Although it has been more than 100 years since the Wright brothers opened the door to heavier than air powered flight, some people still board the most technologically advanced airliners with a fear that they may never return. Other than deep-seated phobias best addressed by psychiatrists and psychologists, why would an otherwise “normal” person be afraid to fly? As a general aviation pilot, I have encountered an occasional white knuckled passenger. Usually it’s not even related to a fear of heights. Most of us, pilots included, are deathly afraid to stand on the edge of a precipice and look down, but are not afraid to fly in an airplane. All of those that I have met who fear flying will acknowledge the safety record of flying compared to driving, so what makes flying something to fear? If a car experiences a mechanical problem on the highway, as passengers we know the driver will simply pull over to the side of the road. If the driver doesn’t pull over, we can exert some control and request the driver to pull over. But most passengers in an airplane have no understanding whatsoever as to how the pilot may deal with anything that may go wrong, and the passengers certainly are not in a position to exert any control. Perhaps it is this lack of understanding of how the airlines manage the risks of flying, and the inability as a passenger to control such risks in even the slightest way, that causes a fear of flying.

Everyday life is full of risks, whether it is walking across the street or driving to work. How we manage those risks determines our “survivability”. If we cross the street only at a crosswalk and only when the sign tells us to cross, and if we drive at the speed limit and come to a complete stop at every stop sign, the risk is low and survivability is high. If we cross in the middle of the street in heavy traffic, and if we drive 10 mph above the speed limit and coast through stop signs, the risk is higher and survivability is lower, but we have made a conscious decision that the level of risk is acceptable. We have controlled the risk we are willing to accept. Travel by air involves similar concepts of risk management, with one difference – the passengers have no control over the management of the risk.

The airlines must manage what are arguably the most severe travel risks. If the airlines screw up, the consequences can be disastrous and deadly. Airline passengers must trust complete strangers to manage the risks of flight for them. And that can be scary if there is no understanding of all the measures taken by the airlines and air crews to minimize risk. Let’s take a look at the most significant types of risks the airlines manage, and how they do it. With this understanding, no one should fear flying.

Pilot Error: Every pilot must meet strict knowledge and skill requirements before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will issue a pilot’s license. Additionally, before a pilot is considered qualified by the FAA to fly the large aircraft operated by the airlines, the pilot must acquire a “type rating” from the FAA in that aircraft, which requires a further demonstration of experience, knowledge and skill. In addition to the FAA requirements, which are minimum requirements for the pilot to act as “pilot in command” of the aircraft, each airline has significant experience requirements for a pilot to be hired. Once hired by an airline, the pilot must serve an apprenticeship as a First Officer (co-pilot), before being considered for the position of Captain. Even space shuttle commander Robert “Hoot” Gibson, who flew five space shuttle missions as a NASA astronaut, had to start as a First Officer when he retired from NASA and went to work for an airline. But there’ s even more. Every airline pilot must undergo periodic flight/simulator checks to demonstrate continued competence and skill levels. So, while pilot error may be a risk that passengers cannot control, the airlines and the FAA control it so extensively that the result is an extremely minimal risk to passengers.

Mechanical Failure: Every aircraft, including the largest airliners, undergoes FAA mandated periodic, very extensive maintenance inspections. The inspections are based on both flight time and calendar time. In addition, aircraft components have life limits, which means they are periodically replaced with new parts even if not defective. Mechanical failure is a risk that the FAA and the airlines manage so completely that the risk to passengers is practically nil.

Air Traffic Control (ATC): Our air traffic control system is managed by the FAA. Air traffic controllers have the responsibility to separate air traffic – make sure two aircraft do not collide with each other – and they work in an intense environment. While the airlines have no direct control over the ATC system, they have input into the management of the ATC risk because the pilot in command of the aircraft, and not the air traffic controller, is the final authority as to the safe operation of the flight. There has not been a mid-air collision involving an airliner and causing death or injury since 1986. The risk is managed, and the risk is extremely low.

Weather: The technology available to monitor and forecast weather all over the world is so advanced, that weather related accidents are rare today. Severe weather can be avoided by advance planning, and by circumnavigation of weather in flight. Some weather events simply cannot be forecast, but these are usually not catastrophic events. The risk is managed, and the risk of a weather related catastrophe is very low.

