FIRST, TUESDAY'S USATODAY ARTICLE ON
FLIGHT ANXIETY BY GARY STOLLER

When Gary asked for volunteers to be interviewed for this article,
Angel Miller, Tracy Leskey, Marci Smith and others volunteered.

The article leads off with Marci's story and her photo. Don't miss it.
You can read it online at:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-03-20-fear-of-flying-usat_x.htm

==========

MORE PUBLICITY - IN CASE YOU WANT TO WATCH

I'll be on CNN Headline News at 3:10 PM Eastern time Wednesday
May 22nd.

==========

SUCCESS AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS

Hello Capt. Tom,

I just wanted to write and let you know that after 15 years of not getting
on an airplane due to my fear, I have finally done it! I took a short flight
from Toronto to Ottawa a couple of days ago, and I still cannot believe
it! Your program works wonders....I felt a little nervous through the
flight, but not one 'panicky' feeling and/or need to escape.

Thank you so much...you have helped me overcome my biggest fear
and I will be forever grateful.

==========

A CONCERNED EMAIL AND MY REPLY

Today I received this email:

Owing to labor relations issues that are a constant in commercial
airlines and human nature, . . . it is difficult to have full confidence that
the ground crew. . . are continuously diligent.

Knowing that commercial airlines are focused on revenue - profit - I
believe that this aspect of their business DRIVES their business opera-
tions. I believe that airlines frequently expose aircraft, crews and
passengers to danger when flying in conditions that are threatening.

Example: only after we were aloft did the Captain announce that there
was 'weather' in the greater Memphis area - including wind shear.
Irrespective of this information, the cockpit crew willfully and negligently
attempted to land instead of diverting. I believe there was only one
driving issue in the decision logic - PROFIT! To divert would have cost
the airline money; therefore, the cockpit crew chose to attempt to land
at the assigned destination.

My position is that cockpit and cabin crews take a cavalier attitude
toward threatening flying conditions. They either do not address the
matter, or they downplay the significance of the conditions.

Thanks for your time and attention, and for your good work in helping
passengers.

My reply:

Anxiety, if it were based on pure logic, would recognize that - in spite
of all the risk factors you cite - when compared with either driving - or
staying home (!) - flying is (hour for hour or mile for mile) far safer.

So the issues about safety are just 'hooks' on which to hang seemingly
good reasons for being anxious. There is a thing called 'cognitive
dissonance' in psychology which says - basically - that after we make
a decision, we can get emotionally attached to that decision and
believe it is the right - and no longer weigh information to the contrary.

For example, if I buy a Ford F150, I might like to believe I am associated
with a product that is superior. Thus, I might strongly be of the opinion -
and even argue about it - that Ford pickups are superior, and everyone
should know that. If I bought a Dodge, I might feel the same way about
the Dodge.

If we are anxious about flying, we want to - and in fact may need to -
believe we are right.. So, we align ourselves with what appears to be
fact to support our belief.

Tom Wolfe's book 'The Right Stuff' has to do with the ability of astro-
nauts and fighter pilots to realistically look at the activity they are
involved in, recognize it is risky, and do it anyway and do so without
much anxiety.

What I hope to do is build in enough of the 'Right Stuff' for airline
passengers to deal anxiety-free with the incredibly small - but real -
risk of fatality when flying. Odd, though, that the focus is on flying
when in their day-to-day living, the same people do things routinely
without giving it a thought.

When we are in control, we don't feel anxiety. We don't feel anxiety
even if the thing we are doing is risky. I have had clients who were
New York City undercover cops who couldn't stand being on an
airplane. They said they were out of control on the plane, but felt
perfectly in control dealing with gangsters and drug dealers.

Obviously that doesn't make sense, on the surface, but what happens
is this: when we IMAGINE a danger, if we can imagine a way to get
out that of danger, that takes care of the problem.

Example: if you imagine a car coming at you, you don't just get stuck
with that image and next imagine a crash and death. No, you imagine
turning the wheel and escaping. You omit, however, the thought of a
trailer-truck or guardrail or trees blocking your escape route. All it
takes is just ONE 'relief' image.

The problem with flying is that there is a one in several million chance
of fatality. And you have no control. When that one chance comes to
mind, and you have no 'relief' image, you get anxiety.

Thus, you avoid doing the activity that is actually safer because the
activity that is less safe doesn't cause the anxiety response, because
you have a 'relief' image you can bring to bear.

Then, the next step is to seek to rationally justify that.
Still, the logic has to be addressed:

It isn't perfect, and with financial pressures, I think the trends are not
good. That is why I think it is wise to choose an airline where the
captain has the backing of a union which allows him or her to make
safety decisions without having to worry about losing his or her job.

Regarding the wind shear, and your belief that the cockpit crew
willfully and negligently attempted to land instead of diverting.

Wind shear has been with us since the Wright brothers, and it was not
until the Pan Am crash in New Orleans in 1982 that we learned that
wind shear COULD POSSIBLY be of a magnitude that could take an
airplane down.

