tomoyoafter

hello there, i'll be flying soon but i've always had a huge fear of flying, i do admit that i am somewhat of a coward when it comes to hights, i've never been on a roller coaster and never will, and i'm also terrified of the tremendous push, sound and feel of an aircraft engine attached to a constantly wobbling wing and the sheer gravity force from sudden drops in attitude, plunges and worst of all, AIR Turbulences...these have haunted me for the past decade of my life even though i haven't flown in years and years, i'm a big fan of airplanes and also an avid player of most Microsoft flight simulators, but i'm just horrified, absolutely horrified at the thought of my plane crashing even back when i was on a plane, the thought never escaped me and every second my heart was pounding and sweating cold, due to circumstances i must fly, and i'm abit of a spot as i cannot decide whether to choose an old 4 engine boeing 747 or the much newer 777-300ER.


the 777 airframes were built i believe at around the 97's, while the 747 was at around the 1980s. my main concern for aircraft safety would be the age of the airframes themselves and number of engines.

the 777, despite having a much newer airframe and flies much faster, yet it only has 2 engines, so what happens when one goes out?

the 747 has a combination of 4 engines, but to this day i can still recall the horrifying smell and that awful, dreadful rumbling and cracking inside a violently buckling cabin of the 20 year old frame when we flew right into a rotten snow storm and i remember seeing a sunny day instantly turning into utter darkness with distant small flashes of gray outside.

in short what would you recommend as the safer aircraft with least chances of crashing?


i'm terrified of air-turbulance, the sudden descent and drops freaks me out, which aircraft would cruise with more stability and durability through these windy areas?

thanks for letting me know maes!

GenevaFlyer

Hi Tomoyoafter,

First of all, welcome to FT!

I would not take age into consideration that much. The 747-400, which most airlines are flying with, were first delivered in 1989, and the last one was delivered in 2005. Thus, plenty of overlap with the 777.

Stability wise, I would go with the 747. In addition, you do indeed have 4 engines, so less to worry about. (Although 2 engines is no worry either, as the planes are designed to fly, and be able to reach an alternate airport on a single engine).

You will find many of us on this forum take flights on a very regular basis, and we will, most likely, all tell you that sometimes turbulence just cannot be avoided, whatever the plane is.

(As for speed differences, cruising speed of the 747 is 893 km/h vs 905 km/h for the 777, according to Wikipedia. Hardly worth noting)

My main consideration in the flight selection would be based on seat comfort and entertainment rather than plane type, but that's just me.

Cheers,

GenevaFlyer

IslandBased

Personally I'd be more concerned about the airport that you are arriving at. On one flight to Aspen, it took 3 attempts before we landed safely. We were the last flight landing that evening. There are a number of airfields that can be a challenge to land on in poor weather, or during crosswinds.

danl08

Do you drive a car? You do realize thousands of people die each month in car crashes and very few die in plane crashes. Flying compared to driving is ridiculously safe. I think if you did the numbers you would find flying is safer than walking (pedestrian accidents). There is nothing to be afraid of

VH-RMD

there are desensitisation programs you can undertake which help overcome a fear of flying, I understand they are quite effective.

IslandBased

The FAA does have very strict regulations regarding aircraft maintenance and inspections. Most airlines are in compliance with the regulations and guidelines. Planes are routinely grounded if they fail any inspection, or if other planes of that model develop a history of a certain problem or potential defect.

Wally Bird

In terms of safety the type of plane is not a factor, if we are only talking about large Western airliners. Some Americans will try to scare you with criticisms of Airbus' products; this is simple jingoism not supported by facts or statistics.

The choice of airline and airport (some of them) is more germane. Some should be avoided if possible, but generally they are the more obscure places and carriers and even then the chance of something bad happening are very, very slim.

The filght crew don't like turbulence any more than you and will try to avoid or minimise it. Sometimes that isn't possible so really all you can do is hang on and bear it. The plane will not fall apart.

IMO the flight is the least stressful part of flying, I'm more annoyed by the security and immigration gauntlets at departure and arrival.

LAXguy1748

The age of an aircraft is pretty irrelevant so long as the aircraft is maintained properly. If you are flying on a major airline, maintenance is generally not an issue. I'm getting on an MD80 in 2 weeks and have no concerns whatsoever about it, even though it is a 30 year old aircraft.

As to the 747 vs 777 question, it's 6 in one, half dozen in the other. Engine failures on a jet are extremely rare now. In fact many airlines, such as El Al, JAL, Korean, Emirates to name a few, routinely use 777s on trans-oceanic flights. Two engine aircraft have to be ETOPS certified, Extended Twin-engine Operations, meaning there is a strict criteria to be met for redundancy, engine reliability, and other things. The 777 is ETOPS certified, as are some 737s, namely the ones that Alaska Airlines uses to go from SEA-HNL.

