To Car Seat or Not To Car Seat, That is the Question...[Merged Threads]
Apr 17, 2016, 6:03 am
#332
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
Not sure about Europe. But FAA rules that the child can (should) be on the above. Im not sure, but I thought foreign airlines have to follow faa when flying into the states. I would call Austrian Air and question them.
Apr 17, 2016, 1:33 pm
#333
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, England
Programs: BA, VS, Le Club Accor Gold
Posts: 1,208
Not on Austrian but I overheard a similar argument once where the couple won the point but their child was over 2 so according to regs couldn't be anywhere but in their own seat for takeoff/landing
Apr 20, 2016, 10:22 am
#334
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 8
You do realize chidlren have been injured and even been killed by not being properly secured don't you? With all the money parents spend on protecting their kids, I don't understand how anyone would take the chance with their life on a plane not being in a car seat. If they would be in a car seat in a car, I'd have them in a car seat on a plane, plain and simple.
The only thing you have going for you on a plane is the odds are much lower of having an incident then if you were driving. But who really wants to play the odds with a childs well being? If something does happen, wouldn't any parent be wishing they had spent the money? Last year there were 2 incidents I'm aware of, one where an infant was thrown from the parents arms into another (fortunately unoccupied) seat. And also fortunately was uninjured.
There's plenty of survivable incidents that can happen on a plane where a child would be better off in a car seat.
Apr 26, 2016, 5:38 pm
#336
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SMF
Posts: 1,251
Anyone who has children plays with the odds of their children's well-being. Bringing your child on a plane, even in a car seat, is playing with their well-being, so is letting your kid play at the park, or even leave the house.
My point is just to show that we all make a series of decisions to balance things that we feel will improve our life with things that would risk it. Just to show why someone might choose not to bring a carseat on a plane: The cost of a human life is estimated by the DoT at around $6M, and during 2015 there were over 3.3 billion passengers flown by commercial airlines, with 560 deaths. If you apply that fatality rate to the expected cost of losing a loved one, and feel that a car seat would be the difference between life and death, then you would be rational to not bring a car seat on the plane if the cost to you of bringing the car seat is over $1.02, and that is supposing that the car seat would prevent any death, which, when you look at a list of all commercial aviation disasters in 2015, I don't see a single one where a car seat would have saved a child.
However, we don't use information like this when making decision, we use our perceptions of the danger of something as well as our estimate of how painful that loss would be to us, both of which are incredibly subjective. This is the very reason why it may not be worth it to you to fly without a car seat, but for others it is.
My point is just to show that we all make a series of decisions to balance things that we feel will improve our life with things that would risk it. Just to show why someone might choose not to bring a carseat on a plane: The cost of a human life is estimated by the DoT at around $6M, and during 2015 there were over 3.3 billion passengers flown by commercial airlines, with 560 deaths. If you apply that fatality rate to the expected cost of losing a loved one, and feel that a car seat would be the difference between life and death, then you would be rational to not bring a car seat on the plane if the cost to you of bringing the car seat is over $1.02, and that is supposing that the car seat would prevent any death, which, when you look at a list of all commercial aviation disasters in 2015, I don't see a single one where a car seat would have saved a child.
However, we don't use information like this when making decision, we use our perceptions of the danger of something as well as our estimate of how painful that loss would be to us, both of which are incredibly subjective. This is the very reason why it may not be worth it to you to fly without a car seat, but for others it is.
Apr 27, 2016, 5:20 am
#337
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
Big4
The problem is that people don't know the risks - which is why the FA union is pushing for them to be used.
It is not just the deaths you quote for crashes. It is the kid being tossed around the plane when turbulence is hit. It is impossible to hold them by the laws of physics. Which is why you have to put your purse, etc away on landing and rough weather.
The problem is that people don't know the risks - which is why the FA union is pushing for them to be used.
It is not just the deaths you quote for crashes. It is the kid being tossed around the plane when turbulence is hit. It is impossible to hold them by the laws of physics. Which is why you have to put your purse, etc away on landing and rough weather.
Apr 27, 2016, 9:23 am
#338
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SMF
Posts: 1,251
Big4
The problem is that people don't know the risks - which is why the FA union is pushing for them to be used.
