rjque

From the article:

So, we are talking about an extremely rare event. I wonder how it compares to statistics of children hit by lightning.

eknock007

Seriously somebody paid somebody to do this study.

I am more concern for my infant and my toddler everytime we have to go through the x-ray machine at the airport, let alone all the wackos that are on the loose everywhere.

UKOK

This is why I've never let my kids travel as lap children.

Oh wait, no it was because I couldn't stand someone sitting on me for hours. Never mind...carry on.

TayoBus

[URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/29/medical-emergencies-airline-flights/2364159/"]Well, this study exampled over 7000 medical emergencies on planes over 3 years and found 10 child deaths. To compare, over the last three years only 7 children have been struck and killed by lightning. To compare by age, on planes "90 percent of deaths occurred in children under the age of 2" but deaths by lightning strikes were 100% over the age of 7.

source: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/

So yeah it's rare, but choosing to fly with your baby on your lap instead of putting them in an airplane-approved carseat is putting them in danger.

An article about the drastic decline in death by lightning strike in the US over the last 50 or so years concludes with this:
"Death by lightning is perhaps the most cliche way to express the randomness that can befall a person. "You could get struck by lightning" is just another way of saying, hey, anything could happen.
And, of course, anything could happen. Lightning does strike. But its likelihood, and the likelihood of nearly any other seemingly random chance, is not some exogenous, constant factor, but a product of the millions of decisions we make, big and small, that together structure our society and our lives."

GUWonder

Talk about comparing apples to carrots. And the above verbal representation of statistics is misleading. It's even worse than how Australia and Canada were reportedly the kidnapping capitals of the world in 2010 stats:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

90% of passenger deaths on planes are not accounted for by lap children.

And 100% of deaths by lighting strikes around the world are not accounted for by those over the age of 7.

I've been on planes where passengers died, and I've been at airports when dead passengers were being removed from planes. And lap-children were not 90% of those deaths. Of course anecdotal experience can be representative of observing just statistical outliers, but it's not always so.

There are far greater risks of injury and death for children on the ground than while on a plane in a lap. Choosing to put a child in a car -- presumably in a child safety restraint device -- "is putting them in danger". So ban kids from cars?

jrhmdtraum

GU:
Look at the data of infants injured in cars when they are in proper child seats and in the middle of the back. The incidence of death approaches nil.

As for "you have been on plane with deaths", this is apple and oranges as you state. We are talking about kids "flying" when the plane hits an air pocket. It is physically impossible to hold a kid then. And the above data only reports deaths. It does not report broken limbs or concussions, etc.

As stated earlier, ask a senior flight attendant how many times she has seen a kid "fly" or why the FA union is pushing for them to be in "car" seats.

GUWonder

Fewer lap-children on planes means fewer passengers on planes where all passenger seats are otherwise occupied. And fewer passengers means less work for FAs. And fewer lap-children (and fewer pre-KG children) means somewhat quieter cabins, somewhat fewer passenger complaints for the FAs to handle, and fewer children and accompanying adults in the aisle while doing trolley service.

Kids in cars -- even when they've only been driven around in proper child seats -- have died in cars. And kids dying around cars while the accompanying adult is busy with another child also happens.

The more that children fly -- including as lap-children -- the less likely they are to die in or around cars, even when car seats are used.

If the FAs and their unions are so worried about "flying" childrens' deaths being a very serious risk due to the allowance for lap-children, it must be a pretty safe world in which they and their passengers already live. They should also read up on positional asphyxiation.

http://www.jpeds.com/pb/assets/raw/H...JPEDSBatra.pdf

Positional asphyxiation of children in car seats means banning car seats? Of course not.

jrhmdtraum

GU. Please know your facts. The national pediatric trauma registry show very few serious injuries to infants that are properly restrained in the middle of the back seat of a car!

http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_children/. According to the FAA, “the safest place for your child on an airplane is in a government-approved child safety restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap. Your arms aren’t capable of holding your child securely, especially during unexpected turbulence.

there are no debates on the evidence: the laws of physics have been accepted by experts in the field, and they conclude that unrestrained children face additional risks during turbulence and emergency situations. But untold numbers of parents and caregivers have no idea of the risks — and no matter how much you love your kid and think the safest place for that little one is in your arms, unless your name is Clark Kent, you can’t argue with g-forces. Period.

See video of what happens to a lap child when the plane hits turbulence put out by the National Transportation Safety Agency

See WSJ article. http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-stud...nts-1408574702

The bottom line is your baby should be your most precious item you have. Why risk it for being too cheap to buy a seat.

GUWonder

I'm all about facts and statistics, so tell us more.

And that registry show no deaths of infants in car seats?

Talk about weasel words: "that are properly restrained in middle of the back seat of a car".

It's a registry of how many entries? Still sub-15k in a world -- or even just in the US -- where more than 15k children a year suffer serious injuries and/or injury death. It used to be that thin back during the Clinton-Gore years.

