Geniune Fear Of Flying

Energize said:
Aside from when the computer causes the plane to crash, eg maxing out the engines throttles causing them to disintegrate, as in Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751.
Click to expand...

I must say I've no particular fear of flying however your posts in this thread strike me as being deliberately inflammatory and aimed at un-nerving those who quite clearly are. You seem to be on hand to rubbish every peace of genuine advice given to those who are nervous flyers with yet more doomsday scenarios.

Still, every single passenger on Flight 751 survived anyway.

I feel much safer in the smaller aircraft, far less things that can go wrong, don't have to worry about power failure, explosive decompression or even instrument failure. With the ballistic recovery systems the vast majority of engine failures and loss of control scenarios are survivable.
Click to expand...

Smaller aircraft are many orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than wideboy jets.
 
[TW]Fox;19853900 said:
I must say I've no particular fear of flying however your posts in this thread strike me as being deliberately inflammatory and aimed at un-nerving those who quite clearly are. You seem to be on hand to rubbish every peace of genuine advice given to those who are nervous flyers with yet more doomsday scenarios.
Click to expand...

Well you are known for misinterpretation.

[TW]Fox;19853900 said:
Smaller aircraft are many orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than wideboy jets.
Click to expand...

Yeah because of pilot failures, which is a non issue when you are flying the plane. ;)
 
Energize said:
Well you are known for misinterpretation.
Click to expand...

More than half of your posts in this thread have been attempting to sensationalise the chance of a serious accident - be it through boldly highlighting with an ':eek:' the casuality figures or embedding youtube videos of documentaries of one-in-a-billion plane crashes or reminding everyone that once, a computer caused a plane crash in which nobody died so you can't rely on a computer.

I doubt it's a misinterpretation on my part. I'm not sure what your motives are, but your posts in this thread are at odds with most others and would have me even more nervous about flying than I was when I started this thread were I the OP.

I don't think it's particularly helpful nor proportional when the subject is one as sensitive as this which causes a great deal of emotional stress to quite a few people.
 
It's a bit of a joke fox. This is gd not psychotherapy, either take some diazepam or go by boat. The whole thread is based on the premise that aeroplanes are the only method of transport when there are many other options out there which would probably be a better solution then terrifying yourself on a plane, which is what I suggested in my first post.
 
Energize said:
It's a bit of a joke fox. This is gd not psychotherapy, either take some diazepam or go by boat. The whole thread is based on the premise that aeroplanes are the only method of transport when there are many other options out there which would probably be a better solution then terrifying yourself on a plane, which is what I suggested in my first post.
Click to expand...

For most places you'd want to go, a plane is pretty much the only option. Given most peoples annual leave entitlement, you can hardly enjoy a holiday in the USA by boat. It would be time to leave when you arrived.
 
Would someone with such a poor entitlement even be able to afford a holiday in the USA?

He said he want to go somewhere hot, you can probably get to Spain for example by train, faster than by plane taking into account the typical delays and having to check in hours before take off. It's certainly my preferred method of transport to nearby European countries. The transport itself can even be an experience.
 
To be honest I've ignored most of what Energize has had to say, and listened to Blinkz. I have a funny feeling that would be the case in reality too!

Blinkz, thank-you. You have helped me with my, albeit slight, dislike of flying.
 
Energize said:
Would someone with such a poor entitlement even be able to afford a holiday in the USA?
Click to expand...

Are you joking? What a completely odd thing to say.

In the real world, people do not use up 100% of holiday entitlement on a single trip!

A 2 week trip to the USA is easily viable with a plane trip at either end. It is completely ridiculous, not to mention hugely more expensive, with a one week boat trip at either end.

He said he want to go somewhere hot, you can probably get to Spain for example by train, faster than by plane taking into account the typical delays and having to check in hours before take off.
Click to expand...

You can do Paris and Brussels quicker or as quick by train as you can by plane - any further afield and the plane is quicker, far more quicker the further you get. It is hugely quicker than Spain by train! You could fly to Los Angeles in the time it would take to get to Spain on the train.

I will always take the train over the plane where possible - so I'm hardly biased (Infact I'm doing just that next month - train from Washington to Florida where most people would fly..)
 
If there are no delays then it is a few hours longer at the moment yes, around 9hr 30 to the north of Spain, however next year when he wants to go, TGV are introducing new direct services, such as Paris to Barcelona which will significantly reduce the time.

[TW]Fox;19854426 said:
Are you joking? What a completely odd thing to say.

In the real world, people do not use up 100% of holiday entitlement on a single trip!

A 2 week trip to the USA is easily viable with a plane trip at either end. It is completely ridiculous, not to mention hugely more expensive, with a one week boat trip at either end.
Click to expand...

It's just been my observations that the well paying jobs give more than 2 weeks leave a year.
 
Energize said:
It's just been my observations that the well paying jobs give more than 2 weeks leave a year.
Click to expand...

The legal minimum for full time employment is 5.6 weeks or 28 days under a normal 5 day working pattern so I'm not surprised by your observations. However that doesn't mean that it's entirely realistic to take a cruise to America and then have a holiday while there as lots of jobs (in many cases especially for well paying ones) will not be happy for you to take off more than a couple of weeks at any one time.
 
Energize said:
It's just been my observations that the well paying jobs give more than 2 weeks leave a year.
Click to expand...

Way to miss the point much? Like I said - people dont use ALL the allowance on a single holiday! Why would you do that?

I'll use me as an example - I get about 6 weeks a year exc bank hols. A generous allowance by all accounts. Does that mean I'd be happy to spend a week travelling to America and a week travelling back? Of course not! I'd end up using a MONTHS leave to spend 2 weeks in the States, and I'd have about 2 weeks left for Christmas and the rest of the year!

Nobody sane is content with spending as much time travelling to the holiday destination as they spend actually there! It's just completely impractical.

I am actually quite staggered I had to explain this to you. Did you think I meant people would use up an entire years leave allowance on a single holiday!?

The entire reason I keep going to the States is because I can get there in 7-8 hours and have just over 2 weeks of holiday. If I could spare a month at a time I'd go elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;19855071 said:
Way to miss the point much? Like I said - people dont use ALL the allowance on a single holiday! Why would you do that?
Click to expand...

Loads of people do it. They want to spend weeks in a country to travel all over it without having to travel back and forth from the UK dozens of times. Once in a lifetime trips of that nature are hardly uncommon. Certainly I would not go to America and only spend a couple of weeks there seeing a small part of it, I would then have to go back again and again spending hundreds in travel costs each time to see all my areas of interest.

Also a cruise is actually part of the holiday itself you know.
 
Last edited:
Using all your holiday allowance on a single holiday is nothing like as common as you think. It leaves you with no time off for the other 10.5 months a year!

You'd have to fly to America and back about 3-4 times before you equalled the cost of ONE boat trip to New York and back! And how do you get around once you get there? The boat goes to New York, you want to see California? Thats another 3-4 days travel if you don't fly to get there..

You honestly think 1 week on a boat, 3-4 days on a train, 3-4 weeks in California, 3-4 days on a train, 1 week on a boat is a viable and typical holiday?

When you could just.. fly?
 
It's certainly not typical to travel by train, but it's do-able if you have the money. I'm certainly not going to criticise someone who does, would be interesting if nothing else. At the end of the day you can't put a price on piece of mind. ;)
 
Energize said:
Aside from when the computer causes the plane to crash, eg maxing out the engines throttles causing them to disintegrate, as in Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751.

I feel much safer in the smaller aircraft, far less things that can go wrong, don't have to worry about power failure, explosive decompression or even instrument failure. With the ballistic recovery systems the vast majority of engine failures and loss of control scenarios are survivable.
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish.....your actually just taking pieces of information as it suits you without giving the full facts.
From what I recall the flight you quoted crashed not because the computer did the incorrect thing but bc the pilots werent aware that the computer even existed and had no training! So again .... pilot error.

and your little post on plane sizes is also rubbish - the bigger the plane the safer it is, I take it you have never been in a Cessna and attempted stall recovery out of tail slide? Because you wouldnt be saying that if you had.
 
Last edited:
I would hate to be trapped inside a pressurized domestic plane packed full of strangers full of pathogens waiting to infect me.

Hardly any air is fresh even on the best plane available which is the dreamliner 787. I would insist on 100% fresh air before you get me inside one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom