7 ms·

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 i

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.

sanswork 9y ago
If it helps 96% of people involved in airplane accidents actually survive.
- vog 9y ago
  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.
  - Retric 9y ago
    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.
    - sp332 9y ago
      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.
      - Retric 9y ago
        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.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        >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.
    - ravingraven 9y ago
      >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.
brokenpromise 9y ago
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.
- gambiting 9y ago
  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.
  - mattnewport 9y ago
    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-sur.html https://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/surviving-a-plane-crash-is...
    - quuquuquu 9y ago
      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.
  - brokenpromise 9y ago
    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.
mnw21cam 9y ago
> 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.
- exelius 9y ago
  Benadryl in the US is diphenhydramine, which definitely does have drowsiness as a side effect. It's also pretty hard to OD on.
  - mnw21cam 9y ago
    You mean it's Nytol then.
    - freeone3000 9y ago
      If the box says Benadryl, is it still Nytol?
- sp332 9y ago
  "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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benadryl
- flachsechs 9y ago
  > 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.
  - quuquuquu 9y ago
    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.
KGIII 9y ago
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.
- nunez 9y ago
  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.
tombrossman 9y ago
> 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.
- quuquuquu 9y ago
  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 :)
  - tombrossman 9y ago
    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.
MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
> 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.
chrisallenlane 9y ago
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.
- quuquuquu 9y ago
  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 :)
rdiddly 9y ago
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%.

sanswork 9y ago

If it helps 96% of people involved in airplane accidents actually survive.

vog 9y ago
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.
- Retric 9y ago
  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.
  - sp332 9y ago
    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.
    - Retric 9y ago
      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.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        >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.
  - ravingraven 9y ago
    >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.

brokenpromise 9y ago

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.

gambiting 9y ago
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.
- mattnewport 9y ago
  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-sur.html https://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/surviving-a-plane-crash-is...
  - quuquuquu 9y ago
    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.
- brokenpromise 9y ago
  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.

mnw21cam 9y ago

> 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.

exelius 9y ago
Benadryl in the US is diphenhydramine, which definitely does have drowsiness as a side effect. It's also pretty hard to OD on.
- mnw21cam 9y ago
  You mean it's Nytol then.
  - freeone3000 9y ago
    If the box says Benadryl, is it still Nytol?
sp332 9y ago
"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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benadryl
flachsechs 9y ago
> 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.
- quuquuquu 9y ago
  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.

KGIII 9y ago

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.

nunez 9y ago
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.

tombrossman 9y ago

> 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.

quuquuquu 9y ago
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 :)
- tombrossman 9y ago
  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.

MaxfordAndSons 9y ago

> 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.

chrisallenlane 9y ago

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.

quuquuquu 9y ago
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 :)

rdiddly 9y ago

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%.