I need some words of comfort. I'm about to fly Norwegian to LA and I just can't find the information whether by now they have replaced all the Trent 1000 engines on their 787-9's or whether their newest aircraft come with C packages that hopefully address the cracking issue.

I used to love flying 787 and Norwegian for that matter (their premium service is always amazing) and now I'm close to cancelling it all and loosing lot of money and its giving me sleepless nights. I used to be a bit of a plane enthusiast, but now I think I know too much for my own good.

I just have a nightmare scenario where the engines shut down and all power is lost in mid-flight, over the Atlantic, far from any airport.

Help guys.

Sounds to me like you are suffering from some serious anxiety issues that go way beyond flying on a 787 powered by Trent 1000 engines. Perhaps you should cancel your trip and consult a physician? To the best of my knowledge, only 2 aircraft have suffered complete inflight engine shutdown, and both still landed safely. Best wishes.

Engines sometimes fail or are shutdown in flight; A380 AF066 (EA) or A380 QF032 (RR). Aircraft then land, sometimes even when both fail such as 777-200 BA38 (RR - fuel) at LHR.

People usually live to tell the tale. You are more likely to die crossing a road after being hit by a new silent EV, than you are by flying a new 787-9 powered by RR

Norwegian hasn't lost a 787 yet. In fact, none have crashed/led to pax death. There are something like 800 of them flying daily all over the world.

I am yearning to experience atleast an emergency landing at least once in my life

georgiaame wrote:

Sounds to me like you are suffering from some serious anxiety issues that go way beyond flying on a 787 powered by Trent 1000 engines. Perhaps you should cancel your trip and consult a physician? To the best of my knowledge, only 2 aircraft have suffered complete inflight engine shutdown, and both still landed safely. Best wishes.

well, I fly a lot for work and I had flying anxiety all my life, I've tried every single thing, learning everything about planes, physicians, medication, hypnotherapy. Unfortunately my anxiety is deep routed from a very traumatic experience from my childhood.

Most of the time I totally manage through the flight without having a major freak-out.

My main thing is that I know they are having this issue with the Trent engines, plus that doc came out of some negligence on the 787 production line. Plus the 737 Max crashes. It's just a perfect storm of stuff on the news that brought it all back.

texl1649 wrote:

Norwegian hasn't lost a 787 yet. In fact, none have crashed/led to pax death. There are something like 800 of them flying daily all over the world.

this is the kind of thing I need to hear, thank you. but it only takes one and I just hate how far the airports are on those ETOPS flights.

the safest I feel is 4 engine planes, understand the efficiency thing, but it just makes me feel so much more secure.

helloemile wrote:

I need some words of comfort.

What about going through our picture database for comfort:




Seriously, I wouldn't be concerned at all...

I fly the 787 for a living. You have nothing to worry about. The engines are inspected and maintained by highly qualified personnel and the aviation authorities also have a big say in when the engines need replacement. Just relax and enjoy your flight

N14AZ wrote:

helloemile wrote:

I need some words of comfort.

What about going through our picture database for comfort:




Seriously, I wouldn't be concerned at all...

you guys are hilarious : )

787Driver wrote:

I fly the 787 for a living. You have nothing to worry about. The engines are inspected and maintained by highly qualified personnel and the aviation authorities also have a big say in when the engines need replacement. Just relax and enjoy your flight

are you engines Trents? are they GE? Tell us the truth : )

787Driver wrote:

I fly the 787 for a living. You have nothing to worry about. The engines are inspected and maintained by highly qualified personnel and the aviation authorities also have a big say in when the engines need replacement. Just relax and enjoy your flight

Totally unrelated question. But how do you rank the 787 versus other commercial aircraft you have flown?

I ask this because I have heard 757 and 747 pilots talk about how much they love flying those birds. Is there a similar feeling among 787 pilots or is it a difficult or unpleasant plane to fly.

Thanks

Hello, a couple of things. Engines when overhauled and replaced are never done so at the same time it by the same engineering and tech personnel. That way the engines have differing amount of hours and cycles on them—not the same. By having different personnel doing the work if a person team makes an error it’s unlikely the same error would be repeated exactly by two separate teams. Even nearly new planes often have an engine changed out so cycle and and hours are different.

My father retired flying the B747 and he tells stories about the early days of the Queen and the Pratt and Whitney’s where the mechanics literally took hammers and had to bang on the turbine blades to free them in order to start them. Then they would fly across the pond or pacific. Haha.

I fly DC9 Super 80s or MD80s haha. Your going to fine. I promise. Have a great trip!!!!

TL. DR. The engines on your flight will be at different cycles and and hours and have been overhauled by different teams. Enjoy trip.

helloemile wrote:

I just have a nightmare scenario where the engines shut down and all power is lost in mid-flight, over the Atlantic, far from any airport.

Help guys.

Don't worry about it bud. Take the trip. Go through with it.

If one engine shuts down, which is extremely rare - you're 100% fine. Both engines shutting down is even more rare. It's not something you should worry about.

Buy a lottery ticket on the way to the airport. There's a higher chance you'll win a lot of money.

Enjoy your trip.

As the captain of a British Airways flight I was on once announced as we pulled into the gate at Heathrow, "Thank you for flying British Airways. The safest part of your journey just ended." It's statistically true...you're much safer on the plane than getting to the airport. Enjoy your trip.

Also, a.net pet peeve of mine so can't help it...it's "losing" as in losing money, not "loosing" which isn't a word but would describe a shoelace problem if it were.

anshabhi wrote:

I am yearning to experience atleast an emergency landing at least once in my life

Been in 2. Trust me, you don't.

Or, well...does financial emergency count? If so, then any landing on Air India would qualify for you...

helloemile wrote:

the safest I feel is 4 engine planes, understand the efficiency thing, but it just makes me feel so much more secure.

This is really a thing from the past. Engines these days, even the ones the Norwegian 787s are fitted with, are far more reliable than the ones that were in use when 4 engines was still a requirement for TATL flights.

Of course there have been issues, like that Air Transat flight that diverted to the Azores. But tell you what: those people were lucky it was a twin, that was the reason they made it. Would it have been a quad, they would not have made it for sure. This is for two reasons. First is that 4 engines consume more fuel than 2, so the aircraft would have ran out of fuel earlier. Second, 4 engines create more drag than 4 so the aircraft would have descended faster, giving it less gliding range.

Really, you're safer in a modern 787 than in an old 747-200 for example.

Still safer than riding in a car to the airport.

helloemile wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I fly the 787 for a living. You have nothing to worry about. The engines are inspected and maintained by highly qualified personnel and the aviation authorities also have a big say in when the engines need replacement. Just relax and enjoy your flight

are you engines Trents? are they GE? Tell us the truth : )

Trent engines.. yes we’ve had problems with them and still have but they wouldn’t be flying if they weren’t safe

ElroyJetson wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I fly the 787 for a living. You have nothing to worry about. The engines are inspected and maintained by highly qualified personnel and the aviation authorities also have a big say in when the engines need replacement. Just relax and enjoy your flight

Totally unrelated question. But how do you rank the 787 versus other commercial aircraft you have flown?

I ask this because I have heard 757 and 747 pilots talk about how much they love flying those birds. Is there a similar feeling among 787 pilots or is it a difficult or unpleasant plane to fly.

Thanks

I came from the A320. The 787 wing is super efficient and the speed brakes are also so much more effective than on the 320. The 787 really wants to fly but is also quite sensitive in gusty conditions and it’s easy to float down the runway if you flare just a little bit too much, but it’s a very pleasant aircraft to fly in general. It’s an FBW aircraft like most Airbus aircraft, so you don’t really “feel” the aircraft like I can imagine you would with older Boeing jets, but it’s still very satisfying to fly. And for manual flying, I find the yoke much more involving than a side stick, especially during rotation when you use both hands on the yoke

Just trying to ease your mind a little bit so I created this image. It's not 100% accurate, but almost.

I don't know if you're flying from Oslo, but if you do - this is likely close to the route you'll be flying.

The airports noted in the image are all alternative airports in case of an emergency. The red areas are densely populated with large alternative airports so there's no point mentioning them all.

You're barely flying over any open ocean.

Just chill and enjoy your trip.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

helloemile wrote:

the safest I feel is 4 engine planes, understand the efficiency thing, but it just makes me feel so much more secure.

This is really a thing from the past. Engines these days, even the ones the Norwegian 787s are fitted with, are far more reliable than the ones that were in use when 4 engines was still a requirement for TATL flights.

Of course there have been issues, like that Air Transat flight that diverted to the Azores. But tell you what: those people were lucky it was a twin, that was the reason they made it. Would it have been a quad, they would not have made it for sure. This is for two reasons. First is that 4 engines consume more fuel than 2, so the aircraft would have ran out of fuel earlier. Second, 4 engines create more drag than 4 so the aircraft would have descended faster, giving it less gliding range.

Really, you're safer in a modern 787 than in an old 747-200 for example.

that's really interesting to know, I really thought on the 4 engine jets if one goes it's pretty much the same operationally. Thanks for the info!

JetBuddy wrote:

Just trying to ease your mind a little bit so I created this image. It's not 100% accurate, but almost.

I don't know if you're flying from Oslo, but if you do - this is likely close to the route you'll be flying.

The airports noted in the image are all alternative airports in case of an emergency. The red areas are densely populated with large alternative airports so there's no point mentioning them all.

You're barely flying over any open ocean.

Just chill and enjoy your trip.

You're amazing, thanks you so much for the lengths you're going to reassure me, wish I could repay somehow.

I'm flying from London, so I imagine the flightpath being slightly lower than above, and it's hard to know from looking at the flight radar website what the scale and proximity is to the land.

helloemile wrote:

I need some words of comfort. I'm about to fly Norwegian to LA and I just can't find the information whether by now they have replaced all the Trent 1000 engines on their 787-9's or whether their newest aircraft come with C packages that hopefully address the cracking issue.

I used to love flying 787 and Norwegian for that matter (their premium service is always amazing) and now I'm close to cancelling it all and loosing lot of money and its giving me sleepless nights. I used to be a bit of a plane enthusiast, but now I think I know too much for my own good.

I just have a nightmare scenario where the engines shut down and all power is lost in mid-flight, over the Atlantic, far from any airport.

Help guys.

Take a stress pill, Dave.

helloemile wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Just trying to ease your mind a little bit so I created this image. It's not 100% accurate, but almost.

I don't know if you're flying from Oslo, but if you do - this is likely close to the route you'll be flying.

The airports noted in the image are all alternative airports in case of an emergency. The red areas are densely populated with large alternative airports so there's no point mentioning them all.

You're barely flying over any open ocean.

Just chill and enjoy your trip.

You're amazing, thanks you so much for the lengths you're going to reassure me, wish I could repay somehow.

I'm flying from London, so I imagine the flightpath being slightly lower than above, and it's hard to know from looking at the flight radar website what the scale and proximity is to the land.

You’re always within 180 minutes of an alternate airport, because that’s what Norwegian’s 787s are certified for except for a few aircraft where it may have been reduced but then the flight path will have been modified for any reductions for specific aircraft.

helloemile wrote:

You're amazing, thanks you so much for the lengths you're going to reassure me, wish I could repay somehow.

I'm flying from London, so I imagine the flightpath being slightly lower than above, and it's hard to know from looking at the flight radar website what the scale and proximity is to the land.

Happy to help!

If you're flying from London, the flight path will be more south, just as close to alternative airports, but even closer to civilization in general.

A good tool to find flight paths and such is Great Circle Mapper: http://www.gcmap.com/

The Trent issue has been parts wearing faster than originally predicted, bear in mind that it was 5 years from entry into service before the issues became apparent, so planes were never "falling out of the skies"
There are a number of 787's presently grounded due to RR not being able to upgrade the engines before they reach their flight limits. Planes are not being operated with engines that could be at any greater risk than any other comparable engine. Not sure what the expected life was for a Trent 1000, but the Trent 700 has an average of 26,000 hours between overhauls.

helloemile wrote:

I need some words of comfort. I'm about to fly Norwegian to LA and I just can't find the information whether by now they have replaced all the Trent 1000 engines on their 787-9's or whether their newest aircraft come with C packages that hopefully address the cracking issue.

I used to love flying 787 and Norwegian for that matter (their premium service is always amazing) and now I'm close to cancelling it all and loosing lot of money and its giving me sleepless nights. I used to be a bit of a plane enthusiast, but now I think I know too much for my own good.

