There's an article about panic by Bruce Tognazzini, user interface expert and former designer at Apple Computer, that may be of interest. His focus is mostly on technology failures (he uses examples from airplane flight and scuba diving), but the discussion has implications for dealing with other survival situations.

Panic! How it Works and What to Do About It

<http://www.asktog.com/columns/066Panic!.html>

One of the key points seems to be that when you get into trouble, it's really important to have a system that allows you to keep thing simple. He cites a statistic that might be controversial - perhaps the pilots here could comment. He states that twin-engine aircraft have FOUR times the fatality rate of single-engine aircraft. When a single-engine plane has problems, the pilot "has a clear realization that we’ve ended the flying portion of our trip," whereas the twin-engine pilot has a lot more opportunities for panic to induce bad decision-making. Furthermore, no one believes that this statistic applies in their own case.

There's a saying that pilots have about twin engine planes- when one fails, the other can get you to the scene of the crash. I don't fatalities are as much as 4 times as high as single engine planes, but it is certainly higher. But it's not just the opportunities for panic, and the increased skill needed to continue flying with one engine out. Twin engines are also used much more as travelling planes, so there's more pressure to make the trip in bad conditions. Recurrency training is the answer, and what a lot of insurance companies are insisting on.

I live near a tiny airport where someone apparently gives flying lessons. While I'm working outdoors, I will hear the engine of the silver single-engine plane above me suddenly quit. I can almost hear him telling his student: "Okay, NOW what are you going to do?"

For many years, it has been a "hobby" of mine to figure out what would be the best thing to do before it happens: If I do something dumb like stop on the railroad tracks & the barrier comes down, would it be better to back up or go forward? If some maniac with a knife tried to get into my car at a red light... If I walked into the local mini-mart with my head down, right into an armed robbery. Etc.

When I first noticed that I was doing this, I asked my sister if she every did that. She just looked at me like I had grown ears on the top of my head, and said, "NO! Why would I want to do that?"

So far, I've never run screaming from the scene. I usually do what needs to be done, then fall apart afterward, which still seems kind of whimpy...

On TV, I saw a woman who had stopped her car at the RR crossing, & then was rear-ended and knocked into and grabbed by the passing freight train. What on earth SHOULD you do in a case like that, anyway???

Sue

The "single vs. twin" statistic is about as volatile a question in aviation forums as guns and knives are here <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

As has been pointed out, twins are often flown commercially which means they are flown more hours, in worse weather, than recreational singles. Sometimes, a twin enables you to get into a more dangerous situation - because they tend to fly at higher altitudes, they can get you over obstacles like mountains, but with two engines, you've doubled the chances of an engine quitting, in a place where you need both engines to maintain a safe altitude.

Also, the incidents where a twin-engine pilot shuts down one engine and continues safely to his destination aren't regarded as accidents and so never feature in the statistics.

So arguing that the additional engine causes pilots to panic is a very simplistic analysis of a complex situation.

Anytime you're stopped, for any reason, you should be in the habit of checking your rear view mirror (if possible) so you can see if the car behind you is not stopping.

Keep your foot on the brake all the time you're stopped; if you see a car approaching from the rear, pump the brakes to alert him to the fact that you're not moving.

And if possible (especially at a RR X-ing) try to stop far enough back so that a rear-end collision won't push you into the path of the train. (I was taught that, when stopping behind another car at a red light, you should always be able to see the road between you and the car in front, for that very reason.)

I have, on one occasion, been forced to run a yellow light after I'd stopped, because I was convinced the car behind me was not going to be able to stop in time. I figured it was either move forward into the intersection or stay there and get rear-ended. If the light had been red, I probably would have taken the hit, but as it was yellow, I took what I perceived to be the better chance. I don't think I would have been able to react in time if I hadn't been anticipating the driver behind me not stopping.

I'm also one of those annoying drivers who slow down if I think the car behind me is too close. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Not a bad article, but the digs against Bush are B.S.

Glock-A-Roo:

Actually, the article gives Bush the benefit of the doubt. They could have said that he knew the attacks were coming and therefore was not surprised.

Learn your politics as the world over leaders kill their own or focus on certain groups to muster the populace.

The Jewish people were a focus group for the Nazis, the Palistinians are a focus group for the Jewish people, and you can not believe that other world leaders would do the same?

Not everything is as it seems, so accept the panic theory as the other alternative is really hedious.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

IMHO Tog is making a common mistake when he quotes the American Psychiatric Association DSM: Panic Disorder (what Tog quotes) has little or nothing to do with panic in the sense we use the term here on this forum. Here when we say "panic", we really mean "fear gone out of control". I don't want to hijack this thread by rambling on about Panic Attacks.. but they aren't anything like the panic that some people experience in threat/trauma situations.

There is a common factor which explains why some people panic and some cope relatively calmly to threat/trauma: EXPOSURE. With repeated survived exposure to the situation(s) or similar situation(s), physiological reactivity goes down and clear/focused thinking improves. We achieve this by experience, by training, by practice/rehearsal (even by planning and practicing in your imagination)... all forms of exposure.

I went to his "about Bruce" page and I can see nothing to suggest he has any professional psychiatric training at all nor does he appear to be a professional pilot. He appears to be some sort of software designer. I'm not sure how this makes his insights any more valid than any other amateur. I tend to read stuff like this with a large grain of salt.

Regards, Vince

I agree. While there are lots of people who are very highly qualified (on paper) who are extremely ignorant, if not complete nutcases; and there are people with no qualifications who are highly intelligent and self-educated; I would tend to be very suspicious of someone who comes out with "scientific opinions" who obviously doesn't have any scientific research to back up his claims.

Was Bush "panicking" when he sat and waited before getting up and leaving the class when 9/11 happened? Or was he sitting there quietly collecting his thoughts and planning his response? Noboby but Mr. Bush can say for sure.

I read the Flying magazine "Aftermath" column about the female pilot who crashed into a backyard barbeque in Phoenix (I'm assuming it was the same crash); the official NTSB report was that the door had popped open and the pilot (who knew better, as she had handled an identical occurrence without incident some months previously when flying with an instructor) apparently trimmed up the plane, undid her seat belt, and reached across to try to close the door. If so, this was an example of extremely poor judgement, but clearly not panic.

I believe that, like any crank, he's trying to prove a point and is gaily selecting facts that he thinks will support his argument. Contrast this with Laurence Gonzales's book "Deep Survival" which IMO, although not a scientific research paper, at least approaches the subject fairly and open-mindedly.