geminidreams

In a car the seat is locked into a frame secured in the vehicle. In an aircraft it does not. To say that is 100% wrong for the child to facing forward is incorrect as the securing systems and conditions are not the same as a car. Without a whole lot of simulations on all variety of crash conditions there is no way to determine survivability or likelihood of injury based on orientation as it is an aircraft and not a car. So my point is they baby is far more likely to survive in a capsule in the event of a crash and the orientation is likely to make little difference to the outcome. Certainly the outcome is likely to be much better than a baby sitting in a lap.

myb821

This is 100% false rear facing car seats only secure when rear facing. They are made for the way for the seat belt to slide in that only will work rear facing.

amtrakusa

Im pretty sure FA took action because the car seat cannot be secured properly facing backward in this case, or the seat couldn't fit, or the previous seat couldn't recline and complained, etc...

i don't understand how car seat can be secured properly backward on an aircraft seat. with seat belt being low in position on aircraft, with any kind of impact/crash, the entire seat is likely to flip up and go backward, trapping the infant.... just my two cents

FAs are people, they don't hassle you for no reasons. When they act it is typically because they see a problem, of course how they solve the problem may vary.

rickg523

Rear facing car seats and reclining don't mix. It's caused agro on flights before and has been a topic of heated discussion here on FT.
I'm guessing the FA was trying to head off the inevitable. This was in F, and is there any doubt that the passenger in the seat constrained from recline was likely to complain, if they hadn't at the very sight of the car seat?
But, the FA was wrong, as UA admitted.
As is made clear every time you fly, passenger safety supercedes passenger comfort. Even in F.
Person in the unreclinable seat can petition for compensation. FAs are just going to have to suck it up and deal with a potentially unhappy, unpleasant customer.

Italian_Kayaker

"A CRS [Child Restraint System] must be installed in a forward-facing aircraft seat, in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. This includes placing the CRS in the appropriate forward- or aft-facing direction as indicated on the label for the size of the child."

So, if the car seat label says it should be rear-facing, that is all there is to it. Whatever directions may or may not be in the manuals that UA may or may not issue to FA are irrelevant.

https://www.faa.gov/travelers/fly_children/

Aussienarelle

Not an absolute statement. Although I agree with you 99% of the time, as someone who was subjected to horrible treatment on my first Polaris flight for no discernible reason, other than the FA took an instant dislike to me from the moment she saw me board the plane this is not correct. 99% of my flights the FAs are wonderful and I have great sympathy for FAs with some of the passengers they need to deal with, but there are FAs who I have met who I try and avoid as it is obvious they do not like some passengers.

I think the better statement is "FAs are people with their own issues and occasionally this comes out in unexpected ways". I am sure the FAs/GAs in this situation were thinking that child seats need to be forward facing but that does not apply to a child who is under 2 years of age/40lbs, and I am fairly certain the mother knew the rules about car seat better than the FA/GA unless the FA/GA thought the mother was trying to endanger her own child.

The irony to me is that United does not mandate car seats for infants/children and allows lap children so I am quite bewildered by the fuss made by the GA/FA about the way the car seat was facing. United admitted they were wrong, and I am glad other parents can now point to this incident to quietly state their case.

(I do hope I am not sitting in front of someone with the rear facing car seat as the lack of recline would be annoying.)

jsloan

Here's UA's policy:

If recline is important to you, consider avoiding the seats where car seats are allowed.

Sykes

It's totally relevant. The manuals that United issues to flight attendants are FAA-approved, and carry the weight of FAA regulations. The guidance on the website is not regulatory, but even that says "The airline may have polices that dictate the specific safe seat locations for specific aircraft."

It is unlikely that the UA manual has any guidance telling flight attendants to go against manufacturer recommendations, but it is entirely possible that some seats are not approved for certain carseat configurations (e.g. front-facing vs. rear-facing). Those restrictions may vary from operator-to-operator, and from plane-to-plane, and unfortunately there's no way to know about them ahead of time (as we've discussed in other similar threads).

I'm not sticking up for the FA or saying that this is the case here, but those of us who aren't Skywest FAs for that aircraft type don't know what the actual requirements are.

emcampbe

Differences in seats aside, the car seat manufacturers, as well as the folks who certify them for use in motor vehicles and aircraft, and the FAA, have presumably done these tests.

Also, infant seats specifically are only useable rear facing. Perhaps the seat being used was a convertible - in fact, likely if it was even able to be installed forward facing, however, recommendations are now for infants to be rear-facing until at least 1 year of age, and ideally up to 2, assuming the baby is under the height/weight limit for the infant seat or in the rear-facing position on a convertible.

Completely agreed. Don't understand why someone would think the captain has 'better things to do' then the safety of the passengers. Ensuring passengers are safe in the aircraft, in fact, is the biggest priority a pilot has, IMO.

Exactly. Certainly glad the folks making and certifying car seats seem to be more knowledgeable then some others on here.

In fact, in my infant seat manual, it specifically refers to using it rear facing only, and also that "This Restraint is Certified For Use in Motor Vehicles and
Aircraft" (also listed on the seat itself), which is the official wording that is used for seats that can be used in aircraft. I doubt even if one wanted to, it could be properly installed in forward facing position.