I just have a nightmare scenario where the engines shut down and all power is lost in mid-flight, over the Atlantic, far from any airport.

Help guys.

In 2006 I had a trip from London To Miami that was shaking so bad we weren't served hot meals and drinks only in bottles. That thing was shit all across the pond.
From that flight I never "enjoyed' it to say the least.
I tried everything to ease on my fears but couldn't really shake it... till I bought Flight Simulator and I actually learned how to fly the planes by the book. You know, all procedures and sequences and so on.
For some reason playing FSX literally made me to want to fly lol and I did it several times since without a issue. Window seat, glued to it and just gazing at the beauty of the world. I have a 787 trip next month and I can't wait. Large windows FTW!

*also watching boeing structural tests on YT helped a lot

MalevTU134 wrote:

Or, well...does financial emergency count? If so,
then any landing on Air India would qualify for you...

Finance and profit and loss is just a way to see flow of money as.

PixelPilot wrote:

helloemile wrote:

I need some words of comfort. I'm about to fly Norwegian to LA and I just can't find the information whether by now they have replaced all the Trent 1000 engines on their 787-9's or whether their newest aircraft come with C packages that hopefully address the cracking issue.

I used to love flying 787 and Norwegian for that matter (their premium service is always amazing) and now I'm close to cancelling it all and loosing lot of money and its giving me sleepless nights. I used to be a bit of a plane enthusiast, but now I think I know too much for my own good.

I just have a nightmare scenario where the engines shut down and all power is lost in mid-flight, over the Atlantic, far from any airport.

Help guys.

In 2006 I had a trip from London To Miami that was shaking so bad we weren't served hot meals and drinks only in bottles. That thing was shit all across the pond.
From that flight I never "enjoyed' it to say the least.
I tried everything to ease on my fears but couldn't really shake it... till I bought Flight Simulator and I actually learned how to fly the planes by the book. You know, all procedures and sequences and so on.
For some reason playing FSX literally made me to want to fly lol and I did it several times since without a issue. Window seat, glued to it and just gazing at the beauty of the world. I have a 787 trip next month and I can't wait. Large windows FTW!

*also watching boeing structural tests on YT helped a lot

Yeah I learned to fly FSX myself to get over the fear. I never went to learn all procedures but it also made me more excited about flying. It’s just these recent news.

Now I’m excited and scared at the same time.

Bongodog49 wrote:

The Trent issue has been parts wearing faster than originally predicted, bear in mind that it was 5 years from entry into service before the issues became apparent, so planes were never "falling out of the skies"
There are a number of 787's presently grounded due to RR not being able to upgrade the engines before they reach their flight limits. Planes are not being operated with engines that could be at any greater risk than any other comparable engine. Not sure what the expected life was for a Trent 1000, but the Trent 700 has an average of 26,000 hours between overhauls.

I guess that’s reassuring as I see that most Norwegian planes that do this route are max 2.5 years old. Some are a few months old.

anshabhi wrote:

I am yearning to experience atleast an emergency landing at least once in my life

In a way I like people with a twisted/bazzar/unusual issues.

787Driver wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I fly the 787 for a living. You have nothing to worry about. The engines are inspected and maintained by highly qualified personnel and the aviation authorities also have a big say in when the engines need replacement. Just relax and enjoy your flight

Totally unrelated question. But how do you rank the 787 versus other commercial aircraft you have flown?

I ask this because I have heard 757 and 747 pilots talk about how much they love flying those birds. Is there a similar feeling among 787 pilots or is it a difficult or unpleasant plane to fly.

Thanks

I came from the A320. The 787 wing is super efficient and the speed brakes are also so much more effective than on the 320. The 787 really wants to fly but is also quite sensitive in gusty conditions and it’s easy to float down the runway if you flare just a little bit too much, but it’s a very pleasant aircraft to fly in general. It’s an FBW aircraft like most Airbus aircraft, so you don’t really “feel” the aircraft like I can imagine you would with older Boeing jets, but it’s still very satisfying to fly. And for manual flying, I find the yoke much more involving than a side stick, especially during rotation when you use both hands on the yoke

Thanks so much for your response. I had a buddy years ago who flew corporate jets and was able to get on with Eastern Airlines flying 72S. In the mid eighties he moved up to the 757 and raved about its performance and the "glass" cockpit.