It is not just the deaths you quote for crashes. It is the kid being tossed around the plane when turbulence is hit. It is impossible to hold them by the laws of physics. Which is why you have to put your purse, etc away on landing and rough weather.
The problem is that people don't know the risks - which is why the FA union is pushing for them to be used.
It is not just the deaths you quote for crashes. It is the kid being tossed around the plane when turbulence is hit. It is impossible to hold them by the laws of physics. Which is why you have to put your purse, etc away on landing and rough weather.
This is actually one reason I love flying WN. We rarely purchase a seat for our under 2 year old, and I appreciate their policy that allows you to bring a car seat onboard as long as there's an empty seat available. That being said, we still often check the car seat because it is such a pain to haul it through the airport and onto the plane. We'll probably invest in a CARES harness soon so we can get the safety benefits without lugging the carseat.
Apr 27, 2016, 10:30 am
#339
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: AA EXP, DL-Plat, WN-CP | Hotels: Choice-Gld, IHG-Plt, Rad-Gld, HH-Dia, Hyatt-Glob, Marriott-LtPlt
Posts: 2,889
This is actually one reason I love flying WN. We rarely purchase a seat for our under 2 year old, and I appreciate their policy that allows you to bring a car seat onboard as long as there's an empty seat available. That being said, we still often check the car seat because it is such a pain to haul it through the airport and onto the plane. We'll probably invest in a CARES harness soon so we can get the safety benefits without lugging the carseat.
Apr 27, 2016, 1:06 pm
#340
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LAX
Posts: 10,912
Oh not this again ...
Car seats have no meaningful contrubution to safety on board of aircraft. We went through this here many times before - and i am yet to see any data to support those claim of statistically meaningful safety benefits.
If one feels the need to take a seat on board for practical reasons (for example your kid only sleeps in his seat) - go right ahead but note that dragging one across airports is rather inconvenient and distracting.
Car seats have no meaningful contrubution to safety on board of aircraft. We went through this here many times before - and i am yet to see any data to support those claim of statistically meaningful safety benefits.
If one feels the need to take a seat on board for practical reasons (for example your kid only sleeps in his seat) - go right ahead but note that dragging one across airports is rather inconvenient and distracting.
Apr 27, 2016, 1:10 pm
#341
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LAX
Posts: 10,912
Apr 28, 2016, 7:04 am
#342
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
azepine00
Now you may find yourself asking: If the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines don't require babies to travel in child safety seats, how harmful can it be to carry them as lap children? Well, actually the government agency tasked with ensuring our safety in the air has acknowledged the inherent danger of small children flying without safety seats. Here are the FAA's own words on the matter: "Did you know the safest place for your little one during turbulence or an emergency is an approved child restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap? ... FAA strongly urges parents and guardians to secure children in an appropriate restraint based on weight and size. Keeping a child in a CRS or device during the flight is the smart and right thing to do."
For many years, other experts have strongly concurred:
• As far back as the 1980s, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated: "An unrestrained passenger of any age faces a higher risk of death or injury in a survivable crash or severe turbulence than passengers who are strapped into safety seats or belts."
• The Association of Flight Attendants noted in 2004: "AFA does not believe that allowing a child under two to be held on the lap affords the child the same protections as the other passengers. For that reason AFA has advocated for the use of child restraints during takeoff, landing, and turbulence for 15 years. After all, per the Federal Aviation Regulations, everything onboard an airplane must be secured or properly stowed for takeoff, landing, and often during flight, except children under two years old."
• In 2001, the National Air Disaster Alliance called on the U.S. Department of Transportation, the FAA, and President Bush to approve an Emergency Order to "protect our children" on commercial flights. NADA pointed out: "Child restraint seats have been required since 1982 for children traveling in cars, traveling at 50-60 mph, a fraction of the 500-mph flight speed; and child restraint seats have long been required for all children on military flights."
Perhaps the most convincing arguments have come from the National Transportation Safety Board. As the result of several incidents and accidents in which lap babies were injured or killed, back in May 1999 the NTSB added mandatory child safety seats to its "Most Wanted" list of improvements being sought from the FAA. The two agencies debated the issue for years, and the NTSB eventually removed the request from its wish list in November 2006, even though that wish was never fulfilled.
