There is a fear that doesn’t need to manifest itself during a flight to become real. Sometimes it begins much earlier, in front of the screen of a smartphone, reading the news of a plane forced to change course, of a bomb alert triggered on board or of an aircraft escorted by military fighters. The journey hasn’t started yet, the ticket has already been purchased, perhaps it’s a route traveled dozens of times without any particular worries. Yet something changes. What until the day before was an ordinary gesture, taking a plane, suddenly becomes a possibility to be reconsidered.
It is one of the less visible effects of the wave of bomb scares that affected European air traffic in the first days of November, bringing back to the center of attention a fear that is as widespread as it is difficult to control: that of flying.
According to data communicated by Eurocontrol on 7 November, 35 flights were affected by threats on 3, 5 and 6 November 2026. Some planes were diverted to alternative airports, others were escorted by military aircraft, while passengers and crews had to face extraordinary checks. The checks carried out did not lead to the discovery of explosive devices.
To make the story even more disturbing, on November 6th, an alleged claim of responsibility was sent via email to some newspapers, accompanied by the threat of further attacks against European transport. The authenticity of the message has not been verified and investigators are working to identify its origin. Among the hypotheses examined by the European services there is also that of an operation attributable to pro-Russian circles, but there are no definitive attributions at the moment.
The story thus raises two different issues, which end up overlapping in the collective imagination: that of air transport safety and that, equally concrete on a psychological level, of the perception of risk.
Why bomb scares can make us afraid of flying
The fear of flying does not necessarily arise from a previous traumatic experience. You don’t need to have faced particularly intense turbulence, a difficult landing or a technical problem to develop a complicated relationship with the airplane. In some cases, it is enough that a possibility previously considered remote suddenly becomes more present in one’s mind.
The human brain does not evaluate dangers solely through numbers. The most emotionally intense information, especially when accompanied by images, testimonials and continuous updates, can take on a disproportionate weight compared to its actual frequency. It is the psychological mechanism through which an easily remembered event ends up appearing even more probable.
In the case of bomb scares, this dynamic can be particularly powerful. A passenger who reads about several planes being involved in the same week might begin to perceive a generalized threat, even when the available facts tell a very different story. The data released by Eurocontrol is significant: on 6 November the reports concerned 14 flights out of approximately 29,550 connections made in the European network, equal to 0.047% of the traffic of that day.
The number does not measure the risk of suffering an attack, but helps to understand the distance between the extent of media coverage and the share of traffic actually affected by the alarms.
It is precisely in this distance that anxiety can grow, because fear does not only depend on the probability that something will happen, but also on the severity of the imagined consequences and the feeling of not being able to intervene to avoid them.
The fear of losing control is often stronger than that of an accident
The Cleveland Clinic describes aerophobia, also called aviophobia, as an intense fear of air travel, which can manifest itself at different times: during booking, in the days before departure, at take-off or while the aircraft is already at altitude.
Not all people who fear flying are afraid of an accident. For some the problem is the height, for others the turbulence, for others still the feeling of being closed in a space from which it is not possible to exit freely. Then there is a particularly important component: the loss of control.
In a car, even when the risk may be greater, the driver has the feeling of being able to intervene, slow down, change direction or stop. On an airplane this possibility is completely entrusted to others. The passenger must trust the pilot, the crew, the safety systems and the procedures, without being able to directly observe everything that happens.
Bomb scares can accentuate this feeling, because they introduce a seemingly unpredictable element into a system that is perceived as highly organized.
The result can be a form of anticipatory anxiety: the person not only fears what could happen during the trip, but begins to suffer by imagining it, sometimes days or weeks before departure.
Symptoms may include tachycardia, sweating, nausea, muscle tension, dizziness and, in the most intense cases, true panic attacks. Physical reactions that do not demonstrate the existence of an immediate danger, but which can be so intense as to make it difficult to distinguish the body’s alarm from the external situation.
How safe is it to fly today? The numbers beyond fear
To understand aviation security it is necessary to distinguish intentionally caused alerts from aviation operational risks.
According to the Annual Safety Report 2025 published by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in March 2026, approximately 38.7 million flights were carried out worldwide during the previous year, with 51 accidents recorded, eight of which were fatal. The overall rate was 1.32 accidents per million flights.
These are numbers that do not allow us to speak of a non-existent risk, but they confirm how incidents remain rare events compared to the enormous volume of connections made daily.
The bomb threats of the last few days belong to a different category. These are events that require assessments and responses from the competent authorities, regardless of whether they later prove to be unfounded. The diversion of a flight, the intervention of the police or the inspection of an aircraft therefore represent the application of precautionary procedures, not proof that an attack is actually taking place.
This is not to underestimate the severity of the threats. On the contrary, the very need to verify them demonstrates how much aviation safety depends on a complex network of controls, responsibilities and coordinated interventions.
When fear becomes a phobia and what can really help
Feeling worried when faced with alarming news does not automatically mean suffering from aviophobia. The boundary becomes more important when anxiety begins to concretely influence daily choices: giving up a holiday, refusing a professional trip, completely changing an itinerary so as not to get on a plane.
In these cases, the Mayo Clinic specialists explain, one of the most effective approaches for specific phobias is exposure therapy, often included in a course of cognitive-behavioral therapy. The treatment allows you to gradually face feared situations and change your relationship with the thoughts and sensations that fuel anxiety.
It’s not about convincing a person that there is no risk, nor about forcing them to take a plane immediately. The goal is to learn to recognize the fear response and manage it without letting it automatically determine every decision.
For those who feel less worried, some strategies can be useful even before departure. Getting information through reliable sources, avoiding compulsively checking every alarmist update, can help maintain a more proportionate view of events. Knowing the normal phases of the flight, talking to the cabin crew about your concerns and using breathing and relaxation techniques can help reduce tension.
Sleep and the use of stimulants can also influence the level of anxiety. On the contrary, using alcohol or sedative drugs without medical indication to take a flight is not an appropriate solution. In cases where the fear is persistent or disabling, it is preferable to consult a specialist.
Fear can be the true lasting effect of threats
European authorities are trying to understand whether the alarms of the last few days are connected to each other and what their origin is. Among the hypotheses taken into consideration is also that of a destabilization action, designed to cause inconvenience, use up security resources and compromise trust in civil infrastructures.
In such a strategy, if confirmed, fear would not only be an indirect consequence, but could represent part of the objective.
Because an unfounded alarm can end without any devices being found and still leave something behind: missed flights, modified plans, frightened people and a feeling of insecurity destined to survive the news.
This is the most difficult paradox to face. A plane can land regularly, all the checks can end with negative results and, despite this, the fear of getting on the next flight can remain.
Understanding the difference between a threat, an actually ascertained danger and the individual perception of risk then becomes essential. Not to deny fear, but to prevent alarms, rather than facts, from deciding how much we can continue to move.
