
I do CO2 and O2 training tables for training longer breath holds. [1] I sometimes do these while playing Overwatch. I have noticed that I play like an absolute idiot while I am on a breath hold. I just end up making really tiny mistakes that I wouldn't normally, or running into situations that I shouldn't have.
1. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gix.apneatrain...
Interesting...I've also spent a lot of time training in apnea, but I've never tried to test my cognitive abilities while training. Instead, I try to get to a state of meditative non-thought while training since it seems to improve results. So, I'm curious...do the mistakes start immediately or do they only kick in once you're near the end of your hold? The first 1-2 minutes of a hold are so easy for me that I'd be surprised if there were many negative cognitive effects.
Also, I used to get pretty severe effects from altitude whenever I'd go above about 10k elevation. But since I've trained apnea, the headaches, nausea and general crabbiness haven't happened and I've even been able to go for ~5 mi jogs. So I'm curious whether people who've trained in apnea would be somewhat resistant to the effects of flying just because our training has pushed us so far beyond the effects of flying that our bodies are accustomed to it. Of course it's also possible that we'd still be feeling the effects and just have a blind spot to it because we're more used to noticing the end stages of oxygen deprivation.
Also, I used to get pretty severe effects from altitude whenever I'd go above about 10k elevation. But since I've trained apnea, the headaches, nausea and general crabbiness haven't happened and I've even been able to go for ~5 mi jogs. So I'm curious whether people who've trained in apnea would be somewhat resistant to the effects of flying just because our training has pushed us so far beyond the effects of flying that our bodies are accustomed to it. Of course it's also possible that we'd still be feeling the effects and just have a blind spot to it because we're more used to noticing the end stages of oxygen deprivation.
I'm pretty new to it, so my rounds are only just above 1 minute. I might just not have the CO2 tolerance yet, but I definitely notice some cognitive effects. My blood oxygen saturation during these generally stays above 90%. I'll try pay more attention to when the issues kick in and measure my blood oxygen then.
I've read that it's around 50% saturation that you're in danger of passing out, and most oximeters are only accurate to 70%. I've gotten no where close to those numbers though, so it's likely just lack of CO2 tolerance.
I've read that it's around 50% saturation that you're in danger of passing out, and most oximeters are only accurate to 70%. I've gotten no where close to those numbers though, so it's likely just lack of CO2 tolerance.
I wouldn't worry about O2 saturation with regard to passing out. When I've done holds using an oximeter, I can't really get my SpO2 below 90% either, even when I know I'm pretty close.
But there's just so much that contributes to being near blackout that isn't oxygen saturation that you're better off learning to recognize the subtle physiological cues. For example, you can blackout earlier (higher measurable O2 saturation) if you inhale too deeply. It may seem counterintuitive, but expanding your lungs more fully can increase pressure on the heart and make it harder for it to distribute the blood to your body and brain. Your blackout O2 saturation will also differ depending on how much gravity your heart is having to deal with. Standing, sitting and lying down will have different blackout O2 saturations and that's only considering dry training...in water, both swimming position and depth/pressure will factor in too.
So when I'm doing a hold, the main things I pay attention to are first diaphragm (first contractions, for me, are pretty reliably at 1/3-1/2 of a max hold), and then the feeling in my fingers/toes, but you'll start to notice a couple of other sensations as well if you start pushing yourself to the brink. Incidentally, you can be pretty sure if CO2 tolerance is your limiting factor if your first contractions come in the second half of your hold.
But there's just so much that contributes to being near blackout that isn't oxygen saturation that you're better off learning to recognize the subtle physiological cues. For example, you can blackout earlier (higher measurable O2 saturation) if you inhale too deeply. It may seem counterintuitive, but expanding your lungs more fully can increase pressure on the heart and make it harder for it to distribute the blood to your body and brain. Your blackout O2 saturation will also differ depending on how much gravity your heart is having to deal with. Standing, sitting and lying down will have different blackout O2 saturations and that's only considering dry training...in water, both swimming position and depth/pressure will factor in too.
So when I'm doing a hold, the main things I pay attention to are first diaphragm (first contractions, for me, are pretty reliably at 1/3-1/2 of a max hold), and then the feeling in my fingers/toes, but you'll start to notice a couple of other sensations as well if you start pushing yourself to the brink. Incidentally, you can be pretty sure if CO2 tolerance is your limiting factor if your first contractions come in the second half of your hold.
This Smarter Every Day video demonstrates how dumb you can get under (less mild) hypoxia (and why it's important to take care of your own oxygen mask before others') https://youtu.be/kUfF2MTnqAw
I just flew on a new Boeing 787 which claimed during the taxiing video to have light and air pressure systems that minimize jet lag. I've never felt better after both 10+ hour flights.
This is strictly anecdotal, but I flew a 787 to London (transatlantic) a few days ago, and to be honest I didn't notice any difference (apart from the chemically dimmed windows and the lighting) between it and most of the Airbus planes I've been on. I'd actually venture to say Airbus equipment is a little more comfortable.
