World Health Organization Calls Sedation During Flights Potentially Fatal
Passengers who use sedatives (Xanax, Klonopin, Valium, Ativan or sleeping pills) when flying increase their risk of deep vein thrombosis. The risk, normally very small, doubles in four hours of immobility in a passenger seat. The risk remains elevated for about four weeks after a flight. Additional flying within that period compounds the risk.
This WHO research underscores the importance of finding a way to manage flight anxiety which does not involve any form of sedation.
World Health Organization press release:
http://presszoom.com/story_135160.html
You can download the final report on this research:
http://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/wright_project
/phase1_report/en/index.html
Air safety of airliners registered in the United
Kingdom
According
to Aviation Safety Review, 706 million passengers
flew 7.15 million flights worldwide during the
ten year period 1990 through 1999 on airliners
registered in the United Kingdom without a single
fatality.
www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP701.pdf
[PDF]
Definitive Statistics comparing Driving with
Flying
The
following article is based on a study done by
Sivak and Flannagan published in the January-February
2003 issue American Scientist.
Since
95% of accidents occur during takeoff and landing,
risk of flying depends almost entirely on the
number of flights involved in the trip. The
length of the trip is not significant; a long
flight has pretty much the same risk as a short
flight.
But
with a car, the risk of fatality depends upon
how many miles are driven.
To
make a direct comparison between the risk of
fatality driving with the risk of fatality flying,
we need to figure out how many miles of driving
is equal to the risk of taking one flight.
To
calculate this, Sivak and Flannagan chose the
safest possible driving, which is driving on
an Interstate highway in a rural area. This
distance calculates out to 10.8 miles. In other
words, the risk of driving about 10.8 miles
on a rural Interstate highway is equal to the
risk of a one domestic flight on a major U.S.
airline.
In
terms of time, at 55 MPH, 11 minutes 47 seconds
of driving equals the risk of taking a flight.
Since the average airline trip is 694 miles
and takes about an hour and a half, 11 minutes
47 seconds of driving has the same risk of fatality
as the average airline flight. But it also means
that 11 minutes 47 seconds of driving equals
flying eight hours to Europe or flying fourteen
hours to the Orient.
Don't
forget that these stats involve rural Interstate
driving. If flying were compared with driving
on urban or suburban roads and streets, a trip
of just one to two miles would be equal in risk
to one flight. This means the risk you face
every two to four minutes of non-interstate
driving equals the risk of one flight.
Another
view compares the average airline trip (694
miles) with driving the same distance. For a
trip of 694 miles, driving is 65 times more
risky. Driving a trip longer than 694 becomes
more risky (because the risk when driving increases
constantly per mile) while the risk of a longer
flight is about the same as the average flight.
Let's consider a trip from New York to Los Angeles:
it is 261 times safer to fly than to drive the
2821 miles.
Notice
that these figures INCLUDE the fatalities of
the passengers on the hijacked 9/11 flights.
What if terrorism increases? How much would
terrorism have to increase for flying to become
as risky as driving? Sivak and Flannagan figure
disastrous airline incidents on the scale of
those of September 11th would have to occur
120 times over a 10-year period, or about once
a month for flying to become as risky as rural
interstate driving.
The
relative safety of domestic flying on the major
airlines over driving is so strong that the
flying will remain safer unless terrorism in
the air were to reach - in spite of today's
security measures - almost unthinkable levels.
Researchers
can find the full text of the Sivak and Flannagan
article at:
http://www.americanscientist.org/Issues/Macroscope/macroscope03-01.html
Boeing
Report on the Fear of Flying
In
1980, The Boeing Company published a report
by Robert D. Dean and Kerry M. Whitaker entitled
Fear of Flying, Impact on the U.S. Air Travel
Industry. This report surveyed the results of
five studies done on fear of flying and was
sponsored by Kit Narodick, Director Analysis
and Support, Boeing Commercial Airplane Company.
The report indicates that one of every three adult
Americans is either anxious or afraid to fly.
Though there is no single explanation which can
account for all persons who are afraid of flying,
fear of dying and fear of heights are the dominant
themes.
The majority of fearful fliers do not consider
flying unsafe, but avoid flying in order to escape
the emotions experienced when they fly. When asked
why they avoid flying, fear itself (48%) was reported
as the primary factor. Still, a significant number cite safety concerns (15% of fearful fliers
and 29% of nonfliers). Only 6% of adults in general
consider flying unsafe.
Of studies included in the Boeing report, the
study by Opinion Research Corporation appears
to provide the best view of American adults. The
study sampled 2117 adults selected to be representative
of the continental U.S. adult (over 18) population.
Of those surveyed, 18.1% answered affirmatively
to the question "Are you afraid of flying?" An
additional 12.6% reported anxiety with regard
to flying. Added together, these two figures show
approximately 30.7% of the adult population -
about one person in three - is anxious or fearful
about flying.