Now you may find yourself asking: If the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines don't require babies to travel in child safety seats, how harmful can it be to carry them as lap children? Well, actually the government agency tasked with ensuring our safety in the air has acknowledged the inherent danger of small children flying without safety seats. Here are the FAA's own words on the matter: "Did you know the safest place for your little one during turbulence or an emergency is an approved child restraint system (CRS) or device, not on your lap? ... FAA strongly urges parents and guardians to secure children in an appropriate restraint based on weight and size. Keeping a child in a CRS or device during the flight is the smart and right thing to do."
For many years, other experts have strongly concurred:
• As far back as the 1980s, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated: "An unrestrained passenger of any age faces a higher risk of death or injury in a survivable crash or severe turbulence than passengers who are strapped into safety seats or belts."
• The Association of Flight Attendants noted in 2004: "AFA does not believe that allowing a child under two to be held on the lap affords the child the same protections as the other passengers. For that reason AFA has advocated for the use of child restraints during takeoff, landing, and turbulence for 15 years. After all, per the Federal Aviation Regulations, everything onboard an airplane must be secured or properly stowed for takeoff, landing, and often during flight, except children under two years old."
• In 2001, the National Air Disaster Alliance called on the U.S. Department of Transportation, the FAA, and President Bush to approve an Emergency Order to "protect our children" on commercial flights. NADA pointed out: "Child restraint seats have been required since 1982 for children traveling in cars, traveling at 50-60 mph, a fraction of the 500-mph flight speed; and child restraint seats have long been required for all children on military flights."
Perhaps the most convincing arguments have come from the National Transportation Safety Board. As the result of several incidents and accidents in which lap babies were injured or killed, back in May 1999 the NTSB added mandatory child safety seats to its "Most Wanted" list of improvements being sought from the FAA. The two agencies debated the issue for years, and the NTSB eventually removed the request from its wish list in November 2006, even though that wish was never fulfilled.
Apr 28, 2016, 8:38 am
#343
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Portland
Posts: 11,572
Sure it's safer to put a child in a child seat rather than in arms, but that's not the issue. How dangerous is it for a child to be in arms? There's no evidence that it is any more dangerous than many other risks we gladly accept for our kids, including riding in a car in a car seat. One could argue that we should keep our kids inside and away from all dangers at all times if we really loved them, but that, of course, would be absurd. All parents make daily risk-benefit analyses regarding their kids, and it is by no means unreasonable to accept the risk of flying with your child in your arms.
For kids older than two, the big question is whether there is any benefit of lugging the car seat on board vs. just putting the child in his or her seat with the airline provided lap belt. I haven't seen any analysis of that.
For kids older than two, the big question is whether there is any benefit of lugging the car seat on board vs. just putting the child in his or her seat with the airline provided lap belt. I haven't seen any analysis of that.
Apr 28, 2016, 9:41 am
#344
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
Rjque,
I guess one can ignore the above. I have both seen and treated multiple kids who have "gone flying" with turbulence. No deaths, but concussions and broken bones.
If parents understood the "risks", I doubt they would accept them.
I guess one can ignore the above. I have both seen and treated multiple kids who have "gone flying" with turbulence. No deaths, but concussions and broken bones.
If parents understood the "risks", I doubt they would accept them.
William J. McGee @williamjmcgee
Regarding this question, 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.
In 2010, I served as the consumer advocate on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Future of Aviation Advisory Committee and presided over a subcommittee meeting and solicited opinions from the industry’s leading experts on this topic. All agreed on the dangers of unrestrained babies and toddlers, and some of us concluded that the best solution would be barring U.S. airlines from allowing “lap kids.”
Such a move would close an antiquated loophole that has existed since 1953, when the Federal Aviation Administration’s predecessor organization mandated that all passengers onboard commercial flights must be restrained — except those under 2. Of course, 59 years ago, there were no child seats in cars (and no seat-belt or helmet laws either), so conventional wisdom dictated strapping a single seat belt around both the adult and child. This practice has proven to be just as dangerous as simply holding an infant, since the smaller passenger can slip out or be crushed by the weight of the larger passenger.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/06/12/lap...rs-on-a-plane/
Regarding this question, 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.