It is amazing how much the technology has changed over the years. Good to know you like flying the 787. I think it and the A350 are both game changing aircraft.

No need to panic. Get an emotional support miniature horse. Problem solved.

ElroyJetson wrote:

787Driver wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Totally unrelated question. But how do you rank the 787 versus other commercial aircraft you have flown?

I ask this because I have heard 757 and 747 pilots talk about how much they love flying those birds. Is there a similar feeling among 787 pilots or is it a difficult or unpleasant plane to fly.

Thanks

I came from the A320. The 787 wing is super efficient and the speed brakes are also so much more effective than on the 320. The 787 really wants to fly but is also quite sensitive in gusty conditions and it’s easy to float down the runway if you flare just a little bit too much, but it’s a very pleasant aircraft to fly in general. It’s an FBW aircraft like most Airbus aircraft, so you don’t really “feel” the aircraft like I can imagine you would with older Boeing jets, but it’s still very satisfying to fly. And for manual flying, I find the yoke much more involving than a side stick, especially during rotation when you use both hands on the yoke

Thanks so much for your response. I had a buddy years ago who flew corporate jets and was able to get on with Eastern Airlines flying 72S. In the mid eighties he moved up to the 757 and raved about its performance and the "glass" cockpit.

It is amazing how much the technology has changed over the years. Good to know you like flying the 787. I think it and the A350 are both game changing aircraft.

I would love to fly the A350 as well yeah even today when you meet a pilot who flies or has flown the 757/767 they all praise those aircraft for their handling characteristics, even if they’re not so modern anymore

helloemile wrote:

I need some words of comfort. I'm about to fly Norwegian to LA and I just can't find the information whether by now they have replaced all the Trent 1000 engines on their 787-9's or whether their newest aircraft come with C packages that hopefully address the cracking issue.

I used to love flying 787 and Norwegian for that matter (their premium service is always amazing) and now I'm close to cancelling it all and loosing lot of money and its giving me sleepless nights. I used to be a bit of a plane enthusiast, but now I think I know too much for my own good.

I just have a nightmare scenario where the engines shut down and all power is lost in mid-flight, over the Atlantic, far from any airport.

Help guys.

Do not worry. Will be a sudden and swift one! You will enjoy some ultimate rush minutes before ....

anshabhi wrote:

I am yearning to experience atleast an emergency landing at least once in my life

I've been in one, although it was only a medical emergency, and we were already descending when it happened, so we landed at our intended destination. My first time landing runway 29 at EWR, and the taxi time to the gate was just under two minutes since we rolled off at the end of the runway and the gate was right there.

ElroyJetson wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I fly the 787 for a living. You have nothing to worry about. The engines are inspected and maintained by highly qualified personnel and the aviation authorities also have a big say in when the engines need replacement. Just relax and enjoy your flight

Totally unrelated question. But how do you rank the 787 versus other commercial aircraft you have flown?

I ask this because I have heard 757 and 747 pilots talk about how much they love flying those birds. Is there a similar feeling among 787 pilots or is it a difficult or unpleasant plane to fly.

Thanks

A lot of 787 pilots that I spoke to came from the 777, and it seems like they enjoy the 787 but prefer the 777. Ofc, there are varying opinions and many pilots came from other aircraft, but this seems to be the general consensus from the ones that I've spoken to. Then again, here in the US, it's all GE

787Driver wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I came from the A320. The 787 wing is super efficient and the speed brakes are also so much more effective than on the 320. The 787 really wants to fly but is also quite sensitive in gusty conditions and it’s easy to float down the runway if you flare just a little bit too much, but it’s a very pleasant aircraft to fly in general. It’s an FBW aircraft like most Airbus aircraft, so you don’t really “feel” the aircraft like I can imagine you would with older Boeing jets, but it’s still very satisfying to fly. And for manual flying, I find the yoke much more involving than a side stick, especially during rotation when you use both hands on the yoke

Thanks so much for your response. I had a buddy years ago who flew corporate jets and was able to get on with Eastern Airlines flying 72S. In the mid eighties he moved up to the 757 and raved about its performance and the "glass" cockpit.

It is amazing how much the technology has changed over the years. Good to know you like flying the 787. I think it and the A350 are both game changing aircraft.