The biggest mind bleep for me is falling asleep while taxiing and waking up while landing.
I think you misspelled "best possible outcome"
I WISH I could do this. You have a rare gift.
The trick is believing.
Expect to fall asleep as soon as you are on the plane, eat before boarding and avoid coffee. I could never do it until I could. Now I start yawning at the gate.
Expect to fall asleep as soon as you are on the plane, eat before boarding and avoid coffee. I could never do it until I could. Now I start yawning at the gate.
> The trick is believing.
For those that lack belief, Valium or Xanax should do the trick too.
I don't fly international often enough to worry about getting hooked, so 2 pills (one to sleep on the plane and one to force myself to sleep at the right time once I reach my destination) have always made jet lag a easy for me.
For those that lack belief, Valium or Xanax should do the trick too.
I don't fly international often enough to worry about getting hooked, so 2 pills (one to sleep on the plane and one to force myself to sleep at the right time once I reach my destination) have always made jet lag a easy for me.
You Americans are such extremists :). Straight to the hard stuff.
Valerian root works pretty well (especially with a small nip) and there are some other lighter options like melatonin. Also sugar pills :)
Doctors here don't give you Xanax unless you're having panic attacks.
Valerian root works pretty well (especially with a small nip) and there are some other lighter options like melatonin. Also sugar pills :)
Doctors here don't give you Xanax unless you're having panic attacks.
Having caught a lot of flights at about 6am I always regarded being able to sleep through entire flights as a useful life skill ;-)
Did it once, but waking up in a shaking plane made me think we crashed while taking off. Instant wakefulness!
i have a special talent for falling asleep while taxiing, and waking up for takeoff.
"Airplane noise and the taste of umami": https://flavourjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/2...
I despise flying with a passion. I am usually pretty level headed in life, but between the TSA, sardine seating, and assured death if something goes wrong, it is hard to be comfortable.
Passing out before take off and waking up after landing would be a DREAM for me! I usually am forced to take 3 benadryl and hope for the best.
There's a reason I haven't flown since 2012 :)
EDIT: Benadryl = diphenhydramine, which is cheap, non-prescription, and usually acts within 25 minutes. Enough of it can put you out even after you just napped.
"You are less likely to be in an accident in a plane than in a car".
The above is a true statistic, but more nuance is required.
Firstly, the most dangerous situation is driving on a two lane, no barrier highway. This results in head on collisions, which often results in death.
If you can avoid that situaion, you are already doing better than most.
Additionally, you can control the type of vehicle you are in. A Miata is a deadly vehicle. A large modern SUV is safer.
Lastly, when something goes wrong on a plane, it goes /really wrong/. Hijacked = dead. Pilot error = dead. Fire = dead.
I don't to be killed or burned or maimed in a plane crash. I don't care if that means I have to drive a large, safe vehicle or avoid traveling in certain situations.
It is an idiosyncratic bias of mine, but it is an unnecessary game of russian roulette that has low, but uncontrolable risk.
Opting out is the safest choice I can make, per my estimation.
Lastly, humans have a low chance of dying in a warzone.
But Syrians have a higher chance.
Avoid being in a war zone. Statistics are your friend, averages are not.
Passing out before take off and waking up after landing would be a DREAM for me! I usually am forced to take 3 benadryl and hope for the best.
There's a reason I haven't flown since 2012 :)
EDIT: Benadryl = diphenhydramine, which is cheap, non-prescription, and usually acts within 25 minutes. Enough of it can put you out even after you just napped.
"You are less likely to be in an accident in a plane than in a car".
The above is a true statistic, but more nuance is required.
Firstly, the most dangerous situation is driving on a two lane, no barrier highway. This results in head on collisions, which often results in death.
If you can avoid that situaion, you are already doing better than most.
Additionally, you can control the type of vehicle you are in. A Miata is a deadly vehicle. A large modern SUV is safer.
Lastly, when something goes wrong on a plane, it goes /really wrong/. Hijacked = dead. Pilot error = dead. Fire = dead.
I don't to be killed or burned or maimed in a plane crash. I don't care if that means I have to drive a large, safe vehicle or avoid traveling in certain situations.
It is an idiosyncratic bias of mine, but it is an unnecessary game of russian roulette that has low, but uncontrolable risk.
Opting out is the safest choice I can make, per my estimation.
Lastly, humans have a low chance of dying in a warzone.
But Syrians have a higher chance.
Avoid being in a war zone. Statistics are your friend, averages are not.
It's not necessarily realistic for you, but flying charter is a whole different experience. If, say, a half dozen of you would be going, and traveling first class, it isn't much more expensive. You skip TSA and can often just head to the hanger and skip the lobby entirely.
I'm also fortunate in that I know lots of people with planes. Plane ownership is fairly common in my area. One of my friends even has a timeshare, except it is for a plane and not a condo. I had no idea such things existed, but they do.
It really does improve the whole flying experience. The additional expense is worth it to avoid the TSA and not be treated like cattle. If I'm flying internationally, I'll just drive into Canada and fly out from there. That's how I used to get to go to Cuba, before it was legal.
I'm also fortunate in that I know lots of people with planes. Plane ownership is fairly common in my area. One of my friends even has a timeshare, except it is for a plane and not a condo. I had no idea such things existed, but they do.
It really does improve the whole flying experience. The additional expense is worth it to avoid the TSA and not be treated like cattle. If I'm flying internationally, I'll just drive into Canada and fly out from there. That's how I used to get to go to Cuba, before it was legal.
I think you're the person that sold a startup for a lot of money; I recall the SN.
You realize that flying charter is well out of reach for most, right?
Let me explain.
Let's take your example of flying first. If I booked a first-class ticket right now from DFW to ORD, it will likely cost me $2,000. My fiancee and I are going to Barcelona in a year (BCN), and I wanted us to fly first/business round-trip. Doing that without miles would have cost me >$20,000. Very few people can drop that on a flight. (It's also not worth it, but that's neither here nor there. You are better off booking at least a week in advance and buying upgrade tickets, since hardly anyone pays for first class outright anymore, which is why its a dying product.)
A similar charter flight on something like NetJets or any fractional broker would cost >$6,000/ticket in the domestic example and probably >$30,000-$50,000 for international travel. You can reduce that cost by knowing folks with jets (not many own one, given that they cost at least $30M, hangar, maintenance and fueling costs notwithstanding), but even then, it's an uneconomical proposition for most people.
With that, let's talk about the "hassle" that is TSA.
It's been a long time since I've waited more than 15 minutes in line for security. Most of my jaunts through these lines take 5-10 minutes, tops. How?
1) Sign up for Precheck. It's $89/5 years. It's very little money for a LOT of convenience.
2) Sign up for CLEAR. It's $139/year, but comes in handy in a BIG way at airports that have it. (The Precheck line at BWI on a Thursday is exceptionally large most of the time, but having CLEAR lets me cut it and save me at least 10 minutes.)
Admittedly, this only really works if you fly a lot.
3) If you know what to pack, you won't get stopped. TSA makes these guidelines very, very clear. The only time I've gotten stopped consistently was when I brought a bottle of Tend Skin that leaked all over my duffle (that I had to throw out). I got stopped today because I had three laptops on me and forgot to take one out, but getting through that took less than five minutes.
Also, I would imagine that unless you have your own jet and aren't Ubering it out, flying private has limitations of its own given that charter airlines don't have the capacity the bigger companies do, so you're beholden to hoping that you can get a flight out that day on the aircraft that you want.
Despite having said all of this, when I can afford it, I'll fly charter one of these days just to say I did it. However, I really enjoy the song and dance that is going through the airport at peak hours and airport food tastes good, most of the time.
You realize that flying charter is well out of reach for most, right?
Let me explain.
Let's take your example of flying first. If I booked a first-class ticket right now from DFW to ORD, it will likely cost me $2,000. My fiancee and I are going to Barcelona in a year (BCN), and I wanted us to fly first/business round-trip. Doing that without miles would have cost me >$20,000. Very few people can drop that on a flight. (It's also not worth it, but that's neither here nor there. You are better off booking at least a week in advance and buying upgrade tickets, since hardly anyone pays for first class outright anymore, which is why its a dying product.)
A similar charter flight on something like NetJets or any fractional broker would cost >$6,000/ticket in the domestic example and probably >$30,000-$50,000 for international travel. You can reduce that cost by knowing folks with jets (not many own one, given that they cost at least $30M, hangar, maintenance and fueling costs notwithstanding), but even then, it's an uneconomical proposition for most people.
With that, let's talk about the "hassle" that is TSA.
It's been a long time since I've waited more than 15 minutes in line for security. Most of my jaunts through these lines take 5-10 minutes, tops. How?
1) Sign up for Precheck. It's $89/5 years. It's very little money for a LOT of convenience.
2) Sign up for CLEAR. It's $139/year, but comes in handy in a BIG way at airports that have it. (The Precheck line at BWI on a Thursday is exceptionally large most of the time, but having CLEAR lets me cut it and save me at least 10 minutes.)
Admittedly, this only really works if you fly a lot.
3) If you know what to pack, you won't get stopped. TSA makes these guidelines very, very clear. The only time I've gotten stopped consistently was when I brought a bottle of Tend Skin that leaked all over my duffle (that I had to throw out). I got stopped today because I had three laptops on me and forgot to take one out, but getting through that took less than five minutes.
Also, I would imagine that unless you have your own jet and aren't Ubering it out, flying private has limitations of its own given that charter airlines don't have the capacity the bigger companies do, so you're beholden to hoping that you can get a flight out that day on the aircraft that you want.
Despite having said all of this, when I can afford it, I'll fly charter one of these days just to say I did it. However, I really enjoy the song and dance that is going through the airport at peak hours and airport food tastes good, most of the time.
Yes, I am that guy. Shh! Don't tell anyone.