In 2010, I served as the consumer advocate on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Future of Aviation Advisory Committee and presided over a subcommittee meeting and solicited opinions from the industry’s leading experts on this topic. All agreed on the dangers of unrestrained babies and toddlers, and some of us concluded that the best solution would be barring U.S. airlines from allowing “lap kids.”
Such a move would close an antiquated loophole that has existed since 1953, when the Federal Aviation Administration’s predecessor organization mandated that all passengers onboard commercial flights must be restrained — except those under 2. Of course, 59 years ago, there were no child seats in cars (and no seat-belt or helmet laws either), so conventional wisdom dictated strapping a single seat belt around both the adult and child. This practice has proven to be just as dangerous as simply holding an infant, since the smaller passenger can slip out or be crushed by the weight of the larger passenger.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/06/12/lap...rs-on-a-plane/
During my years as a flight attendant, I would cringe every time a family boarded with a lap child – because I believe there should be no such thing as a lap child. Why?
As parents, our number one concern is child safety. And so I ask, have you ever taken advantage of an airline’s “lap child” policy? My next questions: Would you ever sit your child on your lap riding on a roller coaster? How about cruising at 75 mph down the highway?
Physics plus a worst-case scenario can equal a devastating outcome.
Some parents assume that if the airline allows lap children, it must be okay. After all, the airlines are the experts, why would they put any of their passengers in danger? These parents probably don’t realize something that I learned in my first flight attendant training class (I’ve worked for several airlines). If a baby is being held on the parent’s lap and an airplane crashes, the force of impact can be so strong that a parent’s arms will be comparable to spaghetti while the child’s weight, as it is propelled through the air, will multiply several times. In other words, your little 20 pound baby can turn into an 80-100 pound flying object that can not only get killed but also kill another passenger upon impact. In fact, I’ve seen children fall out of their parents arms during abrupt landings – and those were during a typical flight sequence.
http://thevacationgals.com/airplane-lap-child-safety/
As parents, our number one concern is child safety. And so I ask, have you ever taken advantage of an airline’s “lap child” policy? My next questions: Would you ever sit your child on your lap riding on a roller coaster? How about cruising at 75 mph down the highway?
Physics plus a worst-case scenario can equal a devastating outcome.
Some parents assume that if the airline allows lap children, it must be okay. After all, the airlines are the experts, why would they put any of their passengers in danger? These parents probably don’t realize something that I learned in my first flight attendant training class (I’ve worked for several airlines). If a baby is being held on the parent’s lap and an airplane crashes, the force of impact can be so strong that a parent’s arms will be comparable to spaghetti while the child’s weight, as it is propelled through the air, will multiply several times. In other words, your little 20 pound baby can turn into an 80-100 pound flying object that can not only get killed but also kill another passenger upon impact. In fact, I’ve seen children fall out of their parents arms during abrupt landings – and those were during a typical flight sequence.
http://thevacationgals.com/airplane-lap-child-safety/
Early Show" Consumer Correspondent Susan Koeppen explains that, under current rules, babies under the age of 2 can fly for free if they fit in their parents' lap. But the NTSB says, that's just not safe.
Koeppen said, "Board any plane and the rules are clear. All bags must be stowed for takeoff and landing. Seat belts must be buckled -- but not so when it comes to babies."
E-mail Susan Koeppen
Susan Koeppen's Twitter page
Debbie Hersman, chairman of the NTSB, said, "Saying it's OK to have lap-held child sends the wrong message to parents. It's not OK to have a lap-held child in an aircraft."
With the summer travel season about to take off, the NTSB is urging parents to buckle up babies in their own seats on planes.
Hersman said, "The laws of physics don't change for babies. They need to be restrained, too."
The NTSB, along with the Association of Flight Attendants, has tried for years to convince the Federal Aviation Administration and airlines to require seats for all passengers -- including babies.
But many parents like the convenience of holding their children for free instead of buying a ticket.
Jan Brown, a former flight attendant, told CBS News, "It's unconscionable that it's allowed."