I would love to fly the A350 as well yeah even today when you meet a pilot who flies or has flown the 757/767 they all praise those aircraft for their handling characteristics, even if they’re not so modern anymore

I flew the 757/767 for 4 years, and really the 757 was a once in a lifetime experience that I got to experience multiple times a month for 4 years. To be quite frank, I did like the 767, don't get me wrong, but it is actually my least favorite aircraft that I have flown, A330, then 757, then 737, then CRJ, and then the 767. To me, it just wasn't as exciting or noteworthy as the other Boeings or CRJ and it wasn't really graceful, elegant, and awe-inspiring like the A330 is for me. And hey, it's not going to be too far before you'll see me in the cockpit of an A350, though it's going to be while, the hubs with the A350 right now are very senior, not like at JFK where you fly for a few years and get whatever you want.

triple3driver wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I fly the 787 for a living. You have nothing to worry about. The engines are inspected and maintained by highly qualified personnel and the aviation authorities also have a big say in when the engines need replacement. Just relax and enjoy your flight

Totally unrelated question. But how do you rank the 787 versus other commercial aircraft you have flown?

I ask this because I have heard 757 and 747 pilots talk about how much they love flying those birds. Is there a similar feeling among 787 pilots or is it a difficult or unpleasant plane to fly.

Thanks

A lot of 787 pilots that I spoke to came from the 777, and it seems like they enjoy the 787 but prefer the 777. Ofc, there are varying opinions and many pilots came from other aircraft, but this seems to be the general consensus from the ones that I've spoken to. Then again, here in the US, it's all GE

I didn’t come from the 777 but I’m typerated to fly it too since the 787 and 777 share a common type rating. I’ve heard from colleagues that have previously flown the 777 that it feels like a more solid aircraft but they appreciate the better air quality in the 787, the higher air density and higher humidity plus that the 787 is significantly quieter although some of the first -9s are quite loud in the flight deck due to the lower recirculation fan being very loud.

Btw interesting to read about your experiences. I’ve only heard good things about the 757 (&767).

I think the A330 is beautiful too. I very much like the cockpit philosophy in Airbus aircraft and having previously flown the 320 I found it a pleasure to fly, but mostly from a practical work oriented perspective. As an aviation enthusiast I prefer something a little more old school like the 757/767. But work wise the Airbus family is fantastic and super comfortable.

787Driver wrote:

triple3driver wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Totally unrelated question. But how do you rank the 787 versus other commercial aircraft you have flown?

I ask this because I have heard 757 and 747 pilots talk about how much they love flying those birds. Is there a similar feeling among 787 pilots or is it a difficult or unpleasant plane to fly.

Thanks

A lot of 787 pilots that I spoke to came from the 777, and it seems like they enjoy the 787 but prefer the 777. Ofc, there are varying opinions and many pilots came from other aircraft, but this seems to be the general consensus from the ones that I've spoken to. Then again, here in the US, it's all GE

I didn’t come from the 777 but I’m typerated to fly it too since the 787 and 777 share a common type rating. I’ve heard from colleagues that have previously flown the 777 that it feels like a more solid aircraft but they appreciate the better air quality in the 787, the higher air density and higher humidity plus that the 787 is significantly quieter although some of the first -9s are quite loud in the flight deck due to the lower recirculation fan being very loud.

Btw interesting to read about your experiences. I’ve only heard good things about the 757 (&767).

I think the A330 is beautiful too. I very much like the cockpit philosophy in Airbus aircraft and having previously flown the 320 I found it a pleasure to fly, but mostly from a practical work oriented perspective. As an aviation enthusiast I prefer something a little more old school like the 757/767. But work wise the Airbus family is fantastic and super comfortable.

Unfortunately in the US, the 777 and 787 are separate type ratings(same for A330 and A350 ). And I agree with your sentiments about the Airbus cockpits, and the A330 cockpits and A320 cockpits are so similar that I imagine that you could count their differences on 1 hand. I could talk all day about my experiences and opinions, but I don't want to take this thread too off topic. Feel free to DM me, I'd like to know what we're getting into with the Rolls Royce engines when we finally get the NEOs.

Get a Xanax or an Ativan script and call it a day.