>Flying and survival stats if there's actually a serious incident.
This is such a bad contextualization of the risks if you actually know the stats on the matter, since there are ~600 million passengers per year and <600 (as in, fewer than a thousand) fatalities; you have less that one in a million chance to experience a "serious" incident - in fact, I'm pretty sure the definition of a "serious" incident in this context is "an incident that normally results in a large number of fatalities". Which makes your stat above very nearly a tautology.
My point is that this is very much an example of where internalizing the stats should make you feel safer, unless you're letting a cognitive bias (like anxiety) prevent you from actually internalizing the real risks.
I fly because I know the stats. I worry because the stats for survival are low (or worse, you actually survive the impact).
It also doesn't help that I live near a major airport and almost on a fortnightly basis we get reports of planes declaring minor emergencies and having to turn around or be diverted. Occasionally it may be bird strike/engine fire.
This is such a bad contextualization of the risks if you actually know the stats on the matter, since there are ~600 million passengers per year and <600 (as in, fewer than a thousand) fatalities; you have less that one in a million chance to experience a "serious" incident - in fact, I'm pretty sure the definition of a "serious" incident in this context is "an incident that normally results in a large number of fatalities". Which makes your stat above very nearly a tautology.
My point is that this is very much an example of where internalizing the stats should make you feel safer, unless you're letting a cognitive bias (like anxiety) prevent you from actually internalizing the real risks.