Anyhow, I realize that it is probably out of reach for you, which is why I quantified it. If, for example, you and five of your friends would all be going first class, it's pretty close to the same costs as charter. It doesn't reach parity until about that level.
It also helps if you aim for regionals, instead of the larger airports. That may sound counter-intuitive, but that's where I've had best luck organizing a flight. You can do spur of the moment things, but that starts getting obscenely priced.
It also really, really helps to have friends with planes.
And, again, I know it isn't necessarily something you can do on a regular basis but it really does make a difference. I only charter if I'm staying in North America. There is no way I can justify the expense for long international flights. If it is an international flight, I live right on the border and have Canadian citizenship so it's pretty easy for me to fly out of Canada instead.
As for the TSA, I just really don't like them. I don't mind customs and I understand the need for border security. I find the security theater to be offensive, however. I'd probably not mind if they actually were really increasing security. Israel has a good model, follow them. Either way, it is nice to completely skip them.
Back to the idea of regionals... The smaller airports are much nicer to deal with. I often use a small airport in Augusta, Maine. They can land a two-engine jet there and there's always someone willing to make a few dollars, even if just to get more flight hours.
Another one is just a little tiny grass airfield. There's a small private one in Rangeley and there is a municipal one in Phillips. Those are pretty good if you're not in a big rush. Best of all, you get to know the pilots and they will probably even let you help fly the plane.
At any rate, I like your idea of treating yourself to a chartered flight. Even if you're never able to do it on a regular basis, it is worth it just to enjoy the flight. I don't really like flying all that much, though I do enjoy being allowed to pilot the planes. You don't need a license to do so, as there is a pilot right beside you. It's actually pretty easy to not bump into stuff.
Then, of course, there is the experience of a more costly charter, where you even have a stewardess, food, and drink. That gets really costly but it's worth it as a special treat. My usual charter isn't much more than a plane and a pilot, I will even typically be loading my own baggage. That's quite a bit different than chartering a 747 with a full crew. Note, that's not something I have ever done. I have a few bucks, but I'd prefer to not waste it.
So, yeah, treat yourself to the luxury sometime. There are varied levels of charter. It really helps to get to know some pilots personally. They make great friends and are all very enthusiastic about flying. They will try to pressure you into buying your own plane and getting a license. They are a very passionate bunch.
As for the Über plane thing, I was surprised to learn that they have timeshares for planes. One of my local friends has a timeshare plane and that has come in handy. It's much less expensive to just chip in and take a vacation with him and his family. I can take the missus and we pick all decide on a destination. That is actually not that expensive. It isn't always the same plane, or anything like that. They have airplanes all over and the timeshare is just on the one you want at that location and that is equivalent to a certain class of airplane. (I can get better details, if you're really curious.)
Anyhow, sorry for rambling but I'm tired and there is a lot to say on the subject. I do highly recommend you follow through on your idea to treat yourself at least once. You can probably hit up your regional and fly to a nearby city for just a few hundred dollars. Charter isn't always complete luxury.
Anyhow, I realize that it is probably out of reach for you, which is why I quantified it. If, for example, you and five of your friends would all be going first class, it's pretty close to the same costs as charter. It doesn't reach parity until about that level.
It also helps if you aim for regionals, instead of the larger airports. That may sound counter-intuitive, but that's where I've had best luck organizing a flight. You can do spur of the moment things, but that starts getting obscenely priced.
It also really, really helps to have friends with planes.
And, again, I know it isn't necessarily something you can do on a regular basis but it really does make a difference. I only charter if I'm staying in North America. There is no way I can justify the expense for long international flights. If it is an international flight, I live right on the border and have Canadian citizenship so it's pretty easy for me to fly out of Canada instead.
As for the TSA, I just really don't like them. I don't mind customs and I understand the need for border security. I find the security theater to be offensive, however. I'd probably not mind if they actually were really increasing security. Israel has a good model, follow them. Either way, it is nice to completely skip them.
Back to the idea of regionals... The smaller airports are much nicer to deal with. I often use a small airport in Augusta, Maine. They can land a two-engine jet there and there's always someone willing to make a few dollars, even if just to get more flight hours.
Another one is just a little tiny grass airfield. There's a small private one in Rangeley and there is a municipal one in Phillips. Those are pretty good if you're not in a big rush. Best of all, you get to know the pilots and they will probably even let you help fly the plane.
At any rate, I like your idea of treating yourself to a chartered flight. Even if you're never able to do it on a regular basis, it is worth it just to enjoy the flight. I don't really like flying all that much, though I do enjoy being allowed to pilot the planes. You don't need a license to do so, as there is a pilot right beside you. It's actually pretty easy to not bump into stuff.
Then, of course, there is the experience of a more costly charter, where you even have a stewardess, food, and drink. That gets really costly but it's worth it as a special treat. My usual charter isn't much more than a plane and a pilot, I will even typically be loading my own baggage. That's quite a bit different than chartering a 747 with a full crew. Note, that's not something I have ever done. I have a few bucks, but I'd prefer to not waste it.
So, yeah, treat yourself to the luxury sometime. There are varied levels of charter. It really helps to get to know some pilots personally. They make great friends and are all very enthusiastic about flying. They will try to pressure you into buying your own plane and getting a license. They are a very passionate bunch.
As for the Über plane thing, I was surprised to learn that they have timeshares for planes. One of my local friends has a timeshare plane and that has come in handy. It's much less expensive to just chip in and take a vacation with him and his family. I can take the missus and we pick all decide on a destination. That is actually not that expensive. It isn't always the same plane, or anything like that. They have airplanes all over and the timeshare is just on the one you want at that location and that is equivalent to a certain class of airplane. (I can get better details, if you're really curious.)
Anyhow, sorry for rambling but I'm tired and there is a lot to say on the subject. I do highly recommend you follow through on your idea to treat yourself at least once. You can probably hit up your regional and fly to a nearby city for just a few hundred dollars. Charter isn't always complete luxury.
Thanks for the reply! You're totally right re: regional airports being better for charters. Hubs are more expensive and really, really busy; plus, there isn't as much traffic to a smaller airport, so the ride in and out is nicer. When I fly out of regionals with Southwest or regional airlines (Mesa, PSA, Republic, etc.), ExecJet and tail numbers are all I hear on the ATC (alongside some bigger airline callsigns, like Southwest or regionals).
I did two discovery flights and got to partially operate the plane both times. I absolutely can't wait to take lessons; I loved it.
I did two discovery flights and got to partially operate the plane both times. I absolutely can't wait to take lessons; I loved it.
If it helps 96% of people involved in airplane accidents actually survive.
Also, travelling by plane is safer than by train and especially safer than by car.
Really, as a rational person, you should be scared by the road more than by any other type of transportation. It's just that all those deaths are scattered across the time axis, while for planes and trains, more deaths happen at once, which is "better" for media coverage.
Really, as a rational person, you should be scared by the road more than by any other type of transportation. It's just that all those deaths are scattered across the time axis, while for planes and trains, more deaths happen at once, which is "better" for media coverage.
It has higher risk per trip, and ok per duration. Trip length simply has minimal safety impact.
However, while ISS space station also has a great safety record per mile that does not make it safe. Which is why frequent flyers have high lifetime risks even if you call it 'safe'. ~X deaths per billion miles sounds great until you notice people with 10+ million miles.
However, while ISS space station also has a great safety record per mile that does not make it safe. Which is why frequent flyers have high lifetime risks even if you call it 'safe'. ~X deaths per billion miles sounds great until you notice people with 10+ million miles.
But if you've already decided to make a trip, flying is the safest way to cover a given distance. It's pretty rare to choose between taking an average-length car ride vs an average-length plane ride.
People don't drive from the US to France. So, you can't assume mode of transit has zero impact on trip length.
Flying promotes more long trips making fatalities per mile meaningless.
Further, highway miles while sober have very different safety numbers. Making the short vs long trip comparison even more different.
Flying promotes more long trips making fatalities per mile meaningless.
Further, highway miles while sober have very different safety numbers. Making the short vs long trip comparison even more different.
>Further, highway miles while sober have very different safety numbers
A chart/graph that compares the impact on accident likeliness of various safety reducing things about driving and quantifies them relative to "beers on an empty highway" would be interesting.
It would also anger a lot of people who condemn drunk driving while doing various dangerous things themselves.
Someone should make that chart.
A chart/graph that compares the impact on accident likeliness of various safety reducing things about driving and quantifies them relative to "beers on an empty highway" would be interesting.
It would also anger a lot of people who condemn drunk driving while doing various dangerous things themselves.
Someone should make that chart.
[deleted]
>Trip length simply has minimal safety impact.
Yes, and trip length is pretty much the only metric that matters as airplanes are faster than everything else. Since planes are so fast, the only thing I "value" when flying is how far I get.
>However, while ISS space station also has a great safety record per mile that does not make it safe.
For the ISS we don't care about distance though. We care about duration. People aboard the ISS are not travelers.
Yes, and trip length is pretty much the only metric that matters as airplanes are faster than everything else. Since planes are so fast, the only thing I "value" when flying is how far I get.
>However, while ISS space station also has a great safety record per mile that does not make it safe.
For the ISS we don't care about distance though. We care about duration. People aboard the ISS are not travelers.
For most travel, time, rather than distance, is most relevant.
People allocate travel by time, mostly.
People allocate travel by time, mostly.
Another way to say this is that, since most fatal accidents occur during takeoff and landing, a flight from St. Louis to Chicago is about as safe as one from New York to Tokyo. If you measure based on time or distance, you'll get wildly different numbers. But that time and distance doesn't really matter.
the statistics are relevant, and should help. but the rational part of the PFC is just a single participant in our mental cacophony, so its not like knowing this is going to fix the problem right away. not saying you are guilty of thinking this, but ive seen alot of people who are. flying being safe statistically is a perfect example of how knowing something is but a small step towards really knowing it.
Fellow flight-o-phobe here.
