I don't think the newspaper accounts offer anything reliable.

Flying (like everything else) is NOT 100% safe. If emotional security depends upon 100% safety, emotional security is on very fragile grounds.

Try the view that things are NOT so as simple as "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong", "safe" and "unsafe". Recognition of uncertainty may cause anxiety. But uncertainty is a fact of life, isn't it? I think it is "safer" to see things as they are -- even if it means uncertainty and anxiety -- than to cling to the fragile false security of over-simplicity. How limited a life is that engages only what is certain!

The facts of life are that nothing is absolutely safe. We try to avoid that awareness. We prefer to think the things we do are under our control, thus safe. What we know is this: though there are accidents, they are extremely rare. Sure, they do mean there is a breakdown of some sort. For most breakdowns, there are backups.

Even with an engine failure, there is supposed to be a way to deal with it. I don't have any way to know, even though the engine failed, why the plane crashed. It shouldn't have. So, somehow, in this case, in spite of the backups, etc., there was a crash. This crash shows that failures that circumvent our strategies do happen once in a while, but it also shows how rare that is the case.

I think you can use a cartoon character in the Strengthening Exercise who is on a plane and imagines this particular accident. Then, return to your moment of connection to link that.