Be more worried about the drive to and from the airport than the flight. Enjoy your flight!!!!

thegeneral

All modern aircraft have excellent safety records. It's most commonly a human error that messed things up. I would be more concerned with your carrier. Find a legacy carrier that has been around for a while. You remember the guy who landed the US Airways plane in the Hudson? That guy was no spring chicken. You get what you pay for in that regard. Stick with the big carriers and avoid the regional ones. You might also want to avoid ones like Southworst that routinely went against the recommended maintenance from the manufacturer.

Have you looked at alternatives. Should you be that worried about things, why not take a train. You could have a panic attack mid flight. Also, talk to your family doctor. He or she can easily prescribe you a mild sedative that will help.

Willytx

Ask your doctor about an adrenaline antagonist. It works by counteracting the adrenaline created when nervousness/panic sets in. Unlike sedatives, it won't leave you dopey, drooling or drowsy. The only real downside is if you were to have an severe allergic reaction or heart attack, any adrenaline used in treatment wouldn't work well. Your doctor can help weigh the benefits and risks.

They work well for riding on the Autobahn at unholy speeds (not driving).

tomoyoafter

thank you all for the informative and encouraging replies, i've decided to book. a 2 engine 777.



i was concerned about this earlier:


Cathay suspends four Boeing 777-300 jets after engine falls apart mid-flight

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9629C8B63


i chose the 777 since it appears that it has never had any hull loss like the 747 often does for these past few years.


about sedatives, i'll ask the doctor for the medicine you folks have recommended, the airliner doesn't appear to have those air-phobia therapy sessions.

As for panic attacks, yes i have them everytime i got on a plane, it developed back in my younger years when i really flew alot with my parents, around 3-4 times per year, and it was never treated nor did it ever go away; my head goes dizzy and i lose all sense of direction, my heart was pounding at abnormal rate i thought it was going to pop, i started to sweat and my fingers began to cural up and shake badly, then it was my stomach area and soon spread to every parts of my body and the muscles began to contract and my whole body went numb, i lay there and i felt like i was going to die, everytime.

WChou

As others have said, flying is ridiculous safe. The media loves to take anything aviation related and completely blow things out of proportion. In the article you posted, it sounds like a benign piece like a cover fell off. Honestly, I've seen bigger pieces fall off of cars driving down the highway. If the local news treated highway incidents like aviation incidents, they would need 74 hours per day.

In the interests of full disclosure, the 777 has one hull loss and no fatalities. Still, think about the millions and millions of miles flow without incident. Back in college, one fun project in a stats class was to put the odds of events into perspective. I figured out the odds of being in a fatal incident on a plane was something (don't remember the exact finding) like winning a pick 6 lottery while getting struck by lighting and bitten by a shark attack during a solar eclipse.

Perhaps the thing to do is seek professional help. A medical professional is in the best position to treat your phobia.

Wally Bird

Well this isn't going to reassure you, but every airliner flying today* has had an IFSD (inflight shutdown) of an engine at one time or another. That's why they are certified to fly on the remaining functioning engine(s).

* maybe the 787 hasn't; yet.

ralfp

Welcome to Flyertalk!

The choice of non-stop vs. connecting flights is probably as significant, if not more significant, than the choice of aircraft. That's because the most dangerous parts of a flight are takeoff and landing. Adding a connection would significantly increase the (minuscule) safety risk.

I must reiterate the previous comments that you face far more serious dangers every day (e.g. driving). For a given trip, flying is almost 10 times safer than the next safest way to travel (see the right-most table here). Flying is over 50 times safer than driving and more than 100 times safer than walking.

Another factor is money. If you can save $100 by flying a slightly less safe airline or airliner, you can spend that money on a variety of things that can do far more to increase your overall safety (e.g. have your car brakes checked, get physical and have your cholesterol & blood pressure checked, etc.).

(Rant Warning) On a side note, in my opinion, the real danger in terms of loss of life (life years) is time wasted in silly lines for things like "security". The TSA wastes more human life (I'm talking about passengers, not trying to say anything about TSA employees) than crashes or terrorists. If every passenger spends 10 minutes at "security", that results in about 15,000 wasted human life-years per year. That's almost like killing a few hundred people per year. (pardon the mild hyperbole). The same logic applies to time wasted driving, etc.

timfountain

Well you've booked it now, but there was a pretty highly publicised hull loss of a 777, Google British Airways 38.....