After that, all of us were trained in the simulator - with the winds from
that crash programmed into the sim - to fly successfully through those
conditions. BUT we were also trained to recognize those conditions
and - IF they were hazardous - to avoid them. If the wind shear present
was not dangerous, we simply made adjustments for it.

Because of training and doppler radar to detect dangerous wind shear,
it is just not a problem anymore. In spite of that, you regard yourself as
having had your life threatened, which is not the case. But not realizing
your safety was well taken care of, you were led to think, as you said,
'My position is that cockpit and cabin crews take a cavalier attitude
toward threatening flying conditions.' The closest thing to a cavalier
attitude is that we KNOW turbulence is not a problem, so we don't
cancel a flight due to turbulence. You, it appears, believe turbulence
is life threatening. It isn't, so there was no irresponsibility on that score.

You were never in any danger whatsoever. It is your interpretation
that is the problem. Whether you can accept that (remember cognitive
dissonance) is the question.

And if you can entertain the possibility that you are incorrect in your
assessment, that then opens the door to addressing your response.
In other words, it is much less distressing to think of the problem as
being 'out there' with the airline than 'in here' with my psychological
response.

An honest appraisal would suggest there are problems out there and
in here. Yes, airline management can be unscrupulous. But - problems
out there as they are - the track record is (still) good. It it not - and not
even close - to the point where the public is demanding improvement.

The difficulty with anxiety comes from, whether this feels good or not,
very, very early relationships. It is our earliest caretakers who train us
to expect to be responded to, to be calmed easily, etc.

When we didn't get the very best of that, anxiety is an issue. It is an
issue we can repair, but it takes willingness to address the issue 'in here'.

Note to the reader: if this rings a bell with you . . . if you have been
avoiding doing something about flight anxiety because of 'cognitive
dissonance', . . because the problem is only 'out there' - not 'in here',
maybe personal growth lies in the direction of flexibility of thought. If
you are beginning to become willing to increase YOUR ability to deal
with anxiety, we can help.

Ready to get started? Everything you need is just a click away at:

http://www.fearofflying.com/store.shtml

==========

IF YOU CHOOSE YOUR AIRLINE WISELY, THEN THE
BIGGEST THING TO WORRY ABOUT IS YOUR BAG

A report by SITA Inc estimates that about 30 million bags were
mishandled and about 200,000 were never recovered.

SITA says the problem of mishandled baggage is worsening,
moving up from 0.7% in 2004 to 1.0% in 2005.

Full article at: http://www.sita.aero/News_Centre/Press_releases/Press_releases_2006/Mishandled_baggage_costing_2.5_billion_USD_as_air_travel_passenger_numbers_soar_to_2billion_say_SITA.htm

==========

IF YOU DON'T CHOOSE CONSERVATIVELY, THE LEVEL OF
MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY BECOMES MURKY

I know some of you don't like to hear anything other than everything
is fine. And others don't want to hear that - considering the economic
pressures and measures airlines are taking - it is more important
than ever to be sure you fly an airline where the captain does not
need to worry about being fired for taking a stand about safety.

Find out if your captain is protected enough to protect you. Go to:

http://www.alpa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=183

American and Southwest are not listed there, but have separate
effective unions.

In the U.S. we continue to have accident-free airline operations,
but in other countries where low cost airlines have 'taken off' in
the last few years, the number of accidents has doubled.

These substandard airlines caused 18 accidents and 713 deaths
in 2005,as compared with 9 accidents and 203 deaths in 2004

Some of these accidents were truly beyond belief. In one, the
captain had been fired from Lufthansa. He and the copilot had
no common language in which both were fluent. They failed to
turn on important systems, and when warnings went off, they
didn't know what the warnings were, and called maintenance
to ask how to shut them off.

If you choose a good airline, one with a long track record of
reliable and safe operation, and with a pilot's union, you can be
sure of not being on a substandard airline. This does not mean
every airline that does not meet those guidelines is substandard.
There are some airlines that are in the middle, but because of
the current trend to have maintenance done outside the U.S.
where the FAA does not inspect, I believe it is more important
than ever to err on the side of safety (as any good pilot does).

==========

THIS WEEK IN PATRICK'S BLOG

An ode to Logan Airport.

To read more, click here:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/03/17/askthpilot178/index_np.html

==========

WANT TO TRAVEL SOMEPLACE WARM?

Start now and the results you get will be solidly in place for your trip. We
get good results in just a few days, but excellent results when you have a
couple of weeks to practice the exercises that provides automatic control
of high anxiety and makes panic impossible.

To get started, please just go to:

http://www.fearofflying.com/store.shtml

For almost everyone, the best set of DVDs to get started with is 'The Control
of Anxiety'. If you would like to talk it over first to be sure what is right for you
please call me at 877 332-7359 or 203 258-4803. I'm available from 10 AM
until 7 PM Eastern (same as New York) time.

==========

LAST MINUTE HELP IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE

Even if you are flying TODAY (!!!) we can provide a lot of help. Don't risk not
being able to take the flight.

Just call. It will help. 877 332-7359 or 203 258-4803. Available 10 AM until
7 PM Eastern (same as New York) time.