> "You are less likely to be in an accident in a plane than in a car".
> The above is a true statistic, but more nuance is required.
Regarding the "nuance": something I've never seen before, but would like to see, are these risk numbers adjusted for drivers that are not at-fault.
Example: If I have a reported N% likelihood of being killed in a drunk-driving incident, but never personally drive drunk, is my personal risk-exposure really N%? It seems like it would be lower.
My instinct is that these blanket-statement risk numbers may overstate risk for competent drivers. Not so on an airplane, however, where passengers have zero influence on how an event may play out.
> "You are less likely to be in an accident in a plane than in a car".
> The above is a true statistic, but more nuance is required.
Regarding the "nuance": something I've never seen before, but would like to see, are these risk numbers adjusted for drivers that are not at-fault.
Example: If I have a reported N% likelihood of being killed in a drunk-driving incident, but never personally drive drunk, is my personal risk-exposure really N%? It seems like it would be lower.
My instinct is that these blanket-statement risk numbers may overstate risk for competent drivers. Not so on an airplane, however, where passengers have zero influence on how an event may play out.
This is EXACTLY correct!!
Driving statistics are aggregates. Some statistics may not apply, for example if you don't drive drunk, or on very dangerous roads, or very fast, or in wintery conditions.
Have you read about "gun death" stats? 50% of gun deaths are murders. 50% are suicides.
Don't shoot yourself, and you have permanently lowered your risk of dying from a gun by 50%!
Similarly, if you were to carry a parachute on a plane, or drive an armored tank, you would permanently lower your chances of "dying from an air accident or car accident", regardless of your chances of being "in an accident".
So, since I can control for a ton of risk on the road, but can't control for any risk in the air, I will continue to travel by road.
Thanks for writing :)
Driving statistics are aggregates. Some statistics may not apply, for example if you don't drive drunk, or on very dangerous roads, or very fast, or in wintery conditions.
Have you read about "gun death" stats? 50% of gun deaths are murders. 50% are suicides.
Don't shoot yourself, and you have permanently lowered your risk of dying from a gun by 50%!
Similarly, if you were to carry a parachute on a plane, or drive an armored tank, you would permanently lower your chances of "dying from an air accident or car accident", regardless of your chances of being "in an accident".
So, since I can control for a ton of risk on the road, but can't control for any risk in the air, I will continue to travel by road.
Thanks for writing :)
> I usually am forced to take 3 benadryl and hope for the best.
Which would help because...? Acrivastine doesn't really have any sedative effect at all. And taking three at once is quite an overdose.
Which would help because...? Acrivastine doesn't really have any sedative effect at all. And taking three at once is quite an overdose.
"Benadryl is a brand name for a number of different antihistamine medications used to treat allergies. In the United States and Canada, it is the first-generation antihistamine diphenhydramine. Diphenhydramine can also cause sleepiness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benadryl
Benadryl in the US is diphenhydramine, which definitely does have drowsiness as a side effect. It's also pretty hard to OD on.
> Acrivastine doesn't really have any sedative effect at all
no, but benadryl does. which is exactly what the op said, and op doesn't live in your country. in fact, most people don't live in your country.
no, but benadryl does. which is exactly what the op said, and op doesn't live in your country. in fact, most people don't live in your country.
I knew I should have specified diphenhydramine! It could have averted this precise discussion.
But then I was worried that nobody would recognize its chemical name.
But then I was worried that nobody would recognize its chemical name.
> Lastly, when something goes wrong on a plane, it goes /really wrong/. Hijacked = dead. Pilot error = dead. Fire = dead.
Most hijackings in aviation history haven't had catastrophic outcomes; the 9/11 attacks were an exception. Also they're incredibly unlikely on commercial flights in the post 9/11 aviation security atmosphere, at least in the US/Europe.
Pilot error, while a large statistical source of catastrophic accidents, is also mitigated by the fact that all commercial planes have at least 2 pilots and often more on longer flights. And there are plenty of mechanisms and procedures in place to ensure that a single pilot error is rarely catastrophic.
Fire in the sky, particularly above 10,000ft (3000m), yea you're probably dead. On the ground, it's hardly unsurvivable. If you avoid panic on the way down, get your shoes on, get in the brace position, and head towards an exit asap, you've got a good shot.
FWIW, I also used to be extremely flight-phobic. I still have a bit of anxiety flying, but I've been able to significantly assuage it through exposure therapy, by watching literally every episode of Air Crash Investigation (also know as Mayday) (they're all on youtube). When you understand the lengths the aviation industry goes to to unpack and understand the exact causes of every accident (catastrophic or otherwise, and even near-misses), you'll be somewhat reassured. For example, regarding pilot error, every time a new class of pilot error is exhibited in an accident, the NTSB and FAA ensure that the lessons from it are propagated throughout the industry. Procedures are changed, pilots are educated, devices are modified, regulations introduced, etc - whatever needs to be done is.
Most hijackings in aviation history haven't had catastrophic outcomes; the 9/11 attacks were an exception. Also they're incredibly unlikely on commercial flights in the post 9/11 aviation security atmosphere, at least in the US/Europe.
