Why no lap belts?
 

I know it's our favourite topic on this forum...so I'm hesitant to ask this, but here goes!:

We recently flew LHR-YVR-AKL with our 6 month old. LHR-YVR with AC, YVR-AKL with NZ. We had a bassinet for all flights, and he was travelling as a lap-child (no extra seat).

The policies on what to do with the baby during take-off/landing and during turbulence were quite different, and the difference made quite a big impact on our opinion of AC and NZ.

To summarize:

AC: baby should be held in the 'burp' position i.e. head on your shoulder, feet on your lap, during takeoff/landing. during turbulence, the baby must be taken out of the bassinet and held.

NZ: lap belt supplied which is just like the demo seat belts i.e. a length of belt that has a buckle on one end and metal tab on the other, closes into a loop, and is adjustable. This goes through your (fastened) belt and round baby. It doesn't really matter what position baby is in, although lying sideways on your lap (being nursed if needed) works particularly well. during turbulence, the covers on the bassinet must be fastened down, but the baby stays where it is.

Now, I am not an expert (is there such a thing as an expert parent?) but it seemed that the lap belt makes perfect sense from a safety point of view -- if your hands let go of the baby, it isn't going to go flying through the cabin in severe turbulence, because it's buckled to you (and you're buckled to your seat).

So my first question is: why don't all airlines offer the lap-belt option? (I know many do other than NZ). The cynic in me is that it is much easier to be concerned that the 'held in burp position' approach is not sufficiently safe, as many have made the point on this forum before; this makes it more likely that parents will book a seat for the baby = more revenue for the airline.

The difference between rules during turbulence is a bit less clear to me, in terms of which is safer: you rely on either your hands (AC) or the fasteners on the bassinet cover (NZ) to stop the baby flying everywhere if the worst comes to the worst. But from a convenience/pleasurable flying perspective it is SOOO much better if the baby can be left alone. My son actually quite liked the turbulence (it's hereditary -- I fall asleep very fast in light chop), and with a trigger-happy captain who lights up the seat-belt sign at the first bump, we really hated having to move our son 3 or 4 times during an overnight (hint: we like to sleep too!) flight.

I'm tempted to write to AC to ask why they take the approach they do, but wondered if anyone could shed any light on this -- is it an FAA vs CAA vs. [insert appropriate national civil aviation governing body] thing?

Thanks

Dave

There are a number of studies done by different institutions in different countries which have shown that the Loop-Belt can be come a death trap in case of real turbulences, because your child becomes your airbag and you squeeze it to death between your body and legs and at the same time move the belt through the belly to the spinal column which alone would result in severe/deadly injuries for your child.

Yes I think that it is a question of the national transportation body. Germany and US= forbidden.

I in your place would probably ask NZ how they can use this thing, but that is just my opinion. after watching a video of what happened to the dummy in those tests (sorry, I cannot find the video any longer).

Cheers

I've flown with my infant sons over a score of times as lap babies, but it wasn't until a series of flights earlier this month on LAN that I'd seen and used an infant lap belt.

I think its pretty clear why most airlines don't use them: baby lap belts are a quick, effective way to help strangle your infant to death. If the baby is neither perfectly upright nor sitting with excellent posture on your lap when wearing this belt, then there's a percentage chance greater than zero of strangling your kid.

I used it once. After that, I covered my little guy up with a blanket while holding him and lied to the FA when she came by to confirm I was using the belt.

I'm not sure about "most airlines" -- it seems that FAA-governed airlines do not use them, but otherwise, most major carriers do.. a bit of poking on the internet shows references to LH (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=326162 last post), BA, SQ, QF providing and/or insisting on the use of lap belts. (For people who have never seen these, they are *not* an extension to your own belt, but form a separate loop threaded through your belt, effectively anchoring the baby to your belt).

I don't know about strangling: if you fasten the belt around the baby's waist (with the baby either vertical or horizontal) it would be v. hard IMHO for it to ride up around their neck. (More likely they would slip out the top, in fact).

I can understand bookworm's point about the adult crushing the baby in a severe deceleration, but I don't see how this would be any different if you were holding the baby. Bill - some questions, if you don't mind: in what position did you hold the baby? Would it have been possible to attach a lap belt to the baby in this position? Would that position eliminate the risk of crushing in the manner bookworm described?

Thanks all...

Sorry Dave, I won't play. If you'll go back and re-read what you yourself wrote, you'll see that even you don't these things are safe. I'm sorry, but if you don't want to hold your child you'll have to buy an extra seat and strap him in, effectively immobilizing him. Pleasant for the baby: no. But as you don't want to use your own arms, its better than the alternatives.

IIRC - according to the FAA the reason is that in a few cases children have been crushed by the parent during a crash because the economy seats collapsed forward. Turbelence or strangling has nothing to do with it (in fact in cases of turbulence a lap-belt is safer). In my view - in business or first (which seats do not go forward) a lap belt would always be safer.

Hi Bill,

Okay, no problem. But just to clarify: I do accept that the lap belt approach isn't perfect, and I do accept that a separate seat with a car seat would be safer. But, I also think that holding the baby but not using a lap belt is no safer than the lap belt option, and given the choice of a) holding with arms + lap belt, or b) holding with arms with no lap belt, I don't see any benefit of b) over a). Unless of course, there is some position in which you hold the baby that precludes the use of the lap belt (hence my questions); but in that case, you'd have to convince me that the benefits of that position outweigh the benefit of the fact that the baby is prevented from travelling any distance through the cabin by means of a belt. Personally, I'd have more faith in an the combination of an inanimate lap belt + my arms to anchor a child than my arms alone, in the case of an emergency. YMMV.

Is this a pledge to always fly J or F with infants? What about short-haul?

Believe me - I try my very best to do just that (though no longer with infants). Though If I'd still be in that position I'd be using a lap belt for my kid in short haul Y.