Aggggggh!!!!!!

More dups!

Trashing PC now!

[This message has been edited by BIM (edited 03-22-2000).]

I'm throwing my two cents in here because I agree with a bit of Rudi's comment about people misunderstanding each other. Allow me to explain.

The purpose of seatbelts is actually quite different on airplanes than it is in automobiles. If you think about it, the reasons for this make sense; the forces are very different between the two. We're all quite familiar with the seatbelt issue in automobiles, so I'll focus instead on their purpose in aircraft.

Seatbelts in aircraft are designed much less for crash protection (generally speaking, in a crash, the seats themselves rip right out of the track, so you still go flying around...just in groups of two or three). Rather, the focus is on some of the more common forces in flight and landing. Heavy turbulence causes severe injuries to people who are not strapped in. Seatbelts keep them in the same place on the plane, so they don't fall on things or each other.

I'll never forget an IAH-CRP flight I took on an ATR-42. We hit some incredible turbulence while flying through a thunderstorm. Prior to entering the storm, the pilot asked for everyone (including the FA) to be strapped in. There was one lap baby, and one woman who stupidly refused to use the seatbelt even during that turbulence. We hit a powerful downdraft that resulted in the seatbelt violently pulling me down. It was the first time I had ever experienced something like that. The woman was plastered against the overhead bins until the plane stabilized, after which she hit the seat with a loud *thump*. (She did put on her seatbelt after that.) The lap baby nearly slammed into the same overhead bins; fortunately, her father caught her just in time. That could have easily resulted in a broken neck and a dead baby. Or if we had a slightly different attitude in the airplane, the baby could have flown in some other direction and seriously hurt someone else as well.

What are the odds of something like that happening in a flight? Far greater than the odds of a crash. It's those situations that I think about when I'm considering whether or not to have children in their own seats.

Incidentally, Nutz's suggestion makes an awful lot of sense in those kinds of situations as well. The only danger is in cases where you have to be in crash position (which, incidentally, would be unnecessary if the seats had shoulder harnesses). You could easily crush your loved one anyway. But those odds are much slimmer.

------------------
Michael

BIM: I primarily fly UA and have always found children's fares with them except on routes to Hawaii and on e-fares.

dup -sorry

[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 03-23-2000).]

Catman:
No offense taken. You can call my children great anytime. I give you free reign to compliment my kids as often as you like. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I think people need to read the "grammatical flourishes" a little less literally.

Someone who addresses someone as "My dear (x)", is likely not intending to offend, and deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I have a lot of phrases I use conversationally which I avoid on an on-line medium because without voice inflection, it could lead to misunderstandings.

When I was working for a large company, this topic was addressed. Consider the following sentence:

"I think you did an OK job on that project."

Now, repeat that sentence with emphasis on each word.

I - meaning I think, but no one else does.
THINK - meaning I don't know.
YOU - meaning you were OK, but no one else.
DID - then, but not now.
OK - but not great
THAT PROJECT - but not the others.

Bottom line, we need to lighten up, folks.

Catman is trying to offend just strikes me as ludicrous. I don't think Catman is CAPABLE of forming the requisite intent.


------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."