Pilot error, while a large statistical source of catastrophic accidents, is also mitigated by the fact that all commercial planes have at least 2 pilots and often more on longer flights. And there are plenty of mechanisms and procedures in place to ensure that a single pilot error is rarely catastrophic.
Fire in the sky, particularly above 10,000ft (3000m), yea you're probably dead. On the ground, it's hardly unsurvivable. If you avoid panic on the way down, get your shoes on, get in the brace position, and head towards an exit asap, you've got a good shot.
FWIW, I also used to be extremely flight-phobic. I still have a bit of anxiety flying, but I've been able to significantly assuage it through exposure therapy, by watching literally every episode of Air Crash Investigation (also know as Mayday) (they're all on youtube). When you understand the lengths the aviation industry goes to to unpack and understand the exact causes of every accident (catastrophic or otherwise, and even near-misses), you'll be somewhat reassured. For example, regarding pilot error, every time a new class of pilot error is exhibited in an accident, the NTSB and FAA ensure that the lessons from it are propagated throughout the industry. Procedures are changed, pilots are educated, devices are modified, regulations introduced, etc - whatever needs to be done is.
> Additionally, you can control the type of vehicle you are in. A Miata is a deadly vehicle. A large modern SUV is safer.
This is inaccurate. SUVs have a vastly higher rollover rate compared to traditional sedans, and the Miata's handling is far superior.
When a collision between an SUV and Miata is imminent, the Miata driver can take evasive action while maintaining control of their car, but the SUV driver often loses control and rolls the vehicle over, with high risk of head injuries. What's worse, they may hit someone else while out of control and cause even more injury.
SUVs are dangerous to be in and dangerous to be around.
This is inaccurate. SUVs have a vastly higher rollover rate compared to traditional sedans, and the Miata's handling is far superior.
When a collision between an SUV and Miata is imminent, the Miata driver can take evasive action while maintaining control of their car, but the SUV driver often loses control and rolls the vehicle over, with high risk of head injuries. What's worse, they may hit someone else while out of control and cause even more injury.
SUVs are dangerous to be in and dangerous to be around.
I was rear ended by a very tall and heavy truck while driving my VW golf. My car was low to the ground, but had a high trunk. I got some minor whiplash and that was it.
If I was in a miata, which is low to the ground AND has a low trunk, the truck would have killed me.
An SUV, while dangerous in some types of accidents, has plenty of metal between myself and whoever rear ends me.
Thanks for writing :)
If I was in a miata, which is low to the ground AND has a low trunk, the truck would have killed me.
An SUV, while dangerous in some types of accidents, has plenty of metal between myself and whoever rear ends me.
Thanks for writing :)
Glad to hear you are ok. The largest car I ever owned was a 2006 Lincoln Town Car, which was a great car to drive if you aren't in a hurry. Built like a tank, with old-school 'body bolted onto frame rails' construction. My mom had a Miata for a while and I always felt safer in that. Driving one does require that you pay constant attention to your surroundings (performance is no good if you don't use it) but its ability to manoeuvre was just amazing.
Your Golf probably had decent performance too, but we are discussing your statement about the relative merits of a Miata versus a SUV and there's no comparison, safety-wise. The stats are very clear.
Your Golf probably had decent performance too, but we are discussing your statement about the relative merits of a Miata versus a SUV and there's no comparison, safety-wise. The stats are very clear.
Safety isn't why I don't fly. An accident or incident has [some probability] of occurring. But the chance of going through at least four different totally infuriating pains in the ass (you mentioned two) is near 100%.
I hope you haven't driven since 2012 as well because that's orders of magnitude more dangerous. For any single flight, the probability of dying is vanishingly small.
Statistics are your friend.
Statistics are your friend.
No, they aren't. It feels vastly different knowing that if there is an accident while flying you are almost guaranteed to die, while a road accident is almost guaranteed not to kill you.
That's a common misconception but survival rates for plane crashes are actually higher than most people think: https://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/surviving-a-plane-crash-is...
On United 232, 111 people died.
An additional 47 were seriously injured.
The remaining 120+ people had "minor injuries", which, because the plane erupted into flames, I assume had to do with smoke inhalation.
This can't seriously be considered a good outcome. The PTSD of nearly dying in a fire would personally be too much for me. Again, that is my bias.
Also, are hijackings being considered here? They are common enough, terrorist or not.
It would be cheeky to say that a hijacking is not an accident and therefore isn't included in the stats.
An additional 47 were seriously injured.
The remaining 120+ people had "minor injuries", which, because the plane erupted into flames, I assume had to do with smoke inhalation.
This can't seriously be considered a good outcome. The PTSD of nearly dying in a fire would personally be too much for me. Again, that is my bias.
Also, are hijackings being considered here? They are common enough, terrorist or not.
It would be cheeky to say that a hijacking is not an accident and therefore isn't included in the stats.
