You wrote, "things are just out of our control".
If seeing things as impermanent and non-self is Right View, the next factors on the Eightfold Path are Right Resolve, the training in virtue (Right Speech, Action, and Livelihood), and Right Effort and so on.
The fact that there is Right Resolve, Right Effort and so implies that things aren't out of our control, or at least, not all things: for example we can (at least to some extent) control resolve, speech, effort.
Doctrine about karma suggests we can also control intention, or that we're responsible for our intentional acts.
One of the suttas (Ittha Sutta: What is Welcome (AN 5.43)) says,
Now, I tell you, these five things are not to be obtained by reason of prayers or wishes. If they were to be obtained by reason of prayers or wishes, who here would lack them? It's not fitting for the disciple of the noble ones who desires long life to pray for it or to delight in doing so. Instead, the disciple of the noble ones who desires long life should follow the path of practice leading to long life. In so doing, he will attain long life, either human or divine.
The wise person, heedful,
acquires a two-fold welfare:
welfare in this life &
welfare in the next.
By breaking through to his welfare
he's called prudent,
You said, "when we are on the plane for example and there's turbulence and it's all in the hands of the elements, physics and fate."
That's true to a certain extent. It's also in the hands of the pilot; of the people who designed, tested, and certified the plane; and in your hands when you chose whether and how to travel.
So I see the anatta view as a helpful when you can't control (e.g. after you're on the plane); but you can (try to) control whether you make a good (prudent) decision before you get on the plane. Making a good (virtuous) decision can result in a "lack of remorse" (I don't mind being on a plane ... it was the right decision to make, at the time when I made that decision).
Seeing everything as uncontrollable and inevitably dying may be an extreme (an extreme which Buddhism calls, in English, "nihilism" or "annihilationism", and is considered one of the "wrong views").
I think the definition of "Non-self" is that it's better not to think too much about the self, nor to have definite views about the self. There are other things (apart from Self) that it's good to consider: other people, Dhamma, Sila, and so on. And the classic formulation of Non-Self isn't "this is out of my control", it's "this isn't me and this isn't mine", precisely because having views of self like "this is my body (and it's out of my control)" lead to suffering.