No seatbelt for lap infants on AC TATL?

Old Jul 13, 19, 12:02 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YEG
Posts: 234
It has been a while but when our child was young we bought the seat and did the car seat thing. My logic was if it is really dangerous not use a car seat in a car doing 60 mph then being in airplane doing ~ 300 mph would be much worse.

I find it ironic that if I have a child on my lap in a car, I am an irresponsible parent and child services should investigate me. If I have a child on my lap in a plane, no problem just make sure you hang on tight.
trooper and pprrff like this.
AltaBound is offline  
Old Jul 13, 19, 7:20 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto - YYZ
Programs: Aeroplan/Hilton Gold/Marriott Bonvoy PE/Accor/Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 5,393
Originally Posted by wrp96 View Post
There is actually sound reasoning for both sides.

The European authorities require the lap belts use because of the risk of the child flying out of your hands.

North American authorities generally don't allow the use of lap belts because of the risk you could squish your child in an emergency, either crushing them beneath you or into the seat in front of you.
You have outlined the two trains of thought as they relate to studies and assessments, and the directives are being followed as per the jurisdiction in that particular country or region.
ACYYZ/SD is offline  
Old Jul 13, 19, 7:45 am
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E75K 2MM former 14-year SE; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 28,020
Yep, no different than when/if glassware is collected prior to landing, window shades, emergency exit row baggage, and the hotel club lounge offering paid/free alcohol... and the list goes on... different jurisdictions, different rules.
trooper and ACYYZ/SD like this.
yyznomad is offline  
Old Jul 13, 19, 7:22 pm
  #19  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Programs: star alliance, british airways executive club
Posts: 90
Ah, good old FlyerTalk - I was wondering how someone could make this my fault!

Further research does indeed suggest that it's a jurisdictional issue - all our flights in Europe (where we fly more often) we've been given a lap belt for the infant. When the flight attendant told us to hold onto our baby tight, my wife (a scientist) looked at me and said, "F=MA." Basically there's no way to hold on to a baby in a rapid deceleration - the baby would effectively weigh 400kg.

It also seems like this has been an issue of some debate in Canada recently, with some inquests, activism and ongoing research. Can definitely see the rationale on both sides.

Thanks all!
iron_mike is offline  
Old Jul 13, 19, 7:47 pm
  #20  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 29,652
Originally Posted by iron_mike View Post
"F=MA." Basically there's no way to hold on to a baby in a rapid deceleration - the baby would effectively weigh 400kg
Would you care to plug in some numbers (typically associated with rapid deceleration) to back up the 400kg? How do infant seatbelts perform under such conditions?
moondog is online now  
Old Jul 13, 19, 7:48 pm
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E75K 2MM former 14-year SE; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 28,020
Originally Posted by moondog View Post
Would you care to plug in some numbers (typically associated with rapid deceleration) to back up the 400kg? How do infant seatbelts perform under such conditions?
The last time I experienced an aborted takeoff, I lost my food baby.
Finkface likes this.
yyznomad is offline  
Old Jul 13, 19, 7:54 pm
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 29,652
Originally Posted by yyznomad View Post
The last time I experienced an aborted takeoff, I lost my food baby.
I can see that, but I'm guessing your acceleration wasn't appreciably faster than 9.8 m/s2
moondog is online now  
Old Jul 13, 19, 8:34 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC*E50 (*A Gold), Accor Platinum, Bonvoy Gold Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,354
Originally Posted by AltaBound View Post
I find it ironic that if I have a child on my lap in a car, I am an irresponsible parent and child services should investigate me. If I have a child on my lap in a plane, no problem just make sure you hang on tight.
You’re comparing apples to oranges; occupants routinely walk away from car crashes provided they’re properly fastened to their seats. Meanwhile, passengers rarely walk away from plane crashes, regardless of how they’re fastened to their seats.

In the case of the recent turbulence on the YVR-SYD flight, absolutely, a car seat would’ve prevented an infant sleeping in a bulkhead-mounted bassinet from being tossed towards the ceiling. A seatbelt extension might’ve done the same, too. However, I have to believe that these instances are sufficiently few and far between that regulation isn’t required to force the use car seats.

Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to decide how their kids fly, and as long as they’re following the safety regulations in effect, they shouldn’t be second-guessed by anonymous strangers on an internet forum.
moondog and wrp96 like this.
ffsim is offline  
Old Jul 13, 19, 9:21 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YEG
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by ffsim View Post

Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to decide how their kids fly, and as long as they’re following the safety regulations in effect, they shouldn’t be second-guessed by anonymous strangers on an internet forum.
I am not second guessing the parents, I am second guessing the regulators. During take-off landing a computer is considered a potentially dangerous projectile and must be safely secured. However a child in a lap is not. I have no arguments with the computer logic... To each their own.
AltaBound is offline  
Old Jul 14, 19, 1:00 pm
  #25  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Programs: star alliance, british airways executive club
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by moondog View Post
Would you care to plug in some numbers (typically associated with rapid deceleration) to back up the 400kg? How do infant seatbelts perform under such conditions?
You seem quite invested in this. How about you do the calculations, and I'll continue to enjoy hanging out at the cottage with my family?
iron_mike is offline  
Old Jul 14, 19, 1:07 pm
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 29,652
Originally Posted by iron_mike View Post
You seem quite invested in this. How about you do the calculations, and I'll continue to enjoy hanging out at the cottage with my family?
Not at all. YOU brought up the 400 kg effective mass of a ~5 kg baby during deceleration. I was merely curious as to what assumptions you employed because my gut tells me 400 is off by an order of magnitude. That having been said, I haven't studied physics since high school.
moondog is online now  
Old Jul 14, 19, 1:39 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Elite/Ambassador. NEXUS, National
Posts: 2,501
Originally Posted by AltaBound View Post
I am not second guessing the parents, I am second guessing the regulators. During take-off landing a computer is considered a potentially dangerous projectile and must be safely secured. However a child in a lap is not. I have no arguments with the computer logic... To each their own.
As I suggested above, comparing to pharmaceutical testing, I think they have simply not done the calculations.

Or the napkin level physics calculation lost out to the napkin level PR calculation. Regulators and airlines both see it obvious that projectiles (babies, laptops, coffee pots) are dangerous, but what is more dangerous is angry families needing extra seats and special equipment.
​​​​​​
Until there is a documented crash report containing harm or death of a baby and/or other pax because of a projectile baby, nothing is going to change.
moondog likes this.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Jul 14, 19, 3:19 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 38
Someone mentioned it above but it is worth noting that a lot of seat pitches likely wouldn’t allow for car seats. We don’t have a large one, but when installed in our sedan the seat in front has to upright and quite far forward. In most Y cases, you’d have to only have them in bulkhead rows I’m guessing
colombianbrew is offline  
Old Jul 29, 19, 1:34 pm
  #29  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Programs: star alliance, british airways executive club
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by moondog View Post
Not at all. YOU brought up the 400 kg effective mass of a ~5 kg baby during deceleration. I was merely curious as to what assumptions you employed because my gut tells me 400 is off by an order of magnitude. That having been said, I haven't studied physics since high school.
Ah, back from a nice rest at the cottage. So then:

You invented the 5kg figure, not me.

Here's Transport Canada's figures on this; very much encourage you to take it up with them.

iron_mike is offline  
Old Jul 29, 19, 1:36 pm
  #30  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Programs: star alliance, british airways executive club
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by RangerNS View Post
As I suggested above, comparing to pharmaceutical testing, I think they have simply not done the calculations.

Or the napkin level physics calculation lost out to the napkin level PR calculation. Regulators and airlines both see it obvious that projectiles (babies, laptops, coffee pots) are dangerous, but what is more dangerous is angry families needing extra seats and special equipment.
​​​​​​
Until there is a documented crash report containing harm or death of a baby and/or other pax because of a projectile baby, nothing is going to change.
Here's the documented crash resulting in the death of a child that started a lot of the debate in Canada:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...anes-1.3132057
iron_mike is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread