To Car Seat or Not To Car Seat, That is the Question...[Merged Threads]
Mar 27, 2016, 1:14 am
#317
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Sure, sort of. Or costs would be even more out of control.
But if the typical American radiologist, cardiologist or pediatrician who's been in practice for a decade were to be ambushed by a surprise advanced college statistics final exam as part of a CME course, the results would not be so pretty. Even some relatively easy financial calculation concepts just aren't strongly grasped by the average practicing MD.
But if the typical American radiologist, cardiologist or pediatrician who's been in practice for a decade were to be ambushed by a surprise advanced college statistics final exam as part of a CME course, the results would not be so pretty. Even some relatively easy financial calculation concepts just aren't strongly grasped by the average practicing MD.
Mar 27, 2016, 4:36 am
#318
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Paris, Chicago, Rome, London, St John
Programs: DeltaPrivateJet, Ritz PP, Delta 4 million miler - Flying Colonel; AA Exec Plat (3 million + USAir)
Posts: 796
Now who is quoting Ludwig?
Academic doctors deal with statistics every day - and in multiple types.
Again
you don't get it. You stated that many kids die in car accidents. My reply based on all of the kid's admitted to all of the pediatric trauma centers in the US is that they don't if properly restrained. And that is the point, whether they are properly restrained in an airplane or in an automobile.
Women (without family history or physical signs) under 45 (or 40) who demand routine mammograms are doing it on the 1:1,000,000 odds. Yet when this age cut off was recommended, what a hoopla.
Enough said GU.
Academic doctors deal with statistics every day - and in multiple types.
Again
pediatric trauma centers aren't just places that submit reports to one specific registry
Women (without family history or physical signs) under 45 (or 40) who demand routine mammograms are doing it on the 1:1,000,000 odds. Yet when this age cut off was recommended, what a hoopla.
Enough said GU.
Mar 27, 2016, 5:43 am
#319
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Now who is quoting Ludwig?
Academic doctors deal with statistics every day - and in multiple types.
Again you don't get it. You stated that many kids die in car accidents. My reply based on all of the kid's admitted to all of the pediatric trauma centers in the US is that they don't if properly restrained. And that is the point, whether they are properly restrained in an airplane or in an automobile.
Women (without family history or physical signs) under 45 (or 40) who demand routine mammograms are doing it on the 1:1,000,000 odds. Yet when this age cut off was recommended, what a hoopla.
Enough said GU.
Academic doctors deal with statistics every day - and in multiple types.
Again you don't get it. You stated that many kids die in car accidents. My reply based on all of the kid's admitted to all of the pediatric trauma centers in the US is that they don't if properly restrained. And that is the point, whether they are properly restrained in an airplane or in an automobile.
Women (without family history or physical signs) under 45 (or 40) who demand routine mammograms are doing it on the 1:1,000,000 odds. Yet when this age cut off was recommended, what a hoopla.
Enough said GU.
Many children do die, mostly due to inadequate car seat usage, in car accidents. Some children even die while properly strapped in car seats. $400 spent on new car seats each year would provide superior health and safety outcomes relative to spending $400 on buying a seat on a plane for a child who could otherwise be a lap child. The average domestic. US roundtrip travel ticket costs close to $400. That is money that can be spent to provide greater improvements in health and safety outcomes than buying a full adult fare ticket for a child who can otherwise travel as a lap child rather safely.
The chances of the average woman getting breast cancer between the ages of 30 and 40 years is higher than 1:500. Spending $400 more for breast exams makes ways more sense than paying $400 more for an infant to have her/his own plane seat when the incidence of a lap child having a serious medical issue due to the lack of a car seat on a plane is way lower than the incidence of a 30-40 year old women developing breast cancer within ten years. And yet what is the hoopla in this thread about? It's about a very safe way of traveling: as a lap-child on common carrier flights. And yet what was called a hoopla in the prior post? Complaining about not being checked for something far more risky than being a lap child infant on a plane -- that being the chances of a woman under 40 (or) 45 years of age getting breast cancer within a decade.
Not everyone is going to be moved by exploitations of fear to try shame people into spending money on travel in ways that are not necessarily ideal for one and all who may travel with children under the age of 2 years. The decision that is "right" for one person isn't necessarily the decision that is "right" for everyone else. Especially in a world where money and time are limited, and where the allocation of available time and money is not equal across the population.
Enough said about trying to exploit fear to shame people into spending money on travel in ways that are not necessarily ideal for one and all who may travel with children under the age of 2 years.
Last edited by GUWonder; Mar 27, 2016 at 6:17 am
Mar 28, 2016, 3:53 am
#320
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: France
Programs: United Plus
Posts: 1,761
Interesting discussion.
I bought seats for my under 2's (not on two trips when it wasn't possible on foreign airlines but not to get off-topic). I also had breast cancer and I'm not menopausal yet. I've had mammograms since the age of 20 for risk factors. That 1 in 8 women stat is true but 3/4's of those women are past menopause. I'm part of the unlucky group.
I didn't necessarily buy seats on the plane exclusively for safety reasons. Flying alone with three (one and two before that) children wasn't simple and having a place to put down a sleeping baby was a sanity-saver. I also justified it because it made the flight more comfortable for me and those around me. I worried more about a checked car seat getting beat up and/or lost, which is far likely to happen than an inflight air incident.
I also didn't get mammos every year. Didn't want the extra radiation. Usually 3-5 years, when I could schedule it. I didn't think that I would never get breast cancer but when I went in to get them, I'd chat with the technicians and the radiologist... I just figured I'd get the all-clear and then go on with my life, which is what I usually did.
The morning it was found, I swear, I was the least worried woman in that waiting room. I was looking for a coffee machine and very happy when I found one. I was more concerned about getting my caffeine fix than my mammo, but I was the one who had the bad news that day...
Which brings me back to the article. When I flew, I had many, many babies. None died in my 13 years working (plus how many riding). I had one death and that was a woman with cancer who wanted to see Paris one last time
Other deaths I heard about with my airline usually involved the elderly.
Like I said, all the babies I saw did great. I did see a much bigger proportion who were flying to get medical treatment and/or being adopted. One baby going home with her new parents was born to a drug addict. She was underweight and premature. I never remember an under 8 weeker traveling for pleasure (not that it doesn't happen) but all that I knew their story were flying because of a move, medical treatment, etc.
In other words, if you could get that data, I can say with certainty that more of those flying babies were in fragile health than the general population on the ground. They didn't even mention if that includes inflight births, which are actually more common than you think (my major airline had one a year, on the average).
We can also play the "would have happened anyway" game, especially with SIDS. We know so little about SIDS still, like what really causes it. All that they can do is shave off some risk factors. Trust me, the stats of SIDS on airplanes alone is such a small sliver of a sub-group that even limited conclusions could be made.
My sister did not have breast cancer. She had a really rare form of lymphoma. Her stats were... impossible! All the other cases, just a handful a year, were mostly decades older than she was, weren't treated with the same drugs, had other health concerns that complicated treatment, etc. all that didn't apply to her. There basically wasn't enough data that was relevant to her to make any sort of sweeping statement of her chances of survival. They pumped her full of chemo and it worked. End of story.
By contrast, my cancer was fairly common and I had stats galore! Plus the protocols were well established. The surgeon found my "Wow, you know already..." attitude amusing. My sister's diagnoses took 8 weeks while mine was a few days...
Medical stats are easier to analyze since treatments are usually limited to the hospital setting and can be controlled but commercial aviation has too many external factors (distances, destinations, passengers' stories, etc.) to really shake them down well.
I bought seats for my under 2's (not on two trips when it wasn't possible on foreign airlines but not to get off-topic). I also had breast cancer and I'm not menopausal yet. I've had mammograms since the age of 20 for risk factors. That 1 in 8 women stat is true but 3/4's of those women are past menopause. I'm part of the unlucky group.
I didn't necessarily buy seats on the plane exclusively for safety reasons. Flying alone with three (one and two before that) children wasn't simple and having a place to put down a sleeping baby was a sanity-saver. I also justified it because it made the flight more comfortable for me and those around me. I worried more about a checked car seat getting beat up and/or lost, which is far likely to happen than an inflight air incident.
I also didn't get mammos every year. Didn't want the extra radiation. Usually 3-5 years, when I could schedule it. I didn't think that I would never get breast cancer but when I went in to get them, I'd chat with the technicians and the radiologist... I just figured I'd get the all-clear and then go on with my life, which is what I usually did.
The morning it was found, I swear, I was the least worried woman in that waiting room. I was looking for a coffee machine and very happy when I found one. I was more concerned about getting my caffeine fix than my mammo, but I was the one who had the bad news that day...
Which brings me back to the article. When I flew, I had many, many babies. None died in my 13 years working (plus how many riding). I had one death and that was a woman with cancer who wanted to see Paris one last time
Other deaths I heard about with my airline usually involved the elderly. Like I said, all the babies I saw did great. I did see a much bigger proportion who were flying to get medical treatment and/or being adopted. One baby going home with her new parents was born to a drug addict. She was underweight and premature. I never remember an under 8 weeker traveling for pleasure (not that it doesn't happen) but all that I knew their story were flying because of a move, medical treatment, etc.
In other words, if you could get that data, I can say with certainty that more of those flying babies were in fragile health than the general population on the ground. They didn't even mention if that includes inflight births, which are actually more common than you think (my major airline had one a year, on the average).
We can also play the "would have happened anyway" game, especially with SIDS. We know so little about SIDS still, like what really causes it. All that they can do is shave off some risk factors. Trust me, the stats of SIDS on airplanes alone is such a small sliver of a sub-group that even limited conclusions could be made.
My sister did not have breast cancer. She had a really rare form of lymphoma. Her stats were... impossible! All the other cases, just a handful a year, were mostly decades older than she was, weren't treated with the same drugs, had other health concerns that complicated treatment, etc. all that didn't apply to her. There basically wasn't enough data that was relevant to her to make any sort of sweeping statement of her chances of survival. They pumped her full of chemo and it worked. End of story.
By contrast, my cancer was fairly common and I had stats galore! Plus the protocols were well established. The surgeon found my "Wow, you know already..." attitude amusing. My sister's diagnoses took 8 weeks while mine was a few days...
Medical stats are easier to analyze since treatments are usually limited to the hospital setting and can be controlled but commercial aviation has too many external factors (distances, destinations, passengers' stories, etc.) to really shake them down well.
Mar 28, 2016, 5:50 am
#321
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Paris, Chicago, Rome, London, St John
Programs: DeltaPrivateJet, Ritz PP, Delta 4 million miler - Flying Colonel; AA Exec Plat (3 million + USAir)
Posts: 796
. And many of the doctors working in academia don't do much research independent of getting others to help with the statistical work,
Many children do die, mostly due to inadequate car seat usage, in car accidents. Some children even die while properly strapped in car seats. .
The chances of the average woman getting breast cancer between the ages of 30 and 40 years is higher than 1:500.
Many children do die, mostly due to inadequate car seat usage, in car accidents. Some children even die while properly strapped in car seats. .
The chances of the average woman getting breast cancer between the ages of 30 and 40 years is higher than 1:500.
1. You said docs don't know stats. I and others said you are wrong. Not all docs but a good number do.l
2. Again the number of kids who die in car accidents who are properly strapped in is VERY small (not counting cars that go over embankments and into rivers, etc)
3. The chances of the average woman WITHOUT RISK FACTORS is not higher than 1:500, but closer to 1:1,000,000
Last edited by BeatCal; Apr 5, 2016 at 6:48 am
Mar 28, 2016, 4:10 pm
#322
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I hope your statistical work is not like your errors in making up facts:
1. You said docs don't know stats. I and others said you are wrong. Not all docs but a good number do.l
2. Again the number of kids who die in car accidents who are properly strapped in is VERY small (not counting cars that go over embankments and into rivers, etc)
3. The chances of the average woman WITHOUT RISK FACTORS is not higher than 1:500, but closer to 1:1,000,000
1. You said docs don't know stats. I and others said you are wrong. Not all docs but a good number do.l
2. Again the number of kids who die in car accidents who are properly strapped in is VERY small (not counting cars that go over embankments and into rivers, etc)
3. The chances of the average woman WITHOUT RISK FACTORS is not higher than 1:500, but closer to 1:1,000,000
#2 and #3 are -- as I see it -- just relying upon weasel words.
The chances of a woman aged 30-40 years getting cancer within ten years is higher than 1:500.
You seem to have a very strong opinion about this lap-child matter, as is your right --no less or more so if you've lost a near or dear infant due to an incident in-flight.
I don't have a strong opinion against people using car seats for in-flight U2s, but I do have a strong opinion about scare-mongering built upon inadequate appreciation of how some risk mitigation (and risk elimination) efforts are a waste of money. It seems like we are just going to have to agree that there will be disagreement.
I've said my piece. You've said yours.
Apr 4, 2016, 12:48 pm
#323
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
This is a longstanding debate between NTSB and the FAA. All parties agree:
1. Kids are safer in carseats on planes than as lap children on planes.
2. Kids are safer as lap children on planes than in carseats in cars.
3. If you require parents to get seats for children on planes (i.e. ban lap children), some number of parents will decide to drive rather than fly.
The debate is whether the number who decide to drive rather than fly is large enough such that the increased child deaths/injuries from more kids in cars outweighs the reduction of child deaths/injuries from getting kids off laps and into carseats on planes.
FAA believes that the displacement effect (higher costs pushing kids into cars) is sufficiently large that it won't ban lap children - NTSB differs. Since it's the FAA's call, lap children are still allowed.
1. Kids are safer in carseats on planes than as lap children on planes.
2. Kids are safer as lap children on planes than in carseats in cars.
3. If you require parents to get seats for children on planes (i.e. ban lap children), some number of parents will decide to drive rather than fly.
The debate is whether the number who decide to drive rather than fly is large enough such that the increased child deaths/injuries from more kids in cars outweighs the reduction of child deaths/injuries from getting kids off laps and into carseats on planes.
FAA believes that the displacement effect (higher costs pushing kids into cars) is sufficiently large that it won't ban lap children - NTSB differs. Since it's the FAA's call, lap children are still allowed.
Apr 4, 2016, 3:01 pm
#324
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Apr 4, 2016, 3:24 pm
#325
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Apr 4, 2016, 3:46 pm
#326
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
A review of airline accidents from fiscal year (FY) 1980 (October 1979) through August 2011 shows that CRS would have prevented 3 fatal injuries to infants over 32 years.(2) The 3 fatalities that could have been averted occurred at Denver in November 1987, at Sioux City in July 1989, and at Charlotte in July 1994. No preventable fatalities have occurred since Charlotte, more than 17 years ago. In short, the empirical evidence is limited to 3 “saves” over 32 years and none in the past 17 years. The NTSB agrees that this is the extent of the empirical evidence.
The 3 preventable infant deaths occurred in an 8-year span, which constituted an unusual spike for this issue even in that era of much higher accident rates. In those 8 years (1987 through and including 1994), U.S. air carriers had a rate of 25 fatalities per every 100 million occupants. In the past 4 years the rate has fallen to 0.3 per 100 million occupants. As major accidents become increasingly rare, opportunities for additional saves also will become increasingly rare.
Yet FAA recognizes that the risk of incurring a preventable infant death is greater than zero, and therefore the possible benefit of requiring the use of CRS remains greater than zero. Nevertheless, given the experience of the past 17 years and the substantial and continuing reduction in fatality rates among passengers on air carrier aircraft, we can not assume more than 1 possible save every 10 to 15 years.
The 3 preventable infant deaths occurred in an 8-year span, which constituted an unusual spike for this issue even in that era of much higher accident rates. In those 8 years (1987 through and including 1994), U.S. air carriers had a rate of 25 fatalities per every 100 million occupants. In the past 4 years the rate has fallen to 0.3 per 100 million occupants. As major accidents become increasingly rare, opportunities for additional saves also will become increasingly rare.
Yet FAA recognizes that the risk of incurring a preventable infant death is greater than zero, and therefore the possible benefit of requiring the use of CRS remains greater than zero. Nevertheless, given the experience of the past 17 years and the substantial and continuing reduction in fatality rates among passengers on air carrier aircraft, we can not assume more than 1 possible save every 10 to 15 years.
Apr 4, 2016, 8:03 pm
#327
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LAX
Posts: 10,912
In reality of course the difference is completely meaninglesd and inconsequential (if there is any to begin with). Parents simply end up wasting money that can be better spent on other more impactful aspects of childs life.
Apr 5, 2016, 2:50 am
#328
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
This is an extremely irresponsible statement that is unfortunately used by many companies to market a perception of "safer" products and force premium pricing.
In reality of course the difference is completely meaninglesd and inconsequential (if there is any to begin with). Parents simply end up wasting money that can be better spent on other more impactful aspects of childs life.
In reality of course the difference is completely meaninglesd and inconsequential (if there is any to begin with). Parents simply end up wasting money that can be better spent on other more impactful aspects of childs life.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
I give ICTS credit for what is: "a business going through the the motions of being a business by taking advantage of feelings of insecurity and the need for their clients and governments to show that something 'more' is being done in the name of 'security'".
Human nature.
Apr 5, 2016, 6:44 am
#329
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Paris, Chicago, Rome, London, St John
Programs: DeltaPrivateJet, Ritz PP, Delta 4 million miler - Flying Colonel; AA Exec Plat (3 million + USAir)
Posts: 796
Apr 16, 2016, 4:39 pm
#330
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 55
Car seat use not allowed during take-off, landing, and fasten seat belt signs
I'll be flying on Austrian Air from VIE to EWR. I am planning on bringing a car seat for my 1-year old. I saw this while reading through Austrian's website:
"Due to safety reasons the device (car seat) may not be used during take-off and landing and when the fasten seat belt sign is switched on."
So if my kid is sleeping and the seat belt light goes on, then I'm assuming that I will have to take out the kid from the car seat. Has anyone encountered a situation like this before? Did the kid remain in the car seat?
"Due to safety reasons the device (car seat) may not be used during take-off and landing and when the fasten seat belt sign is switched on."
So if my kid is sleeping and the seat belt light goes on, then I'm assuming that I will have to take out the kid from the car seat. Has anyone encountered a situation like this before? Did the kid remain in the car seat?