You're right - each group would presumably have their own manual. But reading the story, it seems like the FA was blaming the GA for being the one insistent on the seat facing forward. I don't know why car seat positioning would be in a GA manual, considering their job isn't primarily or otherwise ensuring the safety of the passengers in the aircraft - their job is primarily to take care of boarding and passengers in the terminal - not on the aircraft. Car seats would alsmot have to be addressed in the FA manual. Maybe not in the pilot - have no idea - but certainly more likely to be there than in the GA manual.

The 'other cook' in the kitchen in this story is the GA, who had no business deciding what position a car seat should be in, sorry.

I don't think anyone suggested it's the captain's duty to personally check all infants on the plane. However, they are the highest authority to make sure passengers are safe, and the FAs are the front line. Far from 'personally checking' infant seats onboard, they are definitely ones that should be brought in during a dispute, which clearly happened in this case.

FAs also shouldn't be enforcing anything based on what 'they think' is policy. If they aren't 110% sure, they should be referencing their manuals, which almost certainly doesn't require car seats to be forward facing.

Presumably, these tests have all been done on each model of seat before they are certified for aircraft use. If the seat is certified for aircraft use, and the airline policy doesn't forbid it (and I'm not sure why they would), not sure why you wouldn't allow rear facing - especially for models that only work rear facing (infant seats).

Have you done these simulations on crash conditions? If not, how do you know orientation doesn't make any difference? Pediatric doctors groups seem to feel differently, but you probably know better, right?

This.

Not brought up in the article, so I doubt fit was an issue.

If the seat in front can't recline with the car seat installed, well, that priority is well below the safety of a baby - sorry. FA can suck it up for the flight, personal opinion or annoyance to them aside. It's their job to make sure everyone is safe - not that everyone can recline.

spin88

this is dangerously wrong. Car seats can be held in place, and in nearly all cases are, by seat belts. They are designed for three point harnesses, but can be secured with two, and are designed that way so they can be used in airplanes and in some auto applications (older cars) w/o three point belts. It is sub-optimal.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with whether a seat is installed front or rear facing. A seat is ALWAYS better installed rear facing. This is because in either sharp deceleration or a crash the head/neck will snap forward, and on small children it can lead to death or serious injury. What you want is that that the head is cradled from the force, and (given that far more sever impacts/all deceleration are frontal) that requires a car seat be rear facing.

The only reason why seats are allowed to move forward facing at a set age is that the kids/parents prefer it, and at some point the risk is less as the kids neck is stronger. From a pure safety standpoint, all car seats would be better to be rear facing. (and they have to be if there is an airbag on that seat).

The idea that a seat is certified for a use in only certain cars/a/c, etc is just flat wrong. The certification requirements are generic, and tests are not run on various cars/trucks (in fact there is NOT ANY in vehicle sled or other testing) nor is it certified for only certain applications. The certification is good for any use where it can be secured with a DOT approved seat belt.

P.s. I might add that the DOT certification rules in the US are a sad joke. They are very, very weak, and none of the seats are either well tested nor well designed. I have litigated cases against car seat companies, and what they do is far less than you would anticipate. If you have a kid, and can afford it, get a European Certified/designed Car seat.

(1) there is no difference in how any seat will fit front/rear facing with a two point belt, you can get it equally tight either say. (2) the last part that "FAs are people, they don't hassle you for no reasons." is not my experience with kids. Many FAs (and not just on UA, but all airlines) can have some weird ideas around the rules on Kids.

gernabae

At the end of the day the airline admitted that it was their mistake. Don't think we need to be speculating on ops specs or policy.

Same thing happened to me, albeit on an DL flight. Purchased an extra seat for my infant, and put it in the rear facing position. One FA took a real issue with this, and refused to back down. Not wanting to cause a scene, and after being begged by the pilot, we were forced to face the seat forward AND take him out of the seat during the critical phases of flight, when we would really need the protection of a car seat most.

For those in the "maybe it's ok to face forward when you should be rear-facing" watch some videos of simulated air crashes, or just think about the physics of it all. That forward facing seat is going to collapse forward from the momentum into the tray table. Not good.

eng3

Regardless of what happened here or who is right or wrong, I don't think the airline refunding a ticket or paying out money/vouchers or even issuing an apology has any correlation to whether the airline thinks they actually did something right or wrong. I would think that political/PR factors have much more to do with it whether they just hope it will be enough to make you shut up or if they think it will make them look better in the press.

There are certainly many past examples where UA was clearly in the wrong and the passenger got nothing or UA did nothing wrong and the passenger got millions of dollars.

mikeef

The car seat is just the symptom in this example. The real disease is fact that the flight attendants have almost unlimited power, and that the passenger was too scared to persist, even though she was right. And while I say this with the understanding that the flight attendants usually are right, there needs to be a better way to arbitrate the situation than "sit down and shut up because I told you so." And since FAs are primarily there for our safety, this flight attendant should face some severe consequences.

Mike

Kevin AA

Maybe a law that provides for statutory damages of $1,000 from an airline employee to a passenger when they pull this crap would cut it down a lot. That would be nice to get a thousand bucks every time a FA lies to you and tells you to put your dog in the overhead bin, or install the carseat backwards, or whatever stupid and false reason they come up with just to mess with you and make you miserable. Complaining to UA is tilting at windmills. Financial punishment is the only thing that will work IMO.

gglave

Not true - If you don't have a frame, the installation is like the photo below - Works perfectly fine in an aircraft. If you align it in the other direction, you can't use the seat belt.