Brown knows first-hand the deadly consequences of lap-held children. She was a member of the crew on United flight 232, which crashed during an emergency landing in Sioux City, Iowa. More than 100 people died -- including a 22-month-old lap baby. His mom, who was belted in, survived.
Brown said, "Not all the love in the world could hold a child under those conditions. It's like playing Russian roulette to put them on a lap."
Koeppen said safety experts also point to sudden turbulence, which also puts lap-held children at risk. They can fly into the air and become projectiles.
Terra Converse was flying with her baby, Jake, on her lap, when she lost her grip during heavy turbulence.
Converse said, "That was so hard not being able to protect him."
He flew out of her arms, and slammed into the overhead compartment.
Jake survived with minor injuries, but not all lap babies are so lucky.
On its website, the FAA encourages parents to use child safety restraints, but says it's not ready to make it a rule.
Debbie Hersman, chairman of the NTSB, said, "One thing we do know is that restraints save lives and that everyone needs to be restrained, especially our most vulnerable passengers and those are our children."
The FAA says it fears if parents are required to buy tickets for their babies, they'll opt to drive instead, which the FAA says is more dangerous than flying.
On "The Early Show," Koeppen said there are options for parents who want to buckle up their kids on planes, such as a child safety seat.
Koeppen said, "Make sure you check to see if it has a label on the side that says it is approved for use on an aircraft, and measure the width and make sure it is going to fit."
Another option is a CARES harness.
Koeppen said, "This goes around the seat and creates a five-point harness for kids who weigh 20 to 40 pounds."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/perils-o...lap-on-planes/
Koeppen said, "Board any plane and the rules are clear. All bags must be stowed for takeoff and landing. Seat belts must be buckled -- but not so when it comes to babies."
E-mail Susan Koeppen
Susan Koeppen's Twitter page
Debbie Hersman, chairman of the NTSB, said, "Saying it's OK to have lap-held child sends the wrong message to parents. It's not OK to have a lap-held child in an aircraft."
With the summer travel season about to take off, the NTSB is urging parents to buckle up babies in their own seats on planes.
Hersman said, "The laws of physics don't change for babies. They need to be restrained, too."
The NTSB, along with the Association of Flight Attendants, has tried for years to convince the Federal Aviation Administration and airlines to require seats for all passengers -- including babies.
But many parents like the convenience of holding their children for free instead of buying a ticket.
Jan Brown, a former flight attendant, told CBS News, "It's unconscionable that it's allowed."
Brown knows first-hand the deadly consequences of lap-held children. She was a member of the crew on United flight 232, which crashed during an emergency landing in Sioux City, Iowa. More than 100 people died -- including a 22-month-old lap baby. His mom, who was belted in, survived.
Brown said, "Not all the love in the world could hold a child under those conditions. It's like playing Russian roulette to put them on a lap."
Koeppen said safety experts also point to sudden turbulence, which also puts lap-held children at risk. They can fly into the air and become projectiles.
Terra Converse was flying with her baby, Jake, on her lap, when she lost her grip during heavy turbulence.
Converse said, "That was so hard not being able to protect him."
He flew out of her arms, and slammed into the overhead compartment.
Jake survived with minor injuries, but not all lap babies are so lucky.
On its website, the FAA encourages parents to use child safety restraints, but says it's not ready to make it a rule.
Debbie Hersman, chairman of the NTSB, said, "One thing we do know is that restraints save lives and that everyone needs to be restrained, especially our most vulnerable passengers and those are our children."
The FAA says it fears if parents are required to buy tickets for their babies, they'll opt to drive instead, which the FAA says is more dangerous than flying.
On "The Early Show," Koeppen said there are options for parents who want to buckle up their kids on planes, such as a child safety seat.
Koeppen said, "Make sure you check to see if it has a label on the side that says it is approved for use on an aircraft, and measure the width and make sure it is going to fit."
Another option is a CARES harness.
Koeppen said, "This goes around the seat and creates a five-point harness for kids who weigh 20 to 40 pounds."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/perils-o...lap-on-planes/
Last edited by BeatCal; Apr 28, 2016 at 9:51 am
Apr 28, 2016, 12:32 pm
#345
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Portland
Posts: 11,572
The plural of anecdote is not data.