That's not how risk works, though. The probability of dying from a gunshot to the head are basically 1, but the probability of that event happening is basically 0. So it wouldn't make sense to never go outside because getting shot in the head is almost certain death; the risk that matters is of the event itself happening, not the outcome given that the event has already occurred.
It wouldn't make sense to never go outside, that is correct.
It would make sense, however, to avoid high crime areas, large and violent gatherings of people like riots, etc.
And if you were truly, truly, truly paranoid, you could wear a kevlar helmet around. People might think you are a complete freak, but war journalists do it.
My point here is, when I'm driving a car, I can control my personal risk.
With flying, most of the risk factors are completely out of my hands. I can only control the number of times I fly. And if they were legal, I could wear a parachute.
It would make sense, however, to avoid high crime areas, large and violent gatherings of people like riots, etc.
And if you were truly, truly, truly paranoid, you could wear a kevlar helmet around. People might think you are a complete freak, but war journalists do it.
My point here is, when I'm driving a car, I can control my personal risk.
With flying, most of the risk factors are completely out of my hands. I can only control the number of times I fly. And if they were legal, I could wear a parachute.
> My point here is, when I'm driving a car, I can control my personal risk.
Yeah, if you never looked at the evidence or psychology then I suppose you would come to that conclusion.
> With flying, most of the risk factors are completely out of my hands.
Why do you think flying is so much safer than driving?
Yeah, if you never looked at the evidence or psychology then I suppose you would come to that conclusion.
> With flying, most of the risk factors are completely out of my hands.
Why do you think flying is so much safer than driving?
Re: your first point, how can you say I have not looked at evidence or psychology?
The aggregate statistics for road deaths and injuries include drunk drivers, high speed two way roads in Wyoming, winter collisions, etc.
I don't drive drunk. I don't drive on high speed two way roads. I don't live in a wintery place.
The aggregate statistics do not represent my driving habits. I am controlling my risk.
Re your second point, yes flying is safe. I don't dispute it. However, people /still die/ while flying. Ok, now why is that?
Planes are hijacked. Engines fail. Planes collide. Planes are shot down.
I can't control the situation once it occurs. I can only choose to not fly.
When I'm driving, I can choose my type of car. I can drive defensively. I can avoid certain roads.
You might think this is just an illusion of control, but how many people have died in a 25 mph crash in a very safe truck on side roads?
How many people have died on two lane roads at night with alcohol involved?
The aggregate statistics for road deaths and injuries include drunk drivers, high speed two way roads in Wyoming, winter collisions, etc.
I don't drive drunk. I don't drive on high speed two way roads. I don't live in a wintery place.
The aggregate statistics do not represent my driving habits. I am controlling my risk.
Re your second point, yes flying is safe. I don't dispute it. However, people /still die/ while flying. Ok, now why is that?
Planes are hijacked. Engines fail. Planes collide. Planes are shot down.
I can't control the situation once it occurs. I can only choose to not fly.
When I'm driving, I can choose my type of car. I can drive defensively. I can avoid certain roads.
You might think this is just an illusion of control, but how many people have died in a 25 mph crash in a very safe truck on side roads?
How many people have died on two lane roads at night with alcohol involved?
I know that HN is a very specific crowd, but humans are not machines - just because I know flying is safer than driving does not make me feel any better about it. Same reason why I feel very unsafe when I'm a passanger in a car vs. driving myself - I feel in control of the situation, even though statistically it's not a safe situation to be in at all.
I flew twice weekly for 18 months and used to feel dreadful the day after flying.
I fly a lot. I think that the #1 thing that makes people hate flying is being inflexible about time. Transportation in general is complicated and has a lot of moving parts (traffic, weather, accidents, etc.). Expecting transportation to always be on time is a good way to always be frustrated with transportation. So if you book a flight expecting the aircraft to arrive at your destination by a certain time and then have an event planned soon after that, you're going to be VERY upset when you discover that the flight was delayed because of x
That article was all over the place and is in strong need of an editor.
I've travelled a dozen times for work this year and the best tip I have, although not related to the flight itself, is to wear simple ear plus the entire time in the airport. I hadn't realized just how much all the noise and cross-talk announcements were having an effect but it makes a huge difference.
My flying tips:
1. Travel with someone who also enjoys traveling.
2. Be well rested.
3. Drink tons of water the day/evening before so you are well hydrated.
4. Chapstick and hand lotion.
5. Bring your own entertainment, like downloaded Netflix shows.
6. Bring your own snacks.
7. Research the airports you'll need to navigate ahead of time so you don't stress yourself out.
8. Study the ground features as you take off and land. There are beautiful differences and unexpected sights you'll notice when looking for them, even in your home town.
9. Don't drink the alcohol, even when it's free.
Of course, if you are afraid of dying, heights, or falling I doubt any of these tips will help you.
My experiences are on short US flights from/to Orlando, so planes are generally filled with cheerful Disney-going people. This study was done by Europeans, presumably accustomed to European flights, whose "economy class" flights are pretty uncomfortable and bleak, at least from my very limited experience flying around Europe.