If you are a fearful flyer, understanding how well the risks of air travel are managed by the FAA and the airlines should make you more comfortable on your next flight. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, every year there are far more fatalities from cars, from trains, and even from recreational boating than from air travel. Keep that in mind the next time you are traveling by air.

At the outset, the risk of losing at trial must be considered. No matter what you may think, even if you believe the facts and the law are on your side, a jury trial is a roll of the dice. If the jurors “don’t get it”, or don’t like you, or are influenced by external pressures in their own lives, you may lose the trial. Losing can mean the jury finds in favor of the other side and you get nothing, or the jury agrees with you but awards you less money damages than you are entitled to. A skilled trial attorney knows how to present the evidence at trial in the best light, and knows how to speak to the jury, and knows how to keep potential jurors who may be biased against you off the jury, but the bottom line is, nobody can predict with certainty the outcome of a jury trial.

Also high on the list of factors to consider in deciding whether or not to go to trial is the expense of a trial. Most attorneys represent injury victims on a contingent fee basis, and you must reimburse your attorney for the out of pocket costs incurred in your behalf. Costs increase if a case goes to trial. Your treating doctors must be paid to testify in depositions, or at trial, or both. Their time is expensive, and rightfully so since they are taken away from their medical practices to testify in your behalf. Often it is necessary for your lawyer to employ medical, engineering, scientific or other experts to give their opinions in depositions and at trial. Their time and their expertise is expensive. Your opposition will employ their own experts to testify at trial, and your attorney must take their depositions before trial. You pay the other side’s experts for these depositions as well. Most of the time, all these experts are not local, and your attorney incurs travel expenses in connection with the depositions. Court reporters must be paid to attend and transcribe all these depositions. Your time is valuable, and you may miss work for a trial, not to mention the psychological stress of a trial on you and your family. If you lose at trial and your attorney recommends an appeal, or if you win at trial and the other side appeals, add another year or two before the appeal court decides your case. If the appeal court decides there was an error made at the trial, your case may be sent back for a new trial. If that happens, you start over and necessarily incur more expenses for the second trial. As you can see, if instead of going to trial your attorney is able to successfully negotiate a settlement of your claim which is acceptable to you, you have now controlled what was originally an uncertain outcome. In addition, depending upon costs incurred before settling, you may net more in your pocket than if you went to trial and the jury awarded you the same amount as your settlement, even if you also recover reimbursable costs (not all costs are reimbursable if you win). And don’t forget the time value of receiving money sooner if you settle.

Florida and many other states require mediation before an injury case goes to trial. If your attorney was not able to negotiate an acceptable settlement of your claim sooner, the mediation conference will be an opportunity for both sides to meet face to face with each other and try to settle. Usually the attorneys for both sides will agree on a mediator, but if they can’t agree the court will appoint one. The function of the mediator is not to listen to evidence and decide a “winner” at mediation. The mediator’s job is to try and get both sides to agree to a settlement that each can accept without incurring the time, expense, and risk of “rolling the dice” at a trial. Your attorney’s preparation and negotiating skills at the mediation conference can mean the difference between reaching an acceptable settlement or going to trial.

In summary, a lawyer who is acting in your best interests is not defined only by the number of claims he or she takes all the way through a trial. A lawyer should be willing and qualified to go to trial if necessary, but should also possess the negotiating skills necessary to maximize the likelihood of obtaining a settlement acceptable to you before trial. If the insurer defending your claim refuses to negotiate or to compensate you with a fair amount that justice requires for your injury, then the decision to go to trial is an easy one. If you ask most successful injury lawyers if they settle more claims than they try, the answer will be yes, far more. So when you see an attorney’s TV commercial that suggests you should ask your attorney how many cases he or she has tried, perhaps it is smarter to ask how many cases he or she has settled without the need for a trial.

A study to investigate vitamin E’s ability to protect men against prostate cancer was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (National Institutes of Health). The study started in 2001, and involved 35,533 healthy men over age 50 from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The results originally reported in 2008 found there was no significant reduction in prostate cancer with Vitamin E supplementation. But the investigators saw a trend toward a higher rate of prostate cancer, and decided to continue following the men after the study ended. The data collected by the study up to July 5, 2011 disclosed a 17% higher incidence of prostate cancer in the men who had taken 400 IU of vitamin E daily. Quite unexpectedly, it was found that not only did vitamin E fail to reduce the risk of prostate cancer, but it actually increased the risk.