Among fearful fliers, the highest levels of anxiety
occur during segments of air travel that involve
heights and life-threatening situations. For those
who have no fear or anxiety about flying, missing
luggage and missed connections are as significant
as sources of anxiety as in-flight events.
Of those afraid of flying, 73% were frightened
of in-flight mechanical difficulties, 62% of bad
weather flights, 36% by on-ground mechanical difficulties,
33% of overwater flights, and 36% by flying at
night.
In a study done by International Research Associates
of 2002 adults, fear of flying was twice as prevalent
among women as men (21% vs 9%). Similar results
(26% vs 11%) were found in the study by Opinion
Research Corporation.
The ORC study found anxiety when exposed to heights
had the highest correlation with anxiety during
commercial air travel of all the situations investigated
(eta-squared of 0.13 for heights, 0.07 for confined
spaces, 0.06 for water, and 0.05 for darkness
and crowds).
Virtual
Reality Exposure Treatment
High Priced Treatment or
High Tech Failure?
By
Captain Tom Bunn, MSW, CSW, LCSW
For
twenty years, as an airline captain and licensed
therapist, I have worked successfully with people
seeking to overcome fear of flying.
When people ask me about the new Virtual Reality
treatment for fear of flying, I am tempted to
tell them it is fraudulent, but it is safer
to say their claims are just grossly misleading.
For example, an article in USA Today on August
18, 2000 states, "A new study has found the
computer-based therapy . . . as effective as
traditional therapy."
Why is this misleading? Consider what they call
traditional therapy. "Those receiving the standard
treatment went to an airport, sat on a plane
and imagined the flying experience."
This is misleading because the "therapy" Virtual
Reality is compared with is neither "traditional
therapy" for fear of flying nor adequate treatment
for treating fear of flying.
The traditional treatment for fear of flying
was developed in the 1970s and made available
to fearful fliers by Captain Truman Cummings,
Dr. Albert Forgioni, The Fear of Flying Clinic,
Carol Stauffer MSW and Captain Frank Petee.
It included several hours of lecture on how
flying works, how fear arises and how to control
it. This was followed by exposure to a parked
airliner, and finally an accompanied flight.
The effectiveness of these programs in the 1970s
far exceeded the results claimed by the new
"high tech" treatment in 2000.
Subsequently, SOAR, the program I developed
in the 1980s, produced still better results,
as shown by research at the University of Tennessee.
Further advancements have led to a nearly 100%
success rate.
Larry Hodges, Ph.D, cofounder of Virtually Better
Inc. states as follows: "Nearly all of the SE
and VR patients flew within six months (80%
of the VRET group and 90% of the SE group),
. . . . " (VRET means Virtual Reality Exposure
Therapy and SE means Standard Exposure).
More
information and research on VRET:
http://www.apa.org/releases/flyingfear.html
Thus, by his own statistics, even the lame treatment
used for comparison had half as many failures
as Virtual Reality. When you consider that most
people entering treatment can fly but experience
great anxiety when doing it, an 80% "success
rate" (success meaning how many later fly) may
indicate no success at all.
This becomes more obvious in an article in the
Psychiatric Times. Michael Kahan, M.D., of Hillside
Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y. states "The criteria
for improvement was simply: did the patients
fly?" Forty people entered treatment and thirty-one
completed it. Following treatment, only twenty-one
(68%) flew.
In an attempt to assess if the treatment had
long term effects, only seven responded that
they had flown, and some of those reported moderate
anxiety.
This
info is available at the Psychiatric Times web
site at:
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p000501b.html
Seven out of 40 people is not, by any stretch
of the imagination, a good track record for
a $1200.00 treatment.
The problem with the Virtual Reality approach
is that people who suffer from fear of flying
have such a vivid imagination that they easily
create realistic images of impending disaster
when flying. These images in their mind's eye
are so real that the body reacts to the images
as the body does to actual danger. Because the
physical reactions that result are the same
physical reactions one experiences in actual
danger, it can become impossible for the person
to separate feelings of danger from actual danger.
In addition, the feelings that result are so
intense that the person may have no way to control
them. On the ground, when one feels anxious,
one naturally seeks to gain control of the situation
so as to change it in a way that will alleviate
anxiety. If that is not possible, escape is
sought. In flight, neither control of the situation
nor escape is available leaving the fearful
flier no way to control his or her feelings.
The need for control or escape comes from feelings
of anxiety. Since neither control nor escape
is available, the problem can be addressed only
by reducing the anxiety.
Adequate treatment to reduce the anxiety
requires neutralization of the images
the person already has in the mind. Additional
frightening images presented in Virtual Reality
Exposure Therapy may only add to the problem.
VRET fails because, instead of neutralizing
the images the person is already dealing with,
it provides even more.
Statistical Summary Of Commercial Aircraft Accidents
Boeingaccidentstatsum59-01.pdf article [PDF document]
|
