Originally Posted by
geminidreams
No they were not 100% wrong. A car seat in a car is secured in a frame that is locked down. That does not exist in an aircraft so the alignment does not really make much difference. If the baby is strapped in the capsule the capsule will provide as much protection in either direction and unless you have a bundle of crash tests done like they do for cars you would be hard pressed to prove different.
Differences in seats aside, the car seat manufacturers, as well as the folks who certify them for use in motor vehicles and aircraft, and the FAA, have presumably done these tests.
Also, infant seats specifically are only useable rear facing. Perhaps the seat being used was a convertible - in fact, likely if it was even able to be installed forward facing, however, recommendations are now for infants to be rear-facing until at least 1 year of age, and ideally up to 2, assuming the baby is under the height/weight limit for the infant seat or in the rear-facing position on a convertible.
Originally Posted by
txaggiemiles
This is absolutely a situation that the captain would and should be taking care of. If I were the captain and I found out about this from the news, rather than at the time, I’d be livid.
Completely agreed. Don't understand why someone would think the captain has 'better things to do' then the safety of the passengers. Ensuring passengers are safe in the aircraft, in fact, is the biggest priority a pilot has, IMO.
Originally Posted by
jmcintosh
mmmmm. Nope. The rear facing nature of a bucket seat or convertible seat backward is for a reason, it cradles the infant in a situation a extreme forward momentum like a crash. Think whip lash and otherwise.
Infant seats can be aircraft certified and are all labeled as such. Typically the only reason a car seat is not allowed is when airbags are in use, or in business pods / angled (herringbone) seats, etc.
Exactly. Certainly glad the folks making and certifying car seats seem to be more knowledgeable then some others on here.
In fact, in my infant seat manual, it specifically refers to using it rear facing only, and also that "This Restraint is Certified For Use in Motor Vehicles and
Aircraft" (also listed on the seat itself), which is the official wording that is used for seats that can be used in aircraft. I doubt even if one wanted to, it could be properly installed in forward facing position.
Originally Posted by
Hammer0425
Not a chance ... every work group has their own manual with written policies on what is and isn't allowed, what's regulatory, what's company mandated, etc. Things like car seats are not going to be in manuals that pilots are issued. Will it be in the manuals for gate agents? Probably. For flight attendants? Absolutely. Flight ops (pilots)? Nope. At some point, you need to trust your fellow co-workers to know their job and follow what they're trained on. Five minutes before departure, adding another cook to the kitchen who has no training whatsoever on what is and isn't permitted regarding car seats and trying to thumb through a flight attendant manual they've never looked at in their life isn't going to solve much. Granted - it sounds like the flight attendants were totally wrong here but pilots are not trained to second guess every customer disagreement that other work groups have at the airport. Nobody would ever get anywhere if we did!
You're right - each group would presumably have their own manual. But reading the story, it seems like the FA was blaming the GA for being the one insistent on the seat facing forward. I don't know why car seat positioning would be in a GA manual, considering their job isn't primarily or otherwise ensuring the safety of the passengers in the aircraft - their job is primarily to take care of boarding and passengers in the terminal - not on the aircraft. Car seats would alsmot have to be addressed in the FA manual. Maybe not in the pilot - have no idea - but certainly more likely to be there than in the GA manual.
The 'other cook' in the kitchen in this story is the GA, who had no business deciding what position a car seat should be in, sorry.
Originally Posted by
narvik
Wait, now it's the captain's duty to personally check all infants on the plane and make sure the crew is following correct protocol regarding enforcement of baby-seating-position visa vie safety?
Because why in this described situation would two "crew members" have involved the captain themselves if they were under the impression they were correct?
These "crew members" [erroneously] told a passenger to face their child forward instead of backwards. They obviously thought that was policy. The passenger reluctantly complied.
The captain has to rely on other crew members to do THEIR job. They clearly got it wrong here.
I don't think anyone suggested it's the captain's duty to personally check all infants on the plane. However, they are the highest authority to make sure passengers are safe, and the FAs are the front line. Far from 'personally checking' infant seats onboard, they are definitely ones that should be brought in during a dispute, which clearly happened in this case.
FAs also shouldn't be enforcing anything based on what 'they think' is policy. If they aren't 110% sure, they should be referencing their manuals, which almost certainly doesn't require car seats to be forward facing.
Originally Posted by
geminidreams
In a car the seat is locked into a frame secured in the vehicle. In an aircraft it does not. To say that is 100% wrong for the child to facing forward is incorrect as the securing systems and conditions are not the same as a car. Without a whole lot of simulations on all variety of crash conditions there is no way to determine survivability or likelihood of injury based on orientation as it is an aircraft and not a car. So my point is they baby is far more likely to survive in a capsule in the event of a crash and the orientation is likely to make little difference to the outcome. Certainly the outcome is likely to be much better than a baby sitting in a lap.
Presumably, these tests have all been done on each model of seat before they are certified for aircraft use. If the seat is certified for aircraft use, and the airline policy doesn't forbid it (and I'm not sure why they would), not sure why you wouldn't allow rear facing - especially for models that only work rear facing (infant seats).
Have you done these simulations on crash conditions? If not, how do you know orientation doesn't make any difference? Pediatric doctors groups seem to feel differently, but you probably know better, right?
Originally Posted by
myb821
This is 100% false rear facing car seats only secure when rear facing. They are made for the way for the seat belt to slide in that only will work rear facing.
This.
Originally Posted by
amtrakusa
Im pretty sure FA took action because the car seat cannot be secured properly facing backward in this case, or the seat couldn't fit, or the previous seat couldn't recline and complained, etc...
Not brought up in the article, so I doubt fit was an issue.
Originally Posted by
rickg523
Rear facing car seats and reclining don't mix. It's caused agro on flights before and has been a topic of heated discussion here on FT.
I'm guessing the FA was trying to head off the inevitable. This was in F, and is there any doubt that the passenger in the seat constrained from recline was likely to complain, if they hadn't at the very sight of the car seat?
If the seat in front can't recline with the car seat installed, well, that priority is well below the safety of a baby - sorry. FA can suck it up for the flight, personal opinion or annoyance to them aside. It's their job to make sure everyone is safe - not that everyone can recline.