A recent report of another study was published in the October 10, 2011 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. This study involved 38,772 women between the ages of 55 and 69 years, with an average age of 61.6 years at the beginning of the investigation. As was expected, most of the vitamin supplements studied were not associated with a reduced total mortality rate. But unexpectedly, vitamin B6 , folic acid, iron, magnesium, and zinc were associated with a 3% to 6% increased risk of death, and copper was associated with an 18% increased risk of death, when compared to corresponding nonuse. Some medical doctors/commentators have suggested that this study adds “to the growing evidence” demonstrating that certain supplements can be harmful. They further state that, “Those supplements do not replace or add to the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables and may cause unwanted health consequences.”

Another report recently published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism brings to light some examples of mislabeling and mis-formulation of vitamin supplements made in the United States. A 58 year old man had been complaining for several weeks of fatigue, excessive thirst, excess urination, and poor mental focus. For two months, he had been taking a vitamin D3 supplement. When the supplement was tested, it was discovered that each capsule contained 186,400 IU of vitamin D3 instead of the 1,600 IU stated on the label. In addition, the instructions on the label mistakenly recommended 10 capsules a day, instead of one. In excess of a thousand times more vitamin D3 than what the manufacturer stated on the label was ingested daily for two months, and it took a year for the vitamin D levels in the body to normalize and for the symptoms to disappear.

Gary Null, Ph.D refers to himself as “America’s leading health and nutrition expert,” markets dietary supplements, and operates health food stores in New York City. In 2010, Mr. Null claimed he was nearly killed by one of his own supplements. He sued the manufacturer with whom he had contracted to produce the supplement, claiming that it contained 1,000 times the labeled dose of vitamin D, caused him kidney damage, severe pain, and led to the hospitalization of six consumers also poisoned by the excessive dose of vitamin D. The Los Angeles Times wrote about Mr. Null’s lawsuit, and noted that it was common for dietary supplements to contain doses “wildly different than those indicated on their label” as a result of weak regulation of the industry.

Most physicians will suggest that a well balanced diet is the surest path to a healthier lifestyle. Before consuming any over the counter vitamin supplements talk to your family physician. If you start taking vitamins and have symptoms or feel that something is not quite right, stop taking them until your doctor eliminates the supplement as the cause.

It’s beginning to look like medical science is catching up with what mom knew all along. Eat your fruits and vegetables.

Most politicians are hypocrites. What they say and what they do are rarely the same. Florida Governor Rick Scott has proven himself to be a true politician, tailoring his message to whatever audience he stands before. He kept a campaign promise and sold (below market value) the State’s Beech King Air and Cessna Citation aircraft as soon as he took office. Prior to his election, and obviously playing on the negative public sentiment created when the CEO's of the Big Three auto makers traveled to DC by company aircraft to request government bailout money, Scott promised that if elected, he would get rid of the airplanes. He preached to the voters that business aircraft are, plain and simple, a waste of money (See my January 14, 2011 Blog). All this anti-aircraft rhetoric from a man who built his Columbia/HCA empire (which became the largest, private for-profit health care company in the US) using his personal Gulfstream jet for business travel (which he still uses). Clearly, Governor Scott knows the utility, and time and cost savings, of travel by business aircraft. And now the icing on the hypocritical cake. On Dec 5, 2011 I attended the opening of Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer’s Global Customer Center at the Melbourne, Florida airport. Anyone in the world who is buying an Embraer business jet will come to this state of the art facility to choose the details of their aircraft. Embraer, a world leader in the manufacture of business jets, also opened its first aircraft assembly facility in the US at the Melbourne, Florida airport earlier this year. Embraer's $50 million, 150,000 square foot high tech facility will employ hundreds of skilled workers. Fortunately, Embraer made its committment to Florida before Scott became governor. Governor Scott attended the opening, and talked about how wonderful it is that Embraer is building business jets in Florida, and how wonderful it is that the Global Customer Center is in Florida, and how wonderful it is that Embraer plans future expansion, and how he hopes they sell lots of business jets. For a Governor who campaigned on a promise to get rid of the State's business aircraft as wasteful and carried out the promise, Governor Hypocrite has proven how skillful he is at tailoring his message to what he believes his audience wants to hear. Yes, Governor, business aviation creates jobs, pumps money into the economy, and saves business travelers time and money. Embraer builds some of the best business jets, and as a result Florida will benefit.