That's like saying why be too cheap to buy the strongest vehicle in the world with the strongest car seat in the world despite how much the vehicle and the child safety seat costs. Or why be too cheap not to hire 24 hour security guard coverage to watch your child during its every hour.

Perhaps because most people don't have unlimited resources, and because money that can be spent on reducing a very marginal risks is better spent on reducing risks that are far greater than the risk of serious injury/death from being a lap child infant.

Positional asphyxiation of children in car seats is a risk too. Why be so selfish to ever take a infant in a car at all, even if you'd otherwise always have a properly restrained infant in a middle seat in the back of a car were you to take an infant out in the car?

A car seat use on planes does reduce risks of serious injury or death that are present, but the reduction of risk is marginal while the cost of a marginal risk reduction is not.

The FAA has not mandated car seat use on planes at least in large part due to the obvious fact that most people have limited financial resources and that driving -- the alternative to flying, even when it involves destination substitution -- is far more dangerous than flying, even for lap children.

c. $400 of money spent on getting an airplane seat for a child who can otherwise be a lap child on a domestic US trip seems to be a waste of money when that same $400 can go a long way in the health and safety arena when used in other ways. Perhaps that money is better spent on replacing car seats more frequently and on getting each car seat installation done professionally and/or inspected by some kind of regulatory/licensing authority?

BeatCal

GU
The National Pediatric Trauma Registry covers all children admitted to trauma centers for the last 30 years. And "properly restrained" is not a weasel.

The data that the FAA publishes for serious injuries on planes does not cover concussions nor broken bones.

I agree with the above author. If you love your kid, you will put him properly in a car seat in your car or airplane. Even a 1:1,000,000 risk is too high if it is your kid

GUWonder

Concussions and broken bones take place even when a solo parent is putting in car seats or putting in children into car seats. A heavy 18 month old child with full mobility of his or her own can quite easily get hurt while the only accompanying adult is busy trying to juggle things to make a car seat work -- whether dealing with a car or with a plane.

It does not. It covers just those that report into it. Not all serious injuries and injury deaths of children these past 30 years got included there.

Those quoted words were part of the weasel words, as I see it.

Sure, whether you love children or not, when the circumstances sensibly allow for it.

I disagree, for money and time is finite for us mere mortals. Money and time should be allocated to reduce risks that are way more substantial than 1:1,000,000.

Out of the last million children that have flown as lap-children, how many died as a result of being a lap-child rather than being a seated child in a car seat? Is the risk even as high as one in a million?

BeatCal

Wrong, to qualify as a pediatric trauma center, all admitted patients have to be recorded. True that if you are in the boon docks and your child gets taken to boon dock ER, the data is not include

I'm sorry that you don't think your child's safety is worth the extra money

GUWonder

There are multiple ways to qualify to be a pediatric trauma center without reporting data about all admitted patients to a specific registry. You do realize that the not every incident of pediatric trauma is reported to that registry even today? Apparently not, and so we get this bizarre tautology about pediatric trauma where the above post even sort of confirms my words.

I find that for even my own life it is not worth spending thousands of dollars to reduce each and every extremely marginal risk to be even more extremely marginal when that same money helps myself, my extended family and others far better than it would help me or members of my extended family if spent on eradicating lap-child-on-flights and making it a matter of full adult fare (as is the standard for domestic US carrier flights) for all U2s too. And the notion that people should at least take the risk of taking their primary car seat to the plane to gate check if a seat ends up being unavailable is not a good idea. The drops those car seats rather often face when gate checked actually compromises safety effectiveness of those car seats. And even when not gate checked, I've seen even the owners of the car seat actually fail to prevent their car seats from falling to the ground in hard ways. Not good for maintaining the effectiveness of the car seat where it matters most: in the car.

Some reductions in risk cost enough that it's not worth it in a world where money is fungible, and time is limited, and that money and time can be allocated to reduce risks that are less marginal than this lap-child-infant-not-at-risk-of-death-if-but-for-not-using-car-seat-on-flight risk.

BeatCal

GU, There is only one way to qualify as a pediatric trauma center in the US and reporting the data is required - as it is also for adult trauma centers. You may know alot - but you look foolish talking about things you know nothing about.

GUWonder

Pediatric trauma centers aren't just places that submit reports to one specific registry; but the use of a tautology is rather amusing, although some may call it a weasel word attempt too. Being provincial is also not smart; and even as the US is my country too, it isn't the world. Think about why I said that.

And rather than pay a thousand dollars for me to reduce a risk for a relative from 1:1,000,000 to 1:1,000,001, I would rather use that same thousand dollars where it takes a risk down from 1:3,000 to 1:2000. Different strokes for different folks, especially when not being foolish and selfish involves considering money.

Statistical risk analysis is something about which I know a bit and then some, as making money